Sitting of 14 July 1920

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Eastbourne Waterworks Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
South Metropolitan Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.
Bootle Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.
Port of London Authority (Consolidation) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  MESOPOTAMIA.

    ARAB TRIBES.
    3. Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the House any details of the small disturbance reported from Samawa, in the Lower Euphrates Valley?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): This question should be addressed to the War Office.
    10. Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Political Department at Baghdad entered into a formal agreement with the heads of the Arab tribes living west of the
    2346
    Euphrates for the maintenance of peace between the latter and the present temporary military administration on 5th May; and whether a copy of this agreement has reached the India Office?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Civil Commissioner reported on the 15th May that a provisional agreement had been reached with the representatives of the Arab Government on the Upper Euphrates as regards the frontier between Mesopotamia and Syria. Copies of this agreement have not yet reached me. So far as I am aware, no other agreement has been concluded.
    11. Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for India whether hostilities are threatening between Ibn Saud, Emir of Nejd, and the Sheikh of Koweit; if so, on what grounds; what steps are being taken by the British representative to prevent such hostilities; and whether any subsidy is still being paid by the British or Indian Governments to either of these two Arab notables?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am not aware that hostilities are threatening between Bin Saud and the Sheikh of Koweit. There was some local trouble in May last between subjects of the latter and tribesmen subordinate to Bin Saud; but I have no reason to anticipate that the consequences will be serious. The Sheikh of Koweit receives no subsidy from the British or Indian Government. Bin Saud receives a subsidy of £5,000 a month.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is he still receiving that subsidy of £5,000 a month?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Yes.

    ANGLO-FRENCH AGREEMENT.
    64. Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government is now in a position to lay the terms of the Anglo-French agreement in regard to Mesopotamia upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on the 7th instant. We have had no further communication from the French Government.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when it is likely to be laid before the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think very likely the question will be raised at Spa. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question when the Prime Minister returns.

  INDIA.

    PUNJAB DISTURBANCES.
    4. Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the speech made by Mrs. Naidu at the Kingsway Hall on the 3rd June, containing allegations of brutal and infamous conduct against the troops of the Indian Army; and whether he proposes to take any proceedings with regard to these charges?
    13. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by Mrs. Naidu at a mass meeting held to protest against the Hunter Report in Kingsway Hall, on 3rd June, 1920, to the effect that Indian women had been dragged into the market place, stripped naked, flogged, and outraged; and whether he will call upon the Indian authors of the Report referred to to give proof of this charge, and prosecute them if they fail to do so?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have ascertained that Mrs. Naidu based her charge that women were stripped naked, flogged and outraged, on allegations made by witnesses to the Congress Committee. I am having enquiry made as to an allegation which might justify the charge against certain Indian subordinate police. If this be proved it will, of course, be suitably punished. With this reservation, the charge is entirely untrue. The charge was not made in the Congress Committee's Report.
    6. Brigadier-General SURTEESasked the Secretary of State for India if he will state on what date he was aware that the civil authorities at Amritsar had called on the military for assistance; and on what date he was aware that the civil authorities at Amritsar had resumed control?
    Mr. MONTAGU: On the 14th April I knew that troops had been despatched to
    2348
    Amritsar. About the middle of June I was informed that martial law had been withdrawn from Amritsar City on the night of the 9th June.
    14. Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for India if he will state at what date the minutes of evidence of the Hunter Commission were received in this country?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Proofs of the Minutes of oral evidence were received at the India Office in February and March last. Complete sets of the Minutes of oral and written evidence were received on the 15th April. A supply sufficient for distribution was received on the 12th May.
    74. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement made at a mass meeting held at the Kingsway Hall to protest against the Hunter Report on the 3rd June, 1920, to the effect that Indian women had been dragged into the market place, stripped naked, flogged, and outraged; and what steps the Army Council propose to take in the case of an officer with the rank of major who is reported to have been one of the speakers at that meeting, and to have said that he could not feel that there was any impossibility in the stories coming home from India?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The officer referred to has relinquished his commission, and the Army Council have therefore no jurisdiction over him.
    l8. Mr. C. PALMERasked the Secretary of State for India at what date the Commander-in-Chief in India revised his decision concerning the action of General Dyer in dealing with the revolutionaries in Amritsar; and whether that revised decision of the Commander-in-Chief was in any way influenced by His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The decision of the Commander-in-Chief in India to remove Brigadier-General Dyer from his command was made when the Report of the Hunter Committee had been seen by him. It was communicated to General Dyer on 22nd March last. I am not aware that this was a revised decision. The answer to the last part of the question is, of course, in the negative.
    Mr. PALMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Commander-in-Chief approved the action of General Dyer, and therefore this must have been a revised decision?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am not aware of that, and I do not think it is so.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman yet aware that at the Legislative Assembly at Simla General Dyer's conduct was approved by all the official representatives of the Government?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am not aware of that, and I have carefully read the Debate over again, and I do not draw the deduction which the hon. Gentleman does. I would refer him specially to the utterances of Sir William Vincent.
    Colonel YATE: Did the right hon. Gentleman read the speech of the Adjutant-General before the Legislative Council which entirely approved of General Dyer's action?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I did not read it in that way, but I will also refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the remarks of Sir William Vincent on the attitude of the Adjutant-General. I say again I am satisfied that the Commander-in-Chief in India did not reach any conclusion on General Dyer's attitude and acts until the report of the Hunter Committee had been received.
    Colonel YATE: Was not the Adjutant-General speaking on behalf of the Commander-in-Chief when he spoke before the Committee?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The spokesman on behalf of the Government in that Debate was Sir William Vincent. He explained the views of the Government on General Hudson's speech. I will send my hon. Friend a marked copy, which I think will completely dispose of the case.
    19. Mr. PALMERasked the Secretary of State for India whether all the documentary evidence on which he came to a decision concerning the action of General Dyer has been presented to Parliament; and if not, whether he can see his way to making a complete disclosure of the evidence submitted to him as Secretary of State for India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Member is referring to the evidence heard in camera,
    2350
    I am not prepared to publish it. All the other evidence has been published.
    Mr. PALMER: Were there communications between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of India which have not been published relating to the Dyer case?
    Mr. MONTAGU: There have been heaps of communications between the Government of India and myself.
    Mr. PALMER: I said relating to the Dyer case.
    Mr. MONTAGU: Including the Dyer case. If the hon. Member infers from that that anything I wrote to the Government of India altered or was intended to alter or was concerned with their judgment on General Dyer, he is under an erroneous impression.
    Mr. PALMER: I am asking whether the right hon. Gentleman will publish these documents so that we can judge for ourselves, as we cannot trust him in this matter.
    Mr. MONTAGU: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that in the discharge of my duty as Secretary of State innumerable communications on all sorts of subjects pass between me and the Government of India. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that these should be made public, I am afraid I cannot agree with him. I must ask the House to accept my assurance on the subject that I exerted no sort of influence, and made no suggestion which could possibly lead to the insinuation that the Government of India formed their views on any suggestion of mine.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman still wishes to inform this House that he knew of none of the details at the end of December?
    73. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council as a body met to consider the question of General Dyer; and, if so, was the Chief of the Imperial General Staff present?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Chief of the Imperial General Staff was not present at the meeting, being in attendance on the Prime Minister at the Spa Conference.
    Colonel YATE: Are we to understand that the decision in General Dyer's case was given by a majority of the civilians, and not by a majority of military men?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The decision was unanimous. In any case, the military element outnumbered the civilian.
    Colonel YATE: Are there not five civilians on the Army Council as against, at the most, four military men?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There were four military officers and myself and two Parliamentary Secretaries. The Secretary was not a member of the Army Council at that time. I carefully postponed the addition of the Secretary and of the Financial Member until that matter had been decided, in order to guard myself against the very kind of suggestion the hon. and gallant Gentleman makes.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Was there not a sharp division of opinion, and then subsequent, in order to make a better case, did they not come to a unanimous decision?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is quite untrue. There was a difference of opinion on the question whether General Dyer should be retired and definite disciplinary action taken against him. The conclusion to which we came—that which I read to the House—was accepted and agreed to unanimously and spontaneously by all present.
    Dr. MURRAY: Were there any reporters present?

    GOVERNMENT, DRAFT RULES (JOINT COMMITTEE).
    5. Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for India if the Joint Committee now sitting on the new Indian rules is taking into consideration the desirability of the representation of the zamindars on the Council of State and their request that they should be given separate representation on the body, in view of their interests in the country and their loyalty to the throne?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India and their non-official advisory committee carefully considered this question and decided that there was no need to provide in the Council of State
    2352
    (as they have provided in the Legislative Assembly) for separate representation of landholders as such, in view of the fact that the composition of the electorates for that body is such that the landlords may be expected to secure their due share of the elective seats. The Joint Select Committee saw no reason to differ from this conclusion.

    DEFENCE FORCE
    8 and 9. Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEEasked the Secretary of State for India (1) whether he has recently vetoed a Bill for the establishment of an Indian defence force; if so, if he will state his reasons for so doing, in view of the fact that the Government of India had themselves projected the measure;
    (2) if he is aware that armed civilian forces were of great use in the Indian Mutiny in protecting numbers of women and children; and, in view of the present state of unrest in parts of India, he can say whether fresh legislation to train and arm European civilians in India for use in case of emergency will be suggested by him to the Government of India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: As I have stated before, I did not sanction a Bill based on compulsion, but I have authorised a Bill on a voluntary basis. I share with the hon. Member of the desire to see an efficient Indian Defence Force, and I trust the Bill now to be introduced will secure it.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he has vetoed this Bill, in view of the fact that the European community in India, the Chambers of Commerce in India, and the Government of India had all supported the Bill, and even put it forward?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The objections of His Majesty's Government to compulsory military service are well known to the House, and the action they have taken in the Peace Conference was in pursuance of that objection. I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member that the first necessity is to produce an adequate defence force in India, and if voluntary methods do not secure it, I shall have no hesitation in recommending to His Majesty's Government to take compulsory measures.
    Colonel YATE: Considering that compulsory military service exists in Australia, why is there any reason that the right hon. Gentleman should prohibit the same in India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am not aware that compulsory military service exists in Australia.

    LABOUR SITUATION (MADRAS).
    12. Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make a statement as to the labour situation in Madras, and as to the position of the trade unions there?
    2. Mr. SITCHasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received any information regarding labour troubles in Madras; whether the Government are supplying the employers with military workmen, and thus assisting the employers in resisting the demands of the workmen; and whether he will have full and immediate inquiries made into this matter?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The latest news I have from Madras is that a meeting of employers and workmen has requested the Government to appoint a Committee to inquire into the causes of the present unrest and the remedies to be applied. I have not heard of the employment of military workmen, but am inquiring on the point.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman assured that the troops are not beng used against strikers in Madras at the present time?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am quite confident that everything will be done by Lord Willingdon to secure a solution of any present difficulties.

    MR. GANDHI.
    15. Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he took any steps to try Mr. Gandhi for his responsibility in regard to the disturbances in India during the spring of 1919; and, if not, will he state the reason?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Governments of India and Bombay did not see fit to prosecute Mr. Gandhi who, in a public speech at Ahmadabad, expressed his deep sorrow at the form the agitation had taken, and who disclaimed any intention of encouraging violence.
    Mr. GWYNNE: After the Hunter Committee reported, did the right hon. Gentleman then take any steps to see that steps were taken against Mr. Gandhi?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I preferred to leave the whole matter to the Government of India and the local Government. I recollect what the Hunter Committee said on the subject, but, of course, there is a great difference between moral and legal responsibility.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that any attempt to prosecute Mr. Gandhi would be worse for our hold upon India even than the Amritsar affair? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Mr. MONTAGU: Mr. Gandhi inaugurated a Satyagraha movement and regretted afterwards the consequences that resulted. If he now inaugurates a new movement of the same kind, it cannot be said that he is in ignorance of the consequences that may follow.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is the House to understand that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that if anyone publicly expresses regret afterwards for having caused riots and bloodshed it is quite sufficient?
    Mr. MONTAGU: That is not what I said. I leave and I always have left any question as to the necessary steps for maintaining order in India to the local Governments and the Government of India.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local Governments prohibited Mr. Gandhi coming into their districts, and that at the same time the right hon. Gentleman made a speech in this House saying that Mr. Gandhi was one of the saviours of India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: There can be no doubt—many other people have said it—that Mr. Gandhi's services to India, particularly in South Africa, were very great indeed, and there can be no doubt as to the high character of Mr. Gandhi. Many people who have high characters are politically mischievous. The local Governments were perfectly right, in my opinion, in prohibiting the entry of Mr. Gandhi into their provinces, and I think the utterances of His Majesty's Government on the subject show that they supported them.
    Sir H. CRAIK: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is proof of this Mr. Gandhi's high character and his sincerity that he has now joined, as secretary of the Khalafat Committee, a committee which is pressing points totally against all those that he has hitherto pressed and entirely opposed to his own former principles?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if Mr. Gandhi, after what happened last year, persists in a form of agitation such as that which he is now conducting, it would be absolutely impossible to take the same view of his action as was taken last year.
    Sir H. CRAIK: That is not the question I asked. I asked if it were a proof of his consistency and sincerity that he has joined, and acts as secretary of, a committee which is propagating notions entirely opposed to those he held previously?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am afraid it is very difficult to answer a charge of that kind without satisfying myself as to the exact nature of it. What I am concerned in is that the Government of India and the local Governments, in their determination to maintain order, will take adequate steps against anybody.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Members of this House are to-day advocating views contrary to those they advocated years ago?
    16. Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for India whether Mr. Gandhi is still free to go undisturbed throughout India; whether he is now at the head of the All India Khalafat Committee; whether four of his colleagues on that committee were interned during the War for hostility to the British Government, one convicted in the Amritsar conspiracy, and one sentenced to transportation for life; whether this committee has passed a resolution protesting against the Turkish peace terms and recorded its unequivocal refusal to accept them; and what steps he is taking to see that Mr. Gandhi and his colleagues do not create further trouble and disorders?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have never received any complete list of the members of the Central Khalafat Committee, of which
    2356
    Mr. Chotani appears to be the president and with which Mr. Gandhi is closely associated; and the notice given me was too short to ascertain which of the individuals who were interned or convicted are members of it. Some, certainly, are closely associated with the movement. It passed a resolution in the sense described by the hon. Member. The Government of India and the local Governments are watching the situation closely and taking precautions. For instance, the Seditious Meetings Act has been applied to Delhi, and there have been certain prosecutions elsewhere. I am satisfied that they will take all steps necessary to maintain order.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that he has not informed himself of what is going on there?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have taken steps to inform myself of what is going on. I must leave the provisions necessary for maintaining order to the Government of India and the local Governments, and I do submit to this House that it would be extremely dangerous for us here to try to dictate, suggest, or interfere with measures taken by them.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not keep himself fully informed of the particulars, even if he does not choose to interfere? Are we to be told presently that the right hon. Gentleman has had no details of this Committee which has been form d, or is he now fully informing himself?
    Commander Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether Mr. Gandhi is not now endeavouring to organise a boycott of the Prince of Wales's visit to India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I think Mr. Gandhi's efforts are thoroughly mischievous, but I would prefer to leave their proper treatment to those in whom His Majesty's Government and, I hope, this House have complete confidence, namely, those who have charge of the maintenance of law and order in India.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman still proud to describe himself as one of Mr. Gandhi's intimate friends?
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that in the communication of the Government

    2357
    of India a severe censure was passed upon Mr. Gandhi, and that in the right hon. Gentleman's own letter to the Government of India no such phrase of condemnation occurs?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I endorsed in my letter to the Government of India the general findings of the Government of India, and therefore I endorsed that passage to which I have referred, and I am prepared to support any steps the Government of India think necessary in the very difficult situation which now arises, but I will not dictate to the Government of India any steps. I prefer to leave it to them.
    17. Mr. PALMERasked the Secretary of State for India what is the present attitude of the Government of India towards Mr. Gandhi; and whether that gentleman is now permitted full liberty of action in the presentation of his views of India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am not aware of any restrictions.

    INDIAN ADMINISTRATION (DEBATE).
    62. Mr. HOWARD GRITTENasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the only day assigned to the Indian Estimates was entirely devoted to the discussion of the Amritsar episode, he will arrange for another day to be given, as soon as possible, for the purpose of discussing Indian administration in general and the policy of the Secretary of State for India in particular?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities.
    Mr. GRITTEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to say that this House will be afforded no full and proper opportunity for criticising the administration of one of the most important and extensive portions of the British Empire—a course which would be absolutely without precedent?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not mean to convey more than was expressed in my answer.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    BLACK SEA (HOSPITAL SHIPS).
    21. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether His Majesty's seaplane-carrier "Ark Royal" has been used for carrying refugees who are typhus cases in the Black Sea; how many times she has been so used; whether she was disinfected immediately after each voyage; how many cases of typhus there have been among the crew of this ship; how many of the crew have died; and why properly-fitted hospital ships were not used for this purpose?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): His Majesty's seaplane-carrier "Ark Royal" was used on one occasion for carrying refugees who were typhus cases in the Black Sea. She was disinfected immediately afterwards. There were sixteen cases of typhus fever among the crew in the "Ark Royal," of whom eight were landed at Batoum on the 14th May last, five more landed and sent to the 82nd General Hospital, Constantinople, on the 17th May; one, Mr. Scott, Warrant Engineer, was also sent to this hospital on the 19th May; one on the 20th May, and one on the 27th May sent to the 20th Stationary Hospital. Two deaths were reported, namely, Mr. Scott, Warrant Engineer, and Chief Shipwright C. Mattinson. The only hospital ship was not at that time available, and the urgency of evacuation necessitated the use of all available craft.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether a hospital ship is now available in the Black Sea; and, if not, would it not be better to send a hospital ship which is not fully employed from the Atlantic or Home Fleet?
    Mr. LONG: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Admiralty have done all in their power to secure that there shall be a hospital ship in attendance.

    H.M.S. "EMPRESS OF INDIA" (WRECK).
    22. Colonel BURNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the wreck of the "Empress of India" will be marked by a gas buoy as promised?
    29. Mr. CAREWasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of

    2359
    the losses sustained by fishermen as the result of wrecks being unbuoyed at the present time; and when he proposes to replace the light and bell-buoy to mark the wreck of H.M.S. "Empress of India?"
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): With regard to the first portion of Question 29, this is a matter for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, but I am informed that the Department is aware that serious losses are being sustained by fishermen as a result of the nets fouling the wrecks, particularly in Lyme Bay and the Rye district. It is hoped to have the light buoy in position by 23rd July next.

    INVERKEITHING (PURCHASE OF LAND).
    23. Mr. WALLACEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his Department has purchased any land in or in the vicinity of Inverkeithing; and, if so, will he state the date or dates of purchase, the acreage bought, the price paid, and the proposed use of the land?
    Sir J. CRAIG: As this is a somewhat lengthy answer, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the reply referred to:—
    The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. On 20th March, 1919, the Admiralty purchased a property known as Naval Base Mansions, standing on roods of land. On 15th May, 1919, they bought about 90 acres of land with the various buildings standing thereon. Negotiations are in progress for the acquisition of further areas, including about 50 acres of land and about 117 acres of foreshore and fundus, and it would, therefore, be detrimental to the interests of the Crown to disclose the prices already paid. The establishment of a submarine base in Inverkeithing Bay was commenced in 1917, possession being taken of the necessary lands under the Defence of the Realm Act. After its commencement, advantage was taken of the dredging which had been performed to effect economies by erecting a pier there for shipping aeroplanes to the Fleet, instead of further east where originally contemplated, and where construction and protection would have been more expensive. After the Armistice it
    2360
    was decided to abandon the Submarine Scheme. It is necessary, however, to maintain the aeroplane pier and dredged channel thereto as part of the permanent organisation of the Fleet. In view of the fact that the Admiralty was committed to complete the purchase referred to above, and failure to do so would have involved large claims for compensation, and that a large sum had already been expended on dredging, it has been decided to complete the purchase and thus secure to the Admiralty the benefit of the expenditure already incurred.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD.
    24. Mr. WALLACEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the provisions of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act apply to the houses at Rosyth occupied by the dockyard employés and having regard to the dissatisfaction there at the high rents existing before the passing of the Act, he will order a new inquiry into the whole question at which the Rosyth workers would be represented?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The rents charged to dockyard workers at Rosyth have not only been made the subject of special inquiry from time to time, but they are continuously under consideration at the Admiralty. An inquiry has recently been instituted into the rents paid at all Admiralty establishments throughout the country with the object of fixing as far as possible uniform rents for similar accommodation, but the results of this investigation are not yet to hand. Under the circumstances, it is not considered necessary to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. WALLACE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose any immediate increase of rent at Rosyth under the Act?
    Sir J. CRAIG: No, Sir; there is no automatic increase of rent under the Act. It is not proposed to make any increase of rent at the present time. Moreover, after the report to which I have referred is received, if we find there are any special cases in which it may be necessary to raise the rent the Admiralty will carefully consider them.
    Mr. WALLACE: When does the hon. and gallant Gentleman expect to have the result of these investigations?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I hope very shortly.

    POST-WAR FLEET.
    25 Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any official paper, publication, or source of information to which an hon. Member can refer in order to ascertain what are the requirements of the post-War fleet; and, if no such papers are available, will he grant a return giving this information?
    Mr. LONG: I would refer my Noble and gallant Friend to the statement I published with the Navy Estimates for 1920–1921.
    Viscount CURZON: Is the statement inclusive?
    Mr. LONG: It contains a very full declaration of the post-War policy of the Admiralty.
    26. Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether sales of ships of the Royal Navy, together with the relative strength of the post-War fleet, have been as yet considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence; and, if not, whether it will be part of the duties of this Committee to consider the question of relative strength of the Royal Navy?
    Mr. LONG: The disposal of surplus ships of war is dealt with by the Admiralty. Any questions as to the functions of the Committee of Imperial Defence should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

    TORPEDO-BOAT DESTROYERS (SALE).
    27. Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to place between 80 and 90 destroyers on the sale list; whether vessels of the same type and equivalent value are still on the Navy List of the two next strongest naval powers; if he will state what will be the strength of the British, United States, Japanese, and French navies in torpedo-boat destroyers when the sales are completed; whether any stipulation as to their being broken up is to be inserted in the conditions of sale; and whether ships for sale are stripped of any of their fittings?
    Mr. LONG: The list of ships for disposal includes a number of destroyers of various types of obsolete pattern and inferior fighting value. Among these are vessels of similar type and equivalent value to vessels on the Navy List of other
    2362
    Powers. Owing to the difference in types of destroyers of British and foreign navies, it is not possible to afford any comparison on a numerical basis. With very few exceptions the surplus destroyers have been sold for breaking-up purposes, and confidential fittings and all armament have been removed.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What are the exceptions of the destroyers that have been sold not to be broken up; to what Power or Powers have they been sold?
    Mr. LONG: I should not like to give that without notice. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question I will give him the information.

    DOCKYARD COMPENSATION SCHEME.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware of the proposal to increase the amounts payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act; if he can say if and what increase the Admiralty propose under the dockyard compensation scheme; if the same will be retrospective; and from what date?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): Pending consideration by the Government of the Report of the recent Committee on Workmen's Compensation and the passing of such amending legislation as may be thought desirable, I am not in a position to make any statement as to the effect of such legislation on the existing schemes under the Act.
    Sir B. FALLE: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that these workmen's compensation is not dependent upon the Workmen's Compensation Act, but is a special scheme?

    LABOUR BUREAU (TORQUAY).
    32. Colonel BURNasked the Minister of Labour what is the weekly average of unemployed receiving benefits paid through the Torquay Labour Bureau since 1st January, 1920; what is the number of males and females for whom situations have been found in the same period; what is the number of applications made by employers for workmen during this period; and what is the number of the present staff and the estimated cost to

    2363
    the end of this year, and of this sum how much is paid in rent and other expenses?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): During the six months ended 2nd July, the average weekly number of persons receiving Out-of-Work Donation and Unemployment Insurance Benefit at the Torquay Employment Exchange was 364. The total amount of donation and benefit paid during these six months was £12,375. During the same period 421 males and 541 females were placed in employment by this Exchange. The number of vacant situations notified by employers to the Torquay Exchange during this period was 554 for males and 1,374 for females. The staff at the present date numbers 16; the estimated cost for the year ending 31st December, 1920, is £4,335, of which sum £350 is for rent of two sets of premises, one of which is temporary. The staff is being reduced immediately to 13, and the possibility of a further reduction is being considered. This will, of course, affect the estimated cost which I have stated.
    Colonel BURN: Does not my right hon. Friend think that some less expensive quarters might be rented at the present time, especially in view of the present condition of the housing problem?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Well, I will look into that question of accommodation.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    TRAINEES, ALLOWANCES.
    34. Mr. HAILWOODasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the dissatisfaction among disabled soldiers with the rates of allowances they are receiving at the training centres; and if he can make arrangements for these payments to be raised to correspond to the increased cost of living?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I said on Monday, I have received many representations from various sources in regard to this matter, and I have laid the facts before my colleagues. I regret that I am not yet in a position to announce a decision.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMISSIONERS.
    35. Mr. N. CHAMBERLAINasked the Minister of Labour what were the num-
    2364
    bers of new applications and uncompleted cases handed over by the late Civil Liabilities Commissioners for Notts and Derby and Lincolnshire, respectively, when those officers resigned their position; and what are the numbers and estimated annual cost of the salaries of the staff now engaged in the same work in those counties?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of cases handed over were for Notts and Derby, 41; Lincolnshire, 142. The present staff consists of one Commissioner, one Investigating Officer, and two Clerks, at a total annual cost in salaries of £1,063 6s. per annum. I may perhaps add that the total annual cost of the office under the old administration, when it consisted of two Commissioners and four Clerks, was £1,347 12s., including £160 for additional and special travelling allowance to one of the Commissioners.
    36. Mr. N. CHAMBERLAINasked the Minister of Labour how many new applications have been registered by the 34 Civil Liabilities Commissioners recently appointed at a salary of £500 each during the six weeks from 29th May to 9th July inclusive; and how many new applications were registered during the six weeks from 31st May to 11th July inclusive in the year 1919?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of new applications received by the 34 Civil Liabilities Commissioners during the six weeks from 29th May to 9th July inclusive, was 7,447. In addition, there were received for appeal or revision 4,214 cases. The number of cases outstanding with Commissioners at the end of the period was 2,877. During the corresponding period of 1919, when there were 65 Commissioners, the number of new applications registered was 21,712. But the number of cases outstanding with Commissioners at the end of that period was 19,338.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: How much longer is it necessary to keep this large staff in existence?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They will not be kept a moment longer than is necessary, but I must appeal to my hon. Friend to allow us to have a sufficient staff to carry out this work, delay in which means a real hardship to poor people at the other

    2365
    end of the line. So far as I am concerned, I shall prevent that by all the means in my power.

    CATERING TRADE (TRADE BOARDS).
    37. Brigadier-General SURTEESasked the Minister of Labour whether having regard to the conditions under which the office staff and servants in certain large hotels live, he will say if he has yet seen his way to apply the Trade Boards Acts to the catering trade; and, if not, when he expects to be able to do so?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have caused inquiries to be made with a view to the establishment of Trade Boards to cover workpeople engaged in catering, and discussions on the point are proceeding between the Labour Ministry and representatives of the employers and work-people concerned. As my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, there are considerable variations in the conditions of the different branches of catering, and the problems of definition and demarcation are very complex. We are proposing almost immediately to circulate to the employers' associations and trade unions concerned, for their observations, definite proposals for the appointment of separate Trade Boards for:
    (a) The Light Refreshment and Dining Room Trade;
    (b) The Hotel, Boarding House, and Restaurant Trade; and
    (c) The Public House Trade.
    I regret that I am unable to state definitely when it will be possible to establish the Trade Boards, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the matter is receiving urgent attention.

    CARTERS' DISPUTE, TONBRIDGE.
    38. Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Labour what steps, if any, have been taken to end the carters' dispute at Ton-bridge, where men have ceased work owing to local coal contractors refusing to advance a wage of 32s. per week of an average of 65 hours per week?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: An officer of my Department is seeing the parties locally, with a view to arranging a joint conference, if possible.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (WAR BONUS).
    40. Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Town Councils of Chatham and Luton have threatened to dismiss certain officials of the Corporations if they persist in their applications for the war bonus which the Minister has himself recommended to these authorities as a reasonable scale, and which has been approved and recommended by the National Joint Council for the Local Government service; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard Local Government officers from victimisation?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I have received no such information.
    Mr. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have made inquiries, and have not found anything out.

  HOUSING.

    LIVING ROOMS (HEIGHT).
    41. Mr. T. WILSONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Housing Commissioner in Birmingham is ruling that living rooms in new houses shall not be more than eight feet from floor to ceiling, and that no wash-basin shall be fixed in the bath room, although the provision of a wash-basin saves labour and is a great convenience; and whether this attitude on the part of the Housing Commissioner is based upon the Regulations in force?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am advised that as a general rule eight feet is a sufficient height for rooms in approved housing schemes, and I have accordingly adopted this height as a standard, though I am prepared to allow a greater height where special circumstances appear to require it. I agree that wash-basins are a convenience, but where a bath is provided they cannot be regarded as essential, and in view of the present very high cost of building houses I cannot agree to them being brought into account for Government financial assistance. It is, of course, open to local authorities to exceed the standards laid down by my Department on the understanding that they will themselves bear the extra cost involved.

    ANTHRAX, SOUTHWARK.
    44. Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a recent inquest in Southwark on a case of anthrax and the jury's verdict thereon; if the deceased had been employed in a warehouse storing imported skins where no preventive regulations were carried out for this disease; and whether, in view of this case, he will consider as to issuing an order to compel all such warehouses to carry out the Regulations for the prevention of this disease amongst workers who are employed in handling all foreign skins in this country?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have received a letter from the Coroner and reports from the factory inspectors dealing with this case. The worker was employed in a building which was being temporarily used as a warehouse. The precautions recommended by the Home Office were not being observed in this building though they were observed in the main building belonging to the firm. The question of strengthening the measures taken for the prevention of anthrax in this and other trades has recently been under consideration by the Home Office, and it is proposed to bring the existing rules with regard to hides and skins up-to-date and to re-issue them as compulsory Regulations of general application to all premises which come under the Factory Acts.

    "DAILY HERALD" (RHINE OCCUPATION AREA).
    45. Mr. LUNNasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the sale of the "Daily Herald" has been prohibited in the German districts under British military occupation, and that newsagents there are unable to obtain it; and whether he will give instructions for the removal of any such prohibition?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that the sale of the "Daily Herald" is not and has never been prohibited in the territory occupied by the British Army in Germany.
    Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only is the "Daily
    2368
    Herald" prohibited, but other newspapers circulating in the same area are prohibited from quoting articles which have appeared in the "Daily Herald"?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My information is derived from a communication received from the spot, and it is entirely contrary to the information received by my hon. Friend.

  RUSSIA.

    PROPOSAL FOR ARMISTICE.
    STATEMENT BY MR. BONAR LAW.
    49. Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made during recent negotiations to safeguard the interests of British investors in Russian bonds and municipal stocks and of holders of Russian securities in general.
    55. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has suggested the conclusion of an armistice between the Japanese army in Siberia and the Russian and Siberian forces in Eastern Siberia; if not, whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to only propose armistices on those fronts where the Russian forces are winning; whether His Majesty's Government has proposed an armistice to the Russian Government between its forces and the troops operating under General Baron Wrangel in South Russia; and whether General Baron Wrangel advanced into South Russia without the permission of His Majesty's Government and after putting himself unreservedly into our hands for the making of peace.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In answer to a question of which I have received private notice, I am giving to the House the exact terms of the communications with the Soviet Government on these subjects.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman's later answer include the question of General Wrangel's forces and the Japanese forces?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will listen to the text of the answer.
    Mr. ASQUITH (by Private Notice).asked the Leader of the House whether he

    2369
    can give the House the text of the communications with the Russian Soviet Government on the question of re-opening trade relations and the proposal for an armistice?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have here a statement as to the conditions on which the British Government would begin trade relations, the reply of the Soviet Government, and a dispatch sent subsequently in regard to the armistice. I propose to read the last. As the documents are long perhaps the House will allow me to circulate the two former.
    The text of the Note, dated 30th June, addressed by His Majesty's Government to M. Krassin for transmission to the Soviet Government is as follows:
    The British Government has given careful consideration to the Memorandum produced by M. Krassin of the 29th June on the negotiations which have been proceeding since the arrival of the Russian Delegation at the end of May. The British Government has, during the course of these negotiations, shown its sincere desire to end the isolation of Russia from the Western world, and to reach an agreement for the resumption of trading relations which might pave the way to a general peace. They do not think that any useful purpose will be served at this moment by attempting a detailed reply to the Russian Trade Delegation Memorandum, or by entering into arguments of a recriminatory character. The negotiations have now reached a stage where it is necessary to bring them to an issue. It is not clear from M. Krassin's Memorandum whether the Soviet Government really desires the restoration of trading relations or not, or what are the conditions upon which it is willing to resume them. In order, therefore, to arrive at a definite decision, the British Government now repeats what it has declared throughout, that it is willing to make an agreement for the mutual cessation of hostility and the resumption of trading relations with Russia, and asks for categorical replies, yes or no, as to whether Russia is prepared to enter into a trade agreement with the British Empire and other Powers on the following conditions:
    First, that each party undertakes to refrain from hostile action or undertakings against the other, and from conducting any official propaganda, direct or
    2370
    indirect, against the institutions of the other party; and, more particularly, that the Soviet Government will refrain from any attempt by military action or propaganda to encourage any of the peoples of Asia in any form of hostile action against British interests or the British Empire. For reasons already given, this, in the opinion of the British Government, is the fundamental condition of any trading agreement between Russia and any Western Power. Trade is only possible under conditions of peace or armistice. The British Government pro pose what is tantamount to a general armistice, as the condition of the resumption of trade relations, in the hope that this armistice may lead ere long to a general peace.
    Second, that all British subjects in Russia should be immediately permitted to return home, all Russian subjects in Great Britain or other parts of the British Empire who desire to return to Russia being similarly released.
    Third, that the Soviet Government in return for a corresponding undertaking from the British Government agrees to recognise in principle that it is liable to pay compensation to private citizens who have supplied goods or services to Russia for which they have not been paid. The British Government ask for some declaration of this kind at the present time. because it believes something of this nature is essential to the effective starting of trade between the two countries. It considers it a matter of simple justice, for instance, that where a merchant has supplied the Russian people with a thousand ploughs, which have been used, or are still being used, by the Russian people to their own great benefit that the Russians should admit that they ought to pay that merchant and the workman who manufactured the ploughs for the goods and services they have rendered. Unless Soviet Russia is prepared to admit that it must deal with those with whom it now wishes to trade on some recognised principle of justice, trade on a large scale, such as is desired on both sides, will be found to be practically impossible. The British Government does not ask that these debts should be settled now. It is prepared to leave the determination of Russia's liabilities under this head, as Well as all other questions relating to debts or claims by Great Britain on

    2371
    Russia or by Russia on Great Britain, to be mutually settled at the negotiations of peace. But it considers it necessary that the Soviet Government should make a declaration on this point in order to give the necessary confidence to Western merchants, manufacturers and workers to embark upon manufacturing and trading operations.
    Fourth, the British Government agrees to the conditions laid down by the Soviet Government in regard to commercial facilities, communications and so forth, provided they are mutual, and excepting that it cannot agree to surrender the right possessed by every civilised Government, and which it freely accords to the Soviet Government also, to object to the entry as an official agent of any Government of any person who is non grata to itself. It asserts, however, that it has no intention of debarring any Russian on the ground of his Communist opinions, provided the agents of the Russian Government comply with the normal conditions for friendly international intercourse.
    The British Government now awaits a definite statement from the Soviet Government as to whether it will accept these principles as the basis of an agreement to re-open trade relations between Russia and the British Empire and any other Power willing to accept the same conditions. If an answer is returned in the affirmative, the British Government will be willing to discuss details with any experts or representatives which Soviet Russia may nominate, except such as have already been refused. Should, however, no affirmative reply be obtained within one week of the presentation of this Note, the British Government will regard the negotiations as at an end, and, in view of the declared unwillingness of the Soviet Government to cease its attacks upon the British Empire, will take counsel with its Allies as to the measures required to deal with the situation.
    30th June, 1920.
    The following reply was received by wireless from Tchitcherin on 8th July:
    Complying with the desire of the British Government in purpose to arrive to an early peace between Russia and Great Britain, the Russian Soviet
    2372
    Government accepts the principles as laid down in the Memorandum transmitted on July first by the British Government to the President of the Russian Delegation, Krassin, an agreement between Russia and Great Britain which will be the object of negotiations between both Governments that have to begin without delay. The Soviet Government agrees that the plan proposed by the British Government will have to be considered a state of armistice between Russia and Great Britain, and shares its expectation that this armistice will pave the way to a definite which at (?) a time protesting against the affirmation, contrary to the real facts, relative to presumed attack of Soviet Government, realises once more that as to Soviet Russia in her relations with Great Britain desires nothing but peace, and that the absence of the same disposition on the other side was the only cause preventing it from being as yet attained.
    His Majesty's Government despatched, on 11th July, a further telegram to the Soviet Government as follows:
    The British Government notes the acceptance by the Russian Soviet Government of the principles laid down in its Memorandum of 1st July, as the basis of an agreement for the resumption of trade regulations and the cessation of mutual hostilities, and it therefore agrees to continue the negotiations for a definite trade agreement as soon as the Russian delegates return. The British Government has a further proposal to make. The Soviet Government of Russia has repeatedly declared its anxiety to make peace with all its neighbours. The British Government, which is no less anxious to restore peace throughout Europe, therefore proposes the following arrangement with this object in view:
    (A) That an immediate armistice be signed between Poland and Soviet Russia whereby hostilities shall be suspended: the terms of this armistice should provide on the one hand that the Polish army shall immediately withdraw to the line provisionally laid down last year by the Peace Conference as the Eastern Boundary within which Poland was entitled to establish a Polish Administration. This line runs approximately as, follows: Grodno, Vapovka, Nemirov, Brest-Litovsk, Dorogusk,

    2373
    Ustilug, East of Grubeshob, Krilov, and thence West of Rawa Ruska, East of Pryemysl, to Carpathians. North of Grodno the line which will be held by the Lithuanians will run along the railway running from Grodno to Vilna, and thence to Dvinsk. On the other hand, the armistice should provide that the armies of Soviet Russia should stand at a distance of 50 kilometres to the East of this line. In Eastern Galicia each army will stand on the line which they occupy at the date of the signature of the armistice.
    (B) That as soon as possible thereafter a Conference, sitting under the auspices of the Peace Conference, should assemble in London, to be attended by representatives of Soviet Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, with the object of negotiating a final peace between Russia and its neighbouring States. Representatives of Eastern Galicia would also be invited to London to state their case for the purpose of this Conference. Great Britain will place no restriction on the representatives which Russia may nominate, provided that they undertake while in Great Britain not to interfere in the politics or the internal affairs of the British Empire or to indulge in propaganda.
    The British Government, as a separate proposal, suggests that an armistice should similarly be signed between the forces of Soviet Russia and General Wrangel on the condition that General Wrangel's forces shall immediately retire to the Crimea, and that during the armistice the Isthmus be a neutral zone, and that General Wrangel should be invited to London to discuss the future of troops under his command and the refugees under his protection, but not as a member of the Conference. The British Government would be glad of an immediate reply to this telegram for the Polish Government has asked for the intervention of the Allies, and if time is lost a situation may develop which will make the conclusion of lasting peace far more difficult in Eastern Europe.
    Further, while the British Government has bound itself to give no assistance to Poland for any purpose hostile to Russia, and to take no action itself hostile to Russia, it is also bound, under the Covenant of the League of Nations, to defend the integrity and independence of Poland within its legitimate ethnographic
    2374
    frontiers. If, therefore, Soviet Russia, despite its repeated declarations accepting the independence of Poland, will not be content with the withdrawal of the Polish armies from Russian soil on the condition of a mutual armistice, but intends to take action hostile to Poland in its own territory, the British Government and its Allies would feel bound to assist the Polish Nation to defend its existence with all the means at their disposal. The Polish Government has declared its willingness to make peace with Soviet Russia, and to initiate negotiations for an armistice on the basis of conditions set out above directly it is informed that Soviet Russia also agrees. The British Government, therefore, would be glad of a definite reply within a week as to whether Soviet Russia is prepared to accept the aforesaid proposal for putting an end to further unnecessary bloodshed and giving peace to Europe.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I should like to ask two questions arising out of that answer. The first is, to whom was this communication made? Secondly, the words "British Government" have been used throughout. Are we to understand that it is made on behalf of the British Government alone, or on behalf of the British Government in conjunction with its allies?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The message was sent by wireless to the Soviet Government in Moscow, but it was sent with the knowledge and approval of all our allies.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask now why an armistice has not been proposed between the Soviet Government and Japan in Siberia, and does the Government only propose an armistice when the Russian arms are winning?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No. The problem with which we are directly faced, more immediately than the other, is, of course, Central Europe. I have no doubt after the armistice has been concluded with Soviet Russia the other consideration will be dealt with.
    Mr. STANTON: Had the Cabinet the permission of the House to do what they have been doing with Soviet Russia without any consultation? It is disgraceful.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government of the day must always take a responsibility of that kind. We have taken it on the

    2375
    assumption that we had the approval of the House of Commons, and I think that assumption will prove to be correct.
    Mr. STANTON: No, it will not.
    Mr. MILLS: Would the Leader of the House agree that having regard to the fact that Poland deliberately took the offensive, there is a case for compensation to the Soviet Government?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: How are the delegates for Eastern Galicia to be selected? Will they be selected by the Polish Government or by the Ukraine? Secondly, is Eastern Galicia held to be part of Poland or not?
    Mr. PALMER: Under this arrangement will M. Litvinoff be allowed to come as one of the delegates?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the two questions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood), I do not think it is possible for me to give an answer to either. As regards the last question, it means that they can send any representative they please, not to take part in a conference with us, but to take part in a conference for securing general peace.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the delegates from Eastern Galicia not be selected by the Polish Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is obvious that as I was not present and the information is only sent by telegram, I cannot answer a question of that kind.
    Mr. STANTON: Did the British Government consult Mr. Lansbury and the "Daily Herald" in regard to their action?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir.

    TRADE RELATIONS (UNITED STATES).
    46. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the State Department at Washington has removed trade restrictions between the United States and Soviet Russia; and whether His Majesty's Government will place British merchants on the same footing as American merchants by removing trade restrictions between this country and Soviet Russia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for
    2376
    East Leyton on the 13th instant; the answer to the second part of the question is dependent on the result of the trade negotiations with the Russian Delegation.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that while we are dawdling with this question the Americans and other neutral countries are capturing the markets?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I do not see that.

    POLISH OFFENSIVE.
    56. Captain O'GRADYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a statement made in the Press on 12th July that a large staff of French military experts, numbering 900 officers with 2,000 orderlies, were specially selected for service with the Polish Army with a view to rendering the Polish offensive against the Soviet forces more effective; and, if so, what was the attitude of the British Government with regard to this matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The French have always had a military mission in Poland to advise the Poles of the organisation of their Army, but we have no detailed information as to numbers. No special mission to assist the Poles against the Soviet forces has been reported to have left France. The last part of the question does not therefore arise.
    Captain O'GRADY: If the figures are as stated in the question, does it not indicate that considerable help has been given by the Allies to the Poles in their offensive against the Soviet forces?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The information I have given, which is all we possess, is that a special mission was not sent for this purpose. The mission that was sent before was sent to help the Poles in organising their Army.
    Captain O'GRADY: Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries as to whether quite recently the numbers of the most expert military advisers of the French has been added, making the numbers such as stated in the question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I rather hesitate to promise to question another Government, over which we have no control, as to action which they may have taken.
    57. Captain O'GRADYasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the Soviet Government, prior to the Polish offensive, declared their preparedness to arrive at an agreement with the Polish Government to the end that further hostilities might be averted, and that peaceful relations might be established between Poland and Russia on a basis of the national independence of Poland being recognised by the Soviet Government and according to the delimitation of the frontiers between Russia and Poland laid down by the Supreme Council in the last month of last year; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken by the British Government to use their good offices in this matter; (2) whether, when the Polish offensive against the Russian Soviet forces first began, due consideration was given to all its consequences by the Supreme Council; whether, in the event of the success of the counter-offensive of the Soviet forces and the invasion of Poland, as delimited by the Peace Congress of Versailles, there was any understanding that armed forces of the Allied Powers would intervene; whether, in relation to the general attitude of Poland towards Soviet Russia, the views of the Supreme Council were conveyed to the Polish Government; and, if so, did those views counsel that Government as to probable consequences of the conflict, or was a conflict discouraged?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. and gallant Member is doubtless alluding in the first part of his first question to the wireless messages sent by the Soviet Government, but as the House is aware the negotiations in question were never opened. As regards the remainder of the questions, the attitude of his Majesty's Government towards the Polish offensive has been fully explained to the House on several occasions and in particular in the Debate on the 20th of May.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why, if that is the case, are they now interferring with the relationships between Russia and Poland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Again I will ask the hon. and gallant Member to wait until he has heard my statement.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: You might have made it before.

    POLISH PRISONERS (ILL-TREATMENT).
    81. Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
    2378
    Affairs whether he has yet received any Report from Sir Horace Rumbold, British Minister at Warsaw, with regard to the ill-treatment of Polish prisoners captured by the Bolshevists; and, if so, will he communicate to the House the information contained in such Report?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): A Polish military report of 6th June states that five Polish soldiers have been returned from the Bolshevik lines with one or both eyes gouged out.
    Sir F. HALL: On the strength of that statement, may I ask the Leader of the House whether, in any arrangement that may be made with the Soviet Government, care will be taken to remember the inhumane manner in which the Polish soldiers have been treated by these Bolshevists?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In any arrangements made with the Soviet Government we shall consider, not so much the interests of the Soviet Government as the interests of the British Government and of the world.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    NAURU ISLAND.
    48. Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether the Annual Report regarding the administration of Nauru Island to the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations will be made by the British, Australian, or New Zealand Governments?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut. - Colonel Amery): The Report will presumably be presented by His Majesty's Government, as representing for this purpose the British Empire, to which the mandate has been given.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that the administrator appointed by the Australian Government will report direct to the Colonial Office?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I do not know about reporting direct, but the report will eventually come through the Government.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the united efforts of the three Governments will be equal to this task?

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    50. Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister how many members comprise the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic); what is their remuneration; what is the total number of their staff; have they a Government building placed at their disposal; and what will the Board cost the taxpayer in the current financial year?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There are twelve members of the Board, and none of them receive any remuneration for their services. Office accommodation is provided by the Office of Works. Including the employâs in Carlisle and other direct control areas, the staff of the Board numbers about 1,250 persons. I am informed that the work of this Board does not involve any permanent charge on the Exchequer.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Who pays the 1,200 staff?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Liquor Control Board pays out of the business, and in the end the business will pay for itself.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Who is the Chairman of the Board?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say without notice.
    51. Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether it has been decided to postpone to another Session the introduction of legislation dealing with the liquor traffic and to continue the authority of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) for another year; is he aware that the Board is not responsible to any State department, is at present without a chairman, and contains members who are known advocates of prohibition and members themselves engaged in the brewing industry, and that in consequence the decisions and regulations do not command public confidence; will the present Board be replaced by one consisting of public men of moderate views unconnected with temperance propaganda work
    2380
    or with the brewing industry; and will some Government department assume responsibility in this House for the Board's actions.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to previous statements on this subject, except to say that the Government hope to deal with the subject during the present Session.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question as to which Government Department assumes responsibility for the actions of this Board?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think one Department has charge of the matter, but I do not know.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Are we likely to have a statement as to the policy of the Government on this subject before the recess?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said that I see no prospect of that.
    Mr. MILLS: I understood that the hours under the Regulations were to be reconsidered.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That has been done, and a change has been made.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE RATES.
    52. Mr. HIGHAMasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the report of the departmental committee on telephone rates that the only way to wipe out the deficit is to increase the rates to the user, he will consider the advisability of receiving tenders either for the sale of the telephone system to a private company or the leasing of the system to a private company, in view of the fact that only by a wider use of the telephone and the installing of instruments in practically every home will it ever be possible to conduct the telephones at a profit.
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 19th February.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If this telephone system goes, as apparently it is doing, from bad to worse, will the Gov-

    2381
    ernment reconsider their decision and let somebody else have a try?
    Mr. PEASE: That is a question of policy to which I cannot give a reply.

    SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (THIRD REPORT).
    53. Mr. ROSEasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the officials of the Ministry of Munitions have issued a statement to the public press charging the Select Committee on National Expenditure with misleading and inaccurate statements in their Third Report; and will he say by whose authority and under what regulation public servants are entitled to send statements to the press instead of passing them through the channels of publicity to which the select committee itself is confined?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As the Minister of Munitions felt sure that some of the statements in the report were misleading and inaccurate he thought it his duty not to allow them to go uncorrected.
    Mr. ROSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which I put on the paper as to whether we are to understand that there is some regulation in Government offices which permits this sort of thing, and does not permit the Chairman of the Committee on National Expenditure to do the same thing; and whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is possible to get responsible Members of this House to serve on committees if unofficially they may be charged with lying by the officials whose conduct it is their duty to examine?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think there is anything which will prevent the Chairman of the Committee from giving a reply if he wishes. As regards the other question, surely it depends upon what are the facts. If the Minister of Munitions is right, he cannot allow the statement to be circulated in every newspaper without correcting it.
    Mr. ROSE: When do the Government propose to present the grateful thanks of the nation to the staff in armament buildings for their past services, and in form them that their future services maybe dispensed with?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should be more ready to adopt the first suggestion than the second, but is not this anticipating the discussion we are going to have in the House?

    RUSSIAN REFUGEES (MITCHAM).
    54. Colonel BURDONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a letter, written by the Reverend F. North, which appeared in the Press, referring to the condition of the British refugees recently repatriated from Russia under the auspices of the Foreign Office; whether steps have been taken to find permanent subsistence and employment for them; whether the Mitcham guardians have consented to allow the Holborn Institute to be kept open for the refugees and, if so, whether the inmates have been informed of this; and what is being done in the case of the British-born widows of Russians and their children who were given facilities to return to England, but who have not been promised any relief after the closing of the Holborn Institute?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first and third parts of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the United Russian Societies' Association has kindly taken charge of these refugees, and has received a grant for this purpose from the National Relief Fund, and I understand that the British-born widows referred to in the last part of the question are treated in exactly the same manner as the other refugees.
    Colonel BURDON: Am I to understand that the British Government is taking care of these unfortunate people whom they have brought from Russia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that the Government has formally undertaken that responsibility, but the answer shows what is being done.

  IRELAND.

    WATERFORD CITY ASSIZES.
    59. Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Mr. Justice Gibson attended to open Waterford City Assizes on 6th July, when only

    2383
    nine grand jurors answered their names; that each juror summoned to attend had received a notice, signed by the competent military authority, Irish Republican Army, warning him that if he attended he would do so at the peril of his life; that the learned judge fined each absent grand juror £100, to be exacted if the executive feel the enormous importance of asserting the authority of the law; and will he state what protection the executive has extended to the law-abiding citizens of Waterford in the past to justify these fines being exacted?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): The facts are substantially as stated in the question. Only nine grand jurors of the city answered their names, and the rest, many of whom reside a short distance from the Courthouse, did not attend. The county grand jurors, most of whom live at considerable distances, attended. The amount of the fines and the circumstances under which they were imposed were matters for the learned judge. A considerable force of military as well as police is stationed in Waterford, and special steps were taken to protect the Courthouse and those attending the same.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these fines are to be imposed?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: These fines, following the dictum of the Judge, will be imposed.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Why is not martial law proclaimed in districts where the ordinary law of the land has long ceased to operate?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

    CONSTABULARY (ROLL OF HONOUR).
    66. Colonel ASHLEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has now been decided to erect a roll of honour at the Headquarters of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, respectively, in memory of those members who, while serving, met their death through violence?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: No decision has yet been reached with regard to the pro-
    2384
    posal to erect a roll of honour, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the proposal is one that will receive the most sympathetic consideration. I feel that there should be some public mark of appreciation of the gallant services of those officers who have given their lives for the State.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Has any decision been come to as to erecting in Ireland a memorial to the splendid Irishmen who fell in the War? Is he aware there is a very strong feeling in that direction?

    CONSTABLE BRETT (BURIAL).
    67. Colonel ASHLEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that the local undertakers refused to supply a hearse for the burial of Constable Brett, who was murdered on 21st June, between Bantry and Durrus, county Cork; that the remains of the gallant constable had to be conveyed to the graveyard in a military motor lorry; and will he state if anyone has been arrested in connection with this murder?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret to say the facts are as stated. No local undertaker would supply a hearse or assist in any way in the burial of the late Constable Brett. No one attended the funeral except deceased's family, his comrades, and the military. The remains were carried on the shoulders of his comrades part of the way to the churchyard, and afterwards on a military lorry. No arrests have been made.
    Mr. STANTON: What are you going to do?

    ATTACK ON POLICE, DINGLE.
    Colonel ASHLEY (by Private Notice)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can give the House any further information about the murder near Dingle of two members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the wounding of two others, and whether any arrests have been made?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I profoundly regret to say that the facts are as stated in the question. A motor lorry was ambushed in the Dingle district, in the county of Kerry, two constables were shot dead, and a district inspector and the driver were wounded. I have just

    2385
    received a telegram to say that the attack was made by a party of 25 to 30 men. All the shots were fired while the police were in the car. The two wounded officers are not seriously wounded.
    Sir F. HALL: Was anybody captured?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: No one has yet been arrested.
    Sir F. HALL: Are we to understand that 25 men in broad daylight can get away without any of them being arrested? If so, is it not time that steps were taken to do away with the conditions under which law and order are being evaded in Ireland?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is very difficult to reply to a question of that kind. I would like the hon. and gallant Member to know, however, that these gallant constables were shot in pursuance of their duty to try and arrest, probably, some of the very men who shot them. I protest against this reflection on a force—[Interruption]—when, in the most difficult circumstances, by reason of the permitted introduction of firearms during the last ten or more years—[Interruption]—the difficulties of the police have been increased. May I add, further, that every possible effort is made to track down these murderers and assassins, and, if they are not captured, it is not the fault of the gallant forces of the Crown who are doing their best to carry out their duty.
    Mr. GRITTEN: Is it not the fault of the Government in not providing more forces?
    Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether anything in the supplementary question which I put to the representative of His Majesty s Government led any member of the Government to infer that I was casting any reflection upon this gallant force? On the other hand, was it not merely a question to draw the attention of the Government to the great necessity for stronger precautions, in order that these gallant men may be protected?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The incident shows the undesirability of these unprepared supplementary questions.

    POLICE (LISTOWEL).
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I desire to repeat a question which at the request of the Chief Secretary I postponed on Monday, namely, what information he can give the House in regard to certain incidents in the Listowel police force and the speech attributed to Commissioner Smyth?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Before I answer this question may I express my regret if I said anything which may have seemed unfair in answer to the supplementary question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman Sir F. Hall? I quite understand that any criticism against anything done in Ireland must be directed against me, and I receive a good deal of it. May I further say I am very jealous of the honour and courage of this gallant force which in depleted strength and badly equipped is doing its best to uphold the honour and the instructions of this House?
    The "recent events" to which my hon. Friend refers presumably relate to the resignation of five Royal Irish Constabulary constables who were stationed at Listowel, in the county of Kerry. On the 19th of June last, the Divisional Commissioner, Colonel Smyth, met the members of the force, 18 in number, stationed at Listowel. My attention has been called to a report in certain newspapers of a speech alleged to have been delivered on this occasion by Colonel Smyth. On the face of it, the report appears to have been supplied by the five constables already mentioned. I have myself seen Colonel Smyth, and he repudiates the accuracy of the statements contained in this report. He informs me that the instructions that were given by him to the police in Listowel and throughout the division were those that were stated in the Debate in this House on the 22nd of June last by the Attorney-General for Ireland, and that he did not exceed these instructions. The reason for the resignations of these five constables was their refusal to take up their duties in certain barracks in a disturbed part of the county of Kerry. They had taken up this attitude before the date of Colonel Smyth's visit. I am satisfied that the newspaper report referred to gives a distorted and wholly misleading account of what took place.
    At the end of Questions—
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the recent incident in the Listowel police office, and the remarks attributed to Commissioner Smyth as calculated to produce serious bloodshed in Ireland."
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have considerable hesitation in accepting that. As the gentleman to whom those remarks are attributed repudiates the accuracy of them, I do not think I should be justified in accepting the Motion.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Are you aware that the charges brought against this Divisional Commissioner have been subscribed to by fourteen policemen, who state that this was a speech delivered by the Divisional Commissioner, and having regard to that, is it to be seriously argued that the House of Commons is not to be allowed to discuss the speech simply because the man implicated denied that the report is an accurate one? How are we to know to what extent that denial applies? The speech was reported in the newspapers. What part does he contradict and what part does he admit? Is the House of Commons not to ascertain whether a man occupying a responsible position in the administration of the country and at the very head of the Police Force is entitled to incite to murder and assassination?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Those are the very things which I understand he denies.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: No, Sir; we do not know what he denies.
    Mr. SPEAKER: May I point out that I do not for one moment suggest that the House should not discuss these matters. All that I do is to say that the House should not break into the ordinary rule and occupy three hours of its time, which has been allotted to other matters, by discussing a matter of this kind as being a definite matter of urgent public importance.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Arising out of this question of urgency, which is the only question on which you are seemingly inclined not to permit the House to adjourn, is it not a very urgent matter if the allegations be true, and that is a question
    2388
    which we wlil have to decide here in this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—on which this House will claim its right to give its opinion, as between the statement of the Commissioner and the statements of fourteen or fifteen of this Force declared to be gallant and devoted servants of the State by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary? Is not the House entitled to have this matter discussed in view of the intense passion that the statements have aroused in the country and the possibility of serious and immediate bloodshed in consequence? I say, in view of the fact that Irish business has occupied practically none of the time of this House, that we are entitled, those of us who still represent a section of the Irish people, to have this matter probed to the bottom in the one place in which the nation would be enabled to form its own judgment as to the relative merits of the evidence on both sides.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: May I also point out with all respect that not a hint has been given from the Government Bench that there will be any sworn inquiry into the charges preferred against this officer. Having regard to this fact, is not the House entitled to demand that there should be an inquiry into charges of this sort?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not dispute for one moment the proposition which the hon. Member has laid down. All I dispute is, that it can be considered an urgent matter, either a definite matter or one of urgent public importance. The matters raised by the two hon. Members are well worthy of discussion; they are founded, as I understand, upon a report of a speech which was made and which the author of the speech repudiates the accuracy of altogether, and the Chief Secretary says it is an entirely distorted account. I am bound to accept those statements, and thereupon am I to interrupt the ordinary business of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!" and "No!"]—to discuss as urgent a matter which occurred on the 17th June?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Then how are we to obtain a discussion on the subject, if the Government will not give an inquiry and you will not allow the House to investigate?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. Is it not a new ruling that the question of what the alternative business

    2389
    of the House may be should come into your decision as to whether a matter is a matter of definite and urgent importance? Is not that a ruling which might be used by future Speakers, I do not say by yourself, in every case to prevent discussion whenever the Government wishes to have a subject burked?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am not influenced by the fact that a particular Bill is down for discussion to-day. That does not influence me, but this rule is meant to apply to exceptional circumstances, and if it can be shown that there are such exceptional circumstances as that the ordinary business of the House must be displaced in order that discussion should take place upon it under the conditions laid down in the rules, well and good, but in my judgment that is not so.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: The question of the exercise of your discretion in this matter is one, as we all know, of the deepest importance to the rights of Debate in this House. As I understand it, your ruling is this: You agree that it is a matter definite, you agree that it is public, but you do not agree that it is urgent.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not agree that it is definite. It is very indefinite. Statements are made on one side, and the man who utters those statements, or is alleged to have uttered them, denies them. It is not urgent, because it occurred on the 17th of June, and it is not definite because there is a distinct difference of opinion as to whether the words were uttered or not.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in justice to the Divisional Commissioner, whether the House will be given an opportunity of discussing this matter, so that it may not be left as if there were foundation for the charge made against him?
    Mr. BRACE: I do not rise at all to enter into controversies with the Chair, but I desire to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman who has made an appeal to the Leader of the House that suitable time should be given for the discussion of this subject. The Leader of the House must conclude, from what has transpired, that if no discussion is allowed it will create a very difficult impression, not only in Ireland but in this country. It was only yesterday that we
    2390
    had in London a great Congress to discuss the Irish situation, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to realise the gravity of the situation and to give some time for a discussion.
    Colonel ASHLEY: If the Leader of the Opposition asked for a day to discuss the Irish Estimates, would not that be given automatically?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was going to say that, naturally, if there was time I should be glad that there should be such a discussion. It can be done if one of the Supply Days is chosen for that purpose, and the Irish Vote is put down, but I quite recognise that there is a limited number of them, and other subjects also demand discussion. This subject can also be raised on the Consolidated Fund, and I do not see why advantage should not be taken of that occasion.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I submit it as a matter of urgency, because of my knowledge of the state of dangerous excitement which this has created in Ireland, because I think that danger will only be increased instead of being diminished if an opportunity be not given of discussing this speech where the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary, can have full opportunity of repudiating, or of defending, or explaining the speech. With regard to the fact to which you have made reference, namely, that this incident occurred as far back as June, 1917, may I point your attention to the fact, as vital to that part of the case, that the first publication of this alleged speech was on last Saturday, and that I took the first opportunity on Monday of bringing it before the attention of the House, and I would put it to you strongly that in making this proposal, I am doing so to avert what I consider an impending disaster in Ireland?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not dispute for one moment the bonâ fides of the hon. Member, and I also admit that he has brought the matter before the House on the first opportunity. Still, the speech was made on the 17th June. The report of it contained, amongst other statements, a statement that martial law was going to be proclaimed on the 21st, which was untrue, and which did not happen, and, if we take that as a sample of the matters contained in the speech, I think we may judge to a considerable extent of the accuracy of it.
    Mr. DEVLIN: We had the admission from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that a speech was made. He has admitted a speech was made. He denies that the speech which has been quoted by my hon. Friend is a true description of the speech delivered, but the right hon. Gentleman has not told us what the nature of the speech was. We have one allegation that a certain speech was delivered and another allegation that a speech was delivered, but not of the character described, and I think the House is entitled to know whether this military officer, who is at present in charge of the police in Munster, delivered this speech, whether it was a speech of the character which it is declared to be by these constables, or what was the character of the speech. I think we are entitled, in view of what my hon. Friend has stated—and he very clearly indicates the intensity of feeling existing in Ireland—I think we are entitled as a matter of urgency to have the matter discussed here and now.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Would it not be in the interests of the economy of Parliamentary time to let the discussion take place to-night, instead of giving it a whole day and an evening?
    Mr. SPEAKER: None of the arguments which have been used will influence me in the course which I have felt it my duty, very regretfully, to take. I do not think the ordinary business of the House should be broken into. All the matters which hon. Gentlemen have raised are, as I think, very proper subjects for discussion at the proper time, but not to-day.

    IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES COMMISSION.
    60. Sir JAMES REMNANTasked the Prime Minister whether Article 3 of the Treaty with the French Government of 1919 on the subject of war graves gives the Imperial War Graves Commission authority to decide on the policy of removing or not removing bodies to England, or whether it merely constitutes the Commission as the regulating authority to decide the propriety and time of such removals?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The Imperial War
    2392
    Graves Commission in this and all other matters carries out the policy approved by the Government and the Governments of the Dominions. Article 3 of the Treaty between the British and French Governments vests the Commission with authority to give effect to this policy in France. The policy of the Government as to the removal of bodies from France has already been fully explained by me to the House in answer to previous questions on this subject. In particular, I would refer the hon. Member to my answers to the Noble Member for Aldershot on the 14th July, 1919, to the hon. and gallant Member for Fairfield on the 25th March, 1919, and to the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley on the 18th February, 1919.

    ERPINGHAM BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
    65. Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health whether he has received a deputation from the Erpingham Board of Guardians with regard to the appointment of a clerk un acquainted with the administration of the Poor Law; whether he is aware that the deputy clerk to the board has now returned from war service and that the filling of this position is, therefore, not one of urgency; whether he can state if any decision has been reached in this matter; and, if so, whether the appointment has received his sanction?
    Dr. ADDISON: A deputation of the Erpingham Guardians attended at the Ministry of Health to discuss this proposal, which has not as yet been finally determined.

    BRITISH WEST AFRICA (PALM KERNELS DUTY).
    68. Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will ask the governors of British West Africa to prepare a statement showing the proceeds to date from the differential duty on palm kernels; and to what purposes, if any, such proceeds have been devoted?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I will ask for a return of the receipts from this duty which are carried to general revenue, and not devoted to any specific purpose.

    EAST AFRICA (INDIANS AND LAND).
    69. Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement made by General Northey on his return to East Africa to the effect that no settlement has been made on the Indian question; whether fresh land sales have been held from which Indians were excluded; and whether any commission or other public inquiry will be set up in this country to make recommendations to settle the Indian difficulty in East Africa?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Sir Edward Northey's statement is correct, as the matter is still under discussion. As regards land sales, I assume that the hon. and gallant Member refers to the sale of town plots, which have been suspended by the Secretary of State's direction until the question of policy has been settled. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Am I to understand there have been no sales of plots lately?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: All the sales in contemplation have been suspended pending the settlement of policy.

    KENYA COLONY.
    70. Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what significance attaches to the change in name of British East Africa?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The name of the East Africa Protectorate, often in the past unofficially termed British East Africa, has been changed on annexation because of the inconvenience arising from the application to a particular Colony of a general geographical designation now more appropriate to the whole of the territories under British administration in Eastern Africa.
    71. Mr. BENNETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how the change of status of the Kenya Colony will affect the status and rights of the Indian settlers there; whether their status and rights will, under the new râgime, differ from those of the white settlers; if so, in what respect; if the status and
    2394
    rights of the Indian settlers in the Kenya Protectorate will differ from those of the Indian settlers in the Kenya Colony; and, if so, in what respect?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The status and rights of Indians in the Kenya Colony or the Kenya Protectorate will not be affected in any way by the fact of the annexation of the former, nor will they be in any way different, so far as I am aware, in the Colony and in the Protectorate.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it contemplated to give an extended constitution to Kenya Colony?
    Lieut.- Colonel AMERY: No, Sir. There is no question of extending the constitution.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Or of giving them votes?

    ARMY OF OCCUPATION (MARRIED ESTABLISHMENTS).
    72. Major WILLIAM MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether married establishments have now been established in connection with the Army on the Rhine; whether the wives and children of soldiers in this Army who are upon the married list, or were upon that list prior to the War, are now afforded free passage to Germany; and whether accommodation for the families of soldiers upon the married list has now been provided in connection with the Army on the Rhine.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It has now been decided to allow families of soldiers serving with units of the British Army of Occupation on the Rhine, up to the number allowed on the pre-War married establishments for the Army, to join their units in Germany. The General Officer Commanding, Army of the Rhine, has been asked to make the necessary arrangements and to report when accommodation is ready for the reception of these families. As soon as his reply has been received the families will be despatched. They will be given free passages.

    AFFORESTATION (WALES).
    Lieut.-Colonel PARRYasked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing

    2395
    the Forestry Commissioners, whether any public authorities or universities in Wales were consulted before the selection of members for the Welsh Forestry Advisory Committee?
    Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER (for the Forestry Commissioners): The members of the Welsh Forestry Consultative Committee were appointed in accordance with Section 6 of the Forestry Act, 1919 (9 and 10 Geo. V., Ch. 58), and the Forestry (Consultative Committees) Order, 1920.
    Lieut.-Colonel PARRYasked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what sum was granted for forestry purposes to Bangor College before the War; and what is the present allowance for this purpose?
    Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: I understand that since October, 1912, Bangor College has been granted annually £250 for forestry educational purposes, and that a grant of £500 for forestry advisory work, which will now be performed by officers of the Commission, has been held there. As to the remainder of the question, I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Breese) on the 17th May last.
    Lieut.-Colonel PARRYasked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what steps are being taken to carry out Section 5 of the Forestry Act, under which it is laid down that the district officers should be responsible for instruction in forestry as well as for administrative duties?
    Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: Section 5 of the Forestry Act does not refer to district officers, nor is it laid down by any section of the Act that such officers should be responsible for instruction in forestry as well as for administrative duties.

    VICTORY BONDS.
    78. Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the method adopted by the Bank of England and the Post Office in connection with the drawings for the redemption at their full face value of a large number of Victory Bonds issued last year at 85 per cent.; whether such drawing were made by means of revolving boxes containing numbered discs
    2396
    which were subsequently drawn with the assistance of young female employees; and whether the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown was taken prior to its adoption as to the legality of this procedure?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir G. Hewart): The drawings were, I understand, duly carried out in accordance with the Regulations made in pursuance of Section 2 of the War Loan Act, 1919, and there is no reason to doubt the legality of the method adopted. The advice of the Law Officers of the Crown was not necessary and was not asked.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that the War Loan Act made some provision for these boxes, and for young girls to draw the discs?
    Sir G. HEWART: No, Sir, I said that the Regulations made under the Act did.
    Mr. GRITTEN: How did it differ from the Golden Ballot?
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously say on his own responsibility that the Clause to which he refers in the War Loan Act abrogates the Lottery Act?
    Sir G. HEWART: No, Sir, I said nothing of the kind.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I take it that this was a lottery?
    Sir G. HEWART: No, Sir; that consequence does not follow.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I will argue it elsewhere.

    LAW OFFICERS (DUTIES).
    79. Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Attorney-General if there is any distinction between the duties of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, respectively; and, if not, why their offices carry different descriptions?
    Sir G. HEWART: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to this question on the 8th July, 1919.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask what that answer was?
    Sir G. HEWART: I do not profess to remember it, but I think that certainly it was published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: If the right hon. Gentleman does not remember what the answer was, how do s he know that it is still correct?
    Sir G. HEWART: Because I turned it up.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give me a simple answer to this question: Why is the Solicitor-General not a solicitor?
    Sir G. HEWART: Several reasons occur to my mind, but I will refrain from stating them, and will, instead, ask for notice of that question.

    SWEDEN (COAL IMPORTS FROM AMERICA).
    84. Colonel LAMBERT WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of American coal imported into Sweden during the first six months of 1914 and 1920 respectively.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): Particulars as to the most recent imports of coal into Sweden from the United States are not at the moment available, but inquiries are being made on the point. It is known, however, that 146,686 tons of bituminous coal were registered as exported from the United States to Sweden in the five months ended 31st May last. During the first half of 1914 no exports of coal were recorded to Sweden from the United States.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what business he proposes to take on Friday next?
Mr. BONAR LAW: It is, I think, essential that the Committee stage of the Finance Bill should be finished this week. I am afraid it cannot be finished to-night, except at the expense of a very late sitting, and I propose, therefore, that Friday should be given to it also, and whatever time is left over will be given to some of the smaller Orders on the Paper.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I suppose the 5 o'clock Rule will not be suspended on Friday?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it is necessary. But if it is really necessary we should have to suspend it, for we must get the Bill.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the fact that there is a real danger of being involved in war over Poland, there will be any opportunity given to the House for discussion, and when a statement of the whole "circumstances will be made?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the House will certainly wish for some statement about the Spa Conference, and that largely includes the Polish situation, when it is over, and I have no doubt whatever that we must try to find time for that. I think by that time we shall probably have the reply, and it will be much more suitable to discuss it with the reply than with only the one part.
Mr. TERRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when it is proposed to take the Report stage of the Finance Bill, and can he see his way to give a week's interval between the conclusion of the Committee stage and the taking of the Report stage.
Mr. BONAR LAW: The Finance Bill must be completed within a certain time. We cannot exceed that time. I think it would be to the general interest to finish the Committee stage this week, and take the Report stage at the beginning of the week after next.
Colonel ASHLEY: In view of the numerous discussions which have been proposed, can the right hon. Gentleman say at what date in September the House is likely to rise.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
Sir PARK GOFF reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the Clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
STANDING COMMITTEE B.
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member (added to Standing Committee B in respect of the Blind Persons Bill), Mr. Dawes; and had appointed in substitution to Standing Committee A (in respect of the same Bill): Mr. Herbert Lewis.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BIRKENHEAD EXTENSION) BILL [Lords].
Report from the Joint Committee [Provisional Order confirmed] in respect of the Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Widnes Extension) Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Harbours, Docks, and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill, with an Amendment.
Portsmouth Corporation Bill,
Leigh Corporation Bill,
Rhondda Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Croydon Corporation Bill [Lords],
Gelligaer Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Newport Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 13th July.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  LAND VALUES DUTIES.

  FINANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 49.— (Repeal of Land Valves Duties.)
    (1) As from the commencement of this Act the Land Values Duties shall cease to be chargeable, and the obligation of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under Section twenty-six of the Finance (1909–10) Act. 1910, to cause a valuation to be made of all land in the United Kingdom shall cease.
    (2) Any Land Value Duty which has been assessed at the date of the commencement of this Act but which is unpaid at that date shall not be collected, and no assessment shall be made in respect of any Land Value Duty which became chargeable before that date.
    (3) Where any person shows to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that he or any person of whom he is, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the legal representative, has at any time paid any sum on account of any Land Value Duty he shall, on making an application in that behalf to the Commissioners at any time within six months after the date of the commencement of this Act and in such form as may be prescribed by the Commissioners, be entitled to repayment of the sum so paid.
    (4) Where an immediate lessor has paid or borne any annual Increment Value Duty and has made a deduction in respect of that duty from the rent payable by him to his lessor, he shall, on obtaining a repayment under this Section of that Duty, refund to the lessor or the representative of the lessor a sum equal to the amount so deducted.
    (5) In this Section the expression "Land Values Duties" means the Increment Value Duty (including annual Increment Value Duty, Reversion Duty, and Undeveloped Land Duty imposed by Part I of the Finance (19009–10) Act, 1910, but does not include Mineral Rights Duty.
    The CHAIRMAN: The first two Amendments [to leave out Sub-section (1), and to leave out the words "as from the commencement of this Act, the Land Values Duties shall cease to be chargeable"], are equivalent to negativing the Clause, and therefore can be argued on the question that the Clause stand part. The third Amendment [in Sub-section (1), leave out the words "commencement of this Act," and insert instead thereof the words "thirty-first day of March, nine-
    2422
    teen hundred and twenty-one"] is not in order. The fourth Amendment [in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "cease" ("shall cease"), and insert instead thereof the words "continue"] is also negativing the Clause.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask if you did not consider that the best way to deal with the point raised by this Amendment was to leave out the word "cease" at the end of Sub-section (1), and insert the word "continue," so that the obligation for valuation would continue. Is that not a far more direct way of dealing with the matter than by leaving out all the words in the Sub-section after "Chargeable."
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member consulted me yesterday at a time when I was extremely busy, and had not the opportunity of examining the matter with care, and I am afraid I did give him that impression, but having gone through these Amendment this morning, there was nothing to justify me in calling on his Amendment instead of this one.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words
    "and the obligation of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under Section twenty-six of the Finance (1910) Act, 1910, to cause a valuation to be made of all land in the United Kingdom shall cease."
    This Amendment seeks to continue the Land Duties and also the purpose of the Land Valuation Department.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is not the intention of the Amendment. As I understand, it is an Amendment to destroy the Land Values Duties, but to continue the valuation.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which the hon. Member is now moving is to leave out all the words from the word "chargeable" to the end of Sub-section (1). The effect would be that the obligation of valuation would continue instead of ceasing.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: The question of this Amendment is whether the valuation of land shall be continued. The question of the levying of the duties will come up on a subsequent Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: That will come up on the question that the Clause stand part.

    2423
    The Land Valuation Department is not involved in this Amendment, but the obligation to cause a valuation to be made of the land in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. THOMSON: I think the Committee will all agree that, whatever view we may take of this Amendment, it is one which raises a question of fundamental importance and of principle. Hitherto our discussions, with the exception of that of yesterday, have dealt mainly with the varying incidence of existing taxes. This proposal raises the question of principle as to whether the valuation of land shall be continued, or whether it shall cease. We all recall the famous discussions of 1909–10, and one knows as a political student of what took place then, and of the fact that two elections were fought and the standing of another place was involved. When the cause of reform, as some of us thought, had triumphed, and when we looked to what was proposed as setting up the Magna Charta of land reform for the future, it is with very great regret and misgivings that we to-day come to the time when apparently the spade work of so many years is to be repealed and cast on one side. It is only right to ask what were the causes and reasons for this principle of land valuation being established, and how is it that we are now asked to make a change and abandon it. Hon. Members will remember that the House and the country were much exercised by the way in which large communities were curtailed, cabined, cribbed, confined by the existing land system. It was thought at that time that it was only by a system of land valuation, not ad hoc, but a valuation of the land as it then existed, and by a datum line on which valuations in the future could be based, that there was the probability and possibility of towns, and especially the large industrial areas, being able to secure that land for necessary development at a price which would not cripple or retard the development of those areas. I would ask whether the pictures which were brought before the House and those which have emerged since are applicable to-day, and if that is the reason why this change is being made.
    I wish to differentiate between the position of an ordinary rural town and an industrial town, and particularly the
    2424
    larger town. The problem, I submit, is entirely different when you are dealing with the industrial town. No matter what has happened elsewhere, you find that their growth and development, especially from the health point of view, and on the question of housing and playgrounds and schools, or whatever it may be, has been hampered and hindered, because of the system pertaining to the acquisition of land. What was done in 1909–10 was to lay down a basis of value which could be acted upon when in the years to come municipalities required land for various public purposes. To abolish that now is to go back to the bad old times, and to continue to hamper and restrict the development of our towns. This is a question of general principle, but I propose to recall one or two of the instances which were brought before the attention of the House at the time this valuation was adopted, and which greatly influenced the mind of the country in demanding that change. A committee that was established in connection with the policy that was recommended by the present Prime Minister found that out of 90 towns having a population of nearly nine millions, that in 75 towns with an average population of 112,000 there were great difficulties in securing land at a reasonable price, because this valuation did not exist. In the city of Glasgow a library scheme had to be abandoned because a sum of £5,400 per acre was asked for the land required for that library. In Birmingham, a sum of £2,500 per acre was asked for a favourable site for schools, and a less convenient site for the children for the purposes of education had to be selected. In a Yorkshire town, Rotherham, street improvements had to be paid for at the rate of £5,000 per acre. In Sheffield housing schemes were crippled and £4,000 per acre was asked. Anyone who knows anything of local government in connection with large industrial centres can bring to mind in their own experience difficulties of this nature, and, although the illustrations which I have given may be extreme, yet, on the other hand, they are to be found repeated over and over again in other large towns.
    I well remember that the Prime Minister came in 1913 to Middlesbrough, the town which I have the honour to represent. He was speaking of this valuation and he gave illustrations to

    2425
    us, and we cheered him to the echo, of the inequity and hardship of our present system. He said, "Your manufacturers or shopkeepers extend their premises, and the land assessor comes along and says, 'I have had information laid against you (and these are the Prime Minister's own words) that you have spent money in extending your premises and that you are going to employ hundreds more men. Are you guilty or not guilty?' The manufacturer pleaded guilty, and then the assessor said, 'I must fine you for the rest of your life an extra £100 because of these improvements.'" The Prime Minister talked in that picturesque language which he employs of the case of the Leeds moors, where there was not a single building and not a plough and not a labourer and no useful employment being engaged in, and they said to the landowner, "What are you going to do with this?" and the landowner said, "I am holding this up until the citizens of Leeds require this for their water supply, and I will charge them 800 years' purchase for this land." The Prime Minister said, and we all agreed at that time, that this was a system that should be stopped in the interests of the development of towns and industry, and yet to-day we are asked to reverse that system by this most iniquitous and retrograde Clause of the present Budget. In my own town, where I have been a member of the education authority for sixteen or seventeen years, I asked the education department recently to get out the particulars of the cost of sites required for schools. The sites for schools are more or less on the outskirts of the town, because as the town grows the local authority exercises foresight and takes land which is likely to be required for their purpose. I find that in the last thirty or forty years the price we have had to pay for building sites for our schools has averaged £1,500 per acre. We have been cribbed, cabined and confined in our development because of this excessive price. Surely at a time like this, when you want to increase the amenities of your districts, it is not a time when Parliament should seek to reverse the policy which has helped to improve the growth of our towns.
    I want to show how this valuation has helped the development and growth of
    2426
    our towns. I asked the Minister of Health on Monday what had been the saving to public bodies in acquiring land owing to the assistance rendered by the Valuation Department. He replied that the assistance of the Valuation Department has been called in in cases covering 19,000 acres. It had been called in only where the local authorities and the landowners had agreed upon a price, and the Minister thought the price was excessive and refused to sanction it. In these cases, covering 19,000 acres, the price has been reduced by £71 per acre, amounting. to a saving to the public of £1,400,000, less than was asked and agreed upon by the local authorities. This saving was secured because the valuation of 1909–10 had been made and was utilised in the negotiations. We are told that this system has been an expense to the nation, and has been a terrible mistake. This saving on a small quantity of land of nearly £1,500,000 is not a bad return for the reform that was instituted in 1909–10. It goes further than that, because not merely is it a question of a saving where the price has been disputed by the Minister, but there has been an effect on the whole of the sales that have taken place throughout the country. The landowner knows that it is no use asking £5,000 an acre as in Glasgow, or £4,000 an acre as in Sheffield, or even in my own town £1,500 an acre. He knows that the valuation of 1909–10 is on the books, that it is accessible to the local authorities, and, therefore, in every case where land is required for housing or other purposes we may perfectly assume that almost similar savings have been made. The Minister of Health has told us of the tremendous shortage of houses, and that the number of houses which will be required before the present shortage is made up and the present insanitary houses are pulled down will be something like 1,000,000, which at ten to the acre will require 100,000 acres. If there is a saving of £71 an acre in the price of the land, that means a saving of over £7,000,000 which can be attributed to the reform initiated in 1909–10. A saving of £7,000,000 to the public is not a small instalment of that advantage which is going to assist in the development of our towns.
    Therefore we should think twice before we revert to the old policy and before we give up that which required such a tre-

    2427
    mendous effort to secure. In all our towns there is need for extension and development. We have paid the penalty in the past. We have had our houses crowded thirty, forty and sometimes fifty to the acre. We have had to pay an excessive price for our school sites, our playgrounds, our breathing spaces, and all the things that go to make up the social amenities of our town life. The price we have had to pay is not merely the cash price, but the abnormal death rate, the huge infantile mortality, and the sickness which has reduced our producing capacity and has injured the health and growth of our towns. In my own district the last available figures, 1917–18, show that the infantile death rate was 145 per 1,000, which is three times what it ought to be, and twice what it is in rural areas, and that our ordinary adult death rate is over 22 per thousand as against 8 per thousand or less in places like Letchworth and other garden cities. This is a heavy price to pay, and we cannot afford to go on paying it in the future. Therefore I hope that we shall hesitate before we cast away the sheet anchor for the development of our industrial life in our towns and the improvement of the health and amenities of our people.
    A good deal of our legislation in this Session and last Session has been framed with some regard to the social unrest in the country. What is going to be the effect of legislation such as this Clause which repeals the valuation of 1909–10? We have passed two Rent Restriction Acts to prevent profiteering in small cottage property and to prevent the man or woman who wants to let a furnished house from profiteering. They are to be fined if they profiteer to the extent of a few pounds. We have passed two Profiteering Acts dealing with the sale of commodities. We say to the widow or the ex-service man, "You must not make an extra halfpenny profit on your potatoes or your cabbages, and if you repeat the offence we will send you to prison." What a contrast we find when by this Clause we are taking away the means of preventing profiteering on the part of the big landlords, who will be able to profiteer in the price of land to the extent of thousands of pounds, the effect of which will reduce the health of our people and make the whole amenities of
    2428
    our towns worse, besides hindering the development of our towns. The owner of small cottages are to be driven from pillar to post for profiteering, but you give free scope to the big landowner who wants to make his thousands out of unearned increment which is made by the development of the towns and towards the creation of which increment the owner has done nothing. Why should we throw away the only protection which we have against the huge increment arising in future being exploited for the benefit of a few at the expense of the many? I beg the Committee to think twice before they adopt this Clause. We do not want our industrial towns to be exploited for the benefit, not of the ordinary landowner, but of the land grabber, the land speculator, the man who comes in for the first time and who buys land and holds it for future development. We ought to think twice before we give up that protection which entailed so many sacrifices before we could wrest it from the vested interests which hold on so tenaciously.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether I ought to have called this Amendment. The hon. Member's speech has been more addressed to the Clause itself than to the Amendment, which is of a very limited character.
    Mr. MYERS: Having regard to the fact that the party with which I am associated have felt it to be their duty to put down a number of Amendments to this Clause I regret the turn of events which has arisen from your ruling. I am not very much struck with the Amendment now before the Committee, but it will at least give us an opportunity of speaking in support of the valuation being continued. I join with my hon. Friend in expressing what we believe to be the very serious disadvantage to the municipalities of the country arising from the present landed system, and from the small contribution of the landowners to the general upkeep of our towns.
    The CHAIRMAN: That again is the point to which I have referred. If the hon. Member will be good enough to see how the Clause would read supposing this Amendment were carried, he will see that the land value duties are to cease, but that the valuation under the Act of 1909–10 is to continue. That is the only subject before the Committee. I am only

    2429
    saying this because I should not be able to allow a wide debate on the Motion that the Clause stand part if it is anticipated now.
    Mr. MYERS: I will keep as near as possible to the reason why the valuation should continue. A good deal can be said for the continuation of the valuation. I have here a report, issued during the current year, of a Select Committee which inquired into land values. That report presented in a voluminous fashion the work which the Land Valuation Department had already accomplished. The figures which I am about to quote are taken from that report. In 1911 the staff of the Department numbered 940 valuers and 488 clerks, a total of 1,428. On the 31st March, 1912, the staff under those heads had increased to 2,829. Over 10,000,000 forms for owners were sent out and 9,600,000 had been returned on that date. The result of that work brings out the following facts: the number of provisional valuations made was 7,784,000, and the maximum area valued was 56,000,000 acres, while the total value of those acres was £5,200,067,000. This was for Great Britain alone. The value of the land held by statutory undertakings was the value at which it was purchased by the company concerned. These figures were up to the 30th September, 1915. The State is entitled to some return for the great volume of work which has been done by the Valuation Department up to the present. Another result of that work is worthy of our consideration. Under this valuation the assessed and ascertained arrears under the Undeveloped Land Duty amount to £320,000; under the Increment Value Duty £120,000, and under the Reversion Duty £80,000, or a total of ascertained and assessed arrears of £520,000, and there is a large volume of unassessed arrears on the reversion duty alone of not less than £500,000.
    These arrears have accumulated under the present law and all the advantages which have accrued or should have accrued from this valuation ought to be roped in for the benefit of the State. As a general proposition the valuation should be continued in order that results from it may accrue to either the local or the national Exchequer. Many hon. Members, who are older than I, will remember the visit of Henry George to this country and
    2430
    his advocacy of the single tax which came down right to our own times. Those of us who interested ourselves in the taxation of land values and did not take the side of the single tax, believed that other forms of wealth should make a contribution to the Exchequer in addition to the wealth coming from land, and we thought that adjustments should be made between the wealth from land and the wealth from other departments of commerce, industry and finance; but if the land valuation ceases then we adopt the policy of the single tax the other way round. We say that commerce, industry and finance must be the one channel from which revenue must be derived; that land should go free while finance, commerce, industry and the like should pay their quota in taxation, local and national.
    The CHAIRMAN: The question that the Clause stand part will give much more liberty to hon. Members in discussing this subject, but in dealing with this Amendment it is better to adhere to the question which is before the Committee.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Would that enable us to continue the Debate on the valuation? Personally I attach more importance to the question of valuation than to any other question, and I would like a further opportunity of discussing it.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have spoken to the hon. Member for his own protection, as he cannot go over the same ground twice, and the general question that the Clause stand part gives more opportunity.
    Mr. MYERS: I feel myself in a great difficulty. I am prepared to take your advice. If you consider that the line of discussion which I am following could be better left over, and that we should proceed with this Amendment, I am quite willing to accept either your advice or your ruling.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I would like to be quite clear. I suppose that the whole question of valuation will be open on the question that the Clause stands part?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is so, but hon. Members are obviously hampered. What the hon. Member said in the beginning of his speech would be quite in order on the question that the Clause stand part, but half or three-fourths of it is beyond the scope of this Amendment.
    Mr. MYERS: I must accept your ruling, but I would respectfully suggest, in view of the ramifications of the whole matter which were included in the speech of the hon. Member who opened, that a more general discussion should be permitted.
    The CHAIRMAN: I quite understand that. I did give something to the mover.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I have no desire to anticipate the general discussion. To myself and those associated with me, this question of the valuation is the vital question. We should, of course, think it desirable if the duties were continued for another year, and an opportunity of discussing that will no doubt arise on subsequent Amendments, but, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to announce that, though he was unable to continue those duties, he did propose to continue the valuation—bringing it up to date and making it an effective instrument, available both for national and local purposes—I should, personally, have accepted his decision with fortitude and resignation. It cannot be denied that, owing to legal decisions which have been given, these particular duties are no longer productive of the revenue which was expected from them, and, therefore, if they are to be made effective instruments for collecting revenue, it is necessary that amendment should take place, but that is no reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should abandon entirely the policy of the land values of this country which was accepted by the electors at two General Elections—
    The CHAIRMAN: That again is a question which arises on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill. We really must not have it raised here. The point here is confined entirely to the maintenance of valuation in the absence of duty.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Am I not entitled to argue that the valuation should be continued for the purpose of enabling the Government to find some other method of assessing the land values of the country, which should be based upon land valuation? Would it not be more convenient to raise that issue, which to me and those who think with me is the most important issue, at this stage rather than on the question that the Clause stand part? If I am allowed to argue this aspect on the question that the
    2432
    Clause stand part I have no desire to pursue the matter now, but I submit that that is an issue which I am entitled to put at some stage.
    The CHAIRMAN: I agree most fully. That is the issue on the Clause standing part. The hon. Member will have an opportunity.
    Mr. RAFFAN: In that case I will confine myself to one or two points on which I would like information. The Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated in his opening speech that he did intend to continue the Valuation Department in being. One reason for so doing was that the information which would be available would be useful for any subsequent legislation or for the use of local authorities in the event of a change in the system of local rates. My own view is that you cannot fully carry that out if this Amendment is not carried, but I would like some information from him as to what is proposed under his scheme. He has stated, I believe, on several occasions that it is still intended to ask, upon each occasion when property changes hands, that information should still be called for and supplied. He has been asked on several occasions to drop that on the ground that it would not be useful. So far he has resisted. I would like to have his assurance that he intends to adhere to the decision to ask for these particulars, but I should like to ask him, if he ceases to have this statutory power, under what statutory power can he demand these particulars? Will it in future be optional on the part of those who are engaged in purchasing or disposing of property to give the particulars or has he a statutory right to demand them, and does he still intend to demand them?
    There is another point which may be raised conveniently now. On a Select Committee which enquired into this matter I asked at the first sitting that we should be furnished with the totals of the various valuations so far as they had already taken place. There was no objection on the part of any Members of the Committee to that information being given. Even the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), who differs from me in most matters, put no obstacles in the way, but the Chairman of the Committee, the late Sir Thomas Whittaker, told me afterwards that he had

    2433
    been told that the information could not be given because there had been to statistics kept. As I understand, we have spent something like £2,000,000 on preparing this valuation, and yet, through not engaging a number of clerks to add up the figures, the Government themselves and everybody else are in perfect ignorance of what the totals are. That is a most unsatisfactory state of things. I imagine that even if the Amendment were not carried it would be competent to the right hon. Gentleman to give instructions for these totals to be taken. It is a penny wise and pound foolish policy to have gone to all this trouble and not to be able to be put in possession of the information. If the totals are taken they should be taken for areas as well as for the whole country, because the assessment committees throughout the country at present are engaged in re-assessing, and it would be of the utmost value to them if they could be supplied with the statistical information which is available in the offices of the district valuers, but the district valuers at present dare not give them the information, even if the totals have been taken, and in a great many cases the totals are not available. I would like information and an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to these two points which I have mentioned.
    5.0 P.M.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): If the hon. Member who has just spoken would be good enough to put down a question as to the totals of the values disclosed by the valuation I will look into the matter, and in course of time will supply him with the information. I am not prepared to answer off-hand whether the valuation has reached a point where any information that could be given could form the basis of argument from any side of the question. So much is still in dispute, so much of the valuation is declared by the Courts to have been made on a wrong basis, and so much is not agreed and therefore not finally settled, that I am doubtful about it. The ruling of the Chair leaves the issue very narrow. I shall endeavour to state what that issue is. It is not, as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment seemed to suppose, whether we should have information as to the true value of land in this country, or whether we should be able to
    2434
    continue, by means of the Valuation Department, to assist other Government Departments when making purchases on behalf of the public or local authorities when making similar purchases. It is simply and solely whether the particular valuations provided in the Act are to continue, on the assumption that the fiscal purposes which the valuations are intended to serve are no longer in existence, that is say, whether valuations made with a view to the collection of particular taxes should continue when there are no such taxes, and when the valuations would therefore be absolutely useless. Let me say at once that I am in agreement with the hon. Member on the wider basis of policy which was the foundation of his speech.
    I do not believe there is a man in this House who does not admit that it has been a scandal in the past that a public authority desiring to purchase land for a public purpose has often been notoriously at a disadvantage compared with a private person buying in the same way. I am as anxious as he to see that when a public authority purchases—whether the Government or a local authority— they shall pay a fair price and no more. Accordingly, I am anxious that we should have, and the Government desire that we should have, the knowledge that would enable us to check the price asked, to check by reference to the general stream of transactions a particular proposal which may be under our notice at any given moment. But the valuations prescribed by the part of the Statute we are repealing are not really important; they are not even useful valuations. To a very large extent they are valuations of metaphysical transactions arrived at by elaborate mathematical calculations that nobody but an expert can make, and as to which the layman may doubt sometimes whether the expert himself even understands them. For the purpose the hon. Member has in mind these valuations are not useful. You want to know for that purpose the value of articles which are bought and sold, not the value of abstractions that never pass, which are never offered for sale and are never bid for by a purchaser. What you want is the real value of the article as it passes from day to day. For that purpose the valuation we do away with is of no use. It was useful only as a means of arriving at the basis of a tax

    2435
    which this Clause repeals. The question whether the tax should be repealed or not cannot of course be raised now on this Amendment. It has to be raised on the Clause itself.
    What is there, for the purpose the hon. Member has in mind, in the Act of 1909–10? It is the obligation that wherever the sale of land or the transfer of interest in land takes place, the particulars of it shall be made known to the Valuation Department and recorded at Somerset House. That is the part of the Act which has been invaluable in assisting public authorities. Those are the provisions which have led to the saving in the purchase of land, in the price paid, as described by the Minister of Health in the answer given to a question to which reference has been made. Those are the particulars which we still propose to require to have supplied to the Valuation Department. The Valuation Department, as I have had occasion to say, has a great deal of work to do wholly unconnected with the levy of the land duty, and, accordingly, though the strength of the Department must be readjusted, and has been readjusted as the work has fallen off, and is now being, or is going to be, examined by the Select Committee on National Expenditure with a view to seeing whether it is superabundant or not, yet, whatever the strength of the Department ought to be, the Department itself shall be maintained and we propose to maintain it. By the provisions of the Bill as it stands we preserve our right to obtain, and the obligation of the party to supply to it, these particulars. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan) asked whether we had a right to exact the particulars or whether they would be a voluntary contribution. That part of the original Act which is pertinent to this matter, and which remains after the repeals included in the Schedule of the Finance Bill, will read:
    "It shall be the duty of the transferor or lessor, on the occasion of any transfer on sale of the fee simple of any land or of any interest in land or on the grant of any lease of any land for a term exceeding fourteen years, to present to the Commissioners, in accordance with regulations made by them, the instrument by means of which the transfer or the lease is effected or agreed to be effected or reasonable particulars thereof, and, if the transferor or lessor fails to comply
    2436
    with this provision, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, but any person aggrieved by any conviction or order of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under this provision may appeal therefrom to a Court of Quarter Sessions."
    It then proceeds:
    "Any such instrument shall not, for the purposes of Section fourteen of the Stamp Act, 1891, and notwithstanding anything in Section twelve of that Act, be deemed to be duly stamped unless it is stamped with a stamp denoting that all particulars have been delivered to the Commissioners."
    If the hon. Member wishes to see it I have here a copy of the Clause, distinguishing the words repealed and the words left, but what I have read will be sufficient, I think, to satisfy him and I hope the Committee, that we retain full power to obtain those particulars which are really valuable. The valuation itself having relation only to arriving at a particular tax we now propose to abandon for reasons to be discussed later.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think we can divide on this ment without some further observations. In drawing up his Budget and in dropping this valuation the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be acting on the theory that the present Government is going to last for an indefinite time, that if this Government falls the new party of the fused Coalition will remain in power for a generation or two. It is because I and a few hon. Members do not share that view that I think we are justified in resisting as strenuously as we can the dropping of this valuation. After all, the land question in this country is not going to remain as it was in the past. It is not a parochial question. The land question to-day is a world question. There are democratic forces that have arisen out of the events of the last few years which are challenging the whole question of land tenure, not only in this but in every other country.
    The CHAIRMAN: That has already been said.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was unfortunately called away for a few minutes and did not know it had already been said. Without a doubt we shall have to see legislation in the near future or else have a big upset in the whole of the

    2437
    social conditions of this country. It is because we believe that this is an attempt to block that legislation and to put artificial delays in our way when we come to power, that we feel constrained to divide on this Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 80.

    Division No. 209.]

    AYES.

    [5.15 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Gardiner, James

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W)

    Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Preston, W. R.

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Hailwood, Augustine

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

    Purchase, H. G.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Bigland, Alfred

    Haslam, Lewis

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Remer, J. R.

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Renwick, George

    Briggs, Harold

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Bruton, Sir James

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Burdon, Colonel Rowland

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hudson, R. M.

    Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Campbell, J. D. G.

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

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Stevens, Marshall

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Jesson, C.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Casey, T. W.

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

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

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

    Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)

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

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Kidd, James

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Waddington, R.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Lloyd, George Buller

    Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lorden, John William

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

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Donald, Thompson

    M'Guffin, Samuel

    Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Duncannon, Viscount

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

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

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Mitchell, William Lane

    FltzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Foreman, Henry

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr Dudley Ward.

    Forrest, Walter

    Morrison, Hugh

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Barnes Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lunn, William

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)

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

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Finney, Samuel

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Spencer, George A.

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Mills, John Edmund

    Spoor, B. G.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Taylor, J.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Myers, Thomas

    Tootill, Robert

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Wallace, J.

    Hallas, Eldred

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Hancock, John George

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Hinds, John

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Wignall, James

    Hirst, G. H.

    Rendall, Athelstan

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

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Irving, Dan

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rodger, A. K.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rose, Frank H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. G. Thorne.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Sexton, James

    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-sections (2), (3), and (4).
    In view of your ruling, Sir, and of the fact that we can at a later stage discuss all those Amendments in the form of arguments on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," I do not propose to detain the Committee at any length at this time, but to go as promptly as possible to a Division on this Amendment. This Amendment is quite simple in its purpose. There is a certain amount of revenue due to the State as a result of the imposition of these taxes, and this Clause says that that money shall not be collected and that where it has been collected it shall be returned to those taxpayers who demand it back. We maintain that what money there is to come to the Exchequer from this tax ought to be collected and should not be remitted. We hear so much about the need for money and for economy that it seems peculiar that the Government should come forward with this proposal. I should have thought that the people who owed this tax would be glad to pay it as a token of gratitude to the Government for favours in advance. We shall certainly divide against this waste of public money.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I think this is a perfectly unheard-of proposal. Even if it is suggested that the duty should come to an end by this Bill, I am really at a loss to understand why the Government should make these proposals, and I suggest that before we go to a Division we should have some explanation from the Government why they propose something which, I repeat, is
    2440
    perfectly unheard of in our Parliamentary annals.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am rather anxious to get to the real discussion, which I think hon. Members opposite also desire, and therefore I will reply as briefly as I can on this Amendment. The proposals are, that we should not collect uncollected duty and that we repay those which have been collected upon demand by the taxpayer. The reason for not collecting the uncollected duty is that in any case a considerable part of it could not be collected owing to various circumstances, but that no part of it could be collected without a considerable amount of new legislation, and it really is not worth while to go through all the trouble in this House and elsewhere and all the expense for the sake of the revenue involved. As regards the reason for repayment, that has arisen really out of a statement—I almost call it a pledge, and I think it amounts to that—made by my predecessor, Mr. McKenna, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. In April, 1916, in answer to a question addressed to him by a Member of Parliament, whether, in consideration of the fact that many persons had paid in respect of these assessments, it was intended either to demand payment of those who had been served with demands, but who had not paid, or to refund payments made to those who had paid, Mr. McKenna said there would be no eventual discrimination. That, I think, is an undertaking which I ought to observe. But there is another reason. I think it would be contrary to public policy that a man who had paid promptly, and had had no dispute, should suffer by reason of

    2441
    his prompt payment, whereas a man who had disputed the assessment—it might be on frivolous grounds—should escape payment by reason of his delay. It may be that at some time or another the House will repeal certain taxes. I am not sure that the House may not some time or another, as I hope it will, bring the Excess Profits Duty to an end, but the very worst thing we can do is to teach taxpayers that if they can withhold payment long enough, when we bring the duty to an end, then those who have paid will suffer, and those who have not paid will go scot free. I think that would be contrary to public policy, and, therefore, there should be no discrimination. I think it is particularly important that those who pay promptly should not be worse off than those who do not.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I want to know what is the amount of arrears, what is the estimated amount of repayment, and also an explanation of the right hon. Gentleman's words when he said that there would be expenses in litigation, and so on, in collecting the money. I understand the amount which we are asked now to surrender is round about £500,000, although we know the Treasury is extremely short of money, and it has been necessary to put very harmful taxes on the people of this country. Of course, I do not take the view of the right hon. Gentleman. I think it is simply a case of dancing on a corpse. The Land Value Taxes have been repealed, and now the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends are brandishing tomahawks, and this is their warsong. We, of course, will record our votes—and I hope the Prime Minister will be with us, at any rate in spirit—in the "No" Lobby.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question. The arrears of duty assessed and uncollected amount to £541,000. Much of it has been assessed on a basis which has been judicially declared to be inaccurate, and could not be collected. A good deal of it dates back to the years 1910, 1911 and 1912, and we could not collect that. As to the unassessed arrears, the same argument as to the impossibility of collection applies with greater force, but I cannot give any estimate of what they might be. The total amount which is actualy paid is £21,329,000.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is all that going back?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What we undertake to do is to repay it on the demand of the taxpayer. A good deal of it is paid in very trifling sums, like 30s. I do not expect there will be any demand for the repayment of those small sums.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has any estimate been made by the Treasury officials? I am sure it has been made, but has the right hon. Gentleman got the figures of what it will cost? Would it be possible to give some approximate estimate?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot do that. Some of it cannot be collected under any circumstances, and very little of it can be collected without new legislation.
    Mr. SPENCER: Are we to understand that the amount to be remitted, added to the uncollected arrears, is about £22,000,000?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: About that—not quite that.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I do want the Committee to realise what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. He said that if next year the Excess Profits Duty comes to an end, he does not wish to put in a worse position the person who pays as against the person who delays paying. Suppose the commercial community acted as the Land Union have done with regard to these taxes; suppose the Federation of British Industries made a levy upon their members and spent large sums of money in going to the Courts to find that, owing to faults in drafting, the Excess Profits Duty is bad, will the right hon. Gentleman come next year and say that all the Excess Profits are to be paid back to everybody who has paid? That is the difference with a Government like this, which is under the heel of the Land Union and landowners of this country. The commercial community would never hope for this favour. If the co-operators of this country discover that as regards the £75,000, which the right hon. Gentleman is to collect from them as the result of the decision yesterday, there is some fault with the drafting, will the right hon. Gentleman refund to the co-operators all the money they have paid? He knows he will not. If the trade unions of the country find there is grave objection on the part of their members to pay Income

    2443
    Tax on wages, and they find some flaw in the method of collection, and the Courts so decide, what will the right hon. Gentleman do? He knows very well he will bring in legislation to make it possible for them to collect these sums, and the trade unionists and the co-operators and the commercial community will have to pay. Why should there not be legislation by consent so that these sums might be collected? The right hon. Gentleman, who was so adept in getting £75,000 from the co-operators yesterday, is flinging away £2,000,000 to-day because the Government dare not stand up and defy the landowning industry. Has the right
    hon. Gentleman studied the literature of the Land Union, who have sent out a passionate appeal to those who have supported them in the past not to desert them now, and they have said they will stand by them in any emergency? You may be sure the Land Union soon will print forms and suggest that those who have rebates should be generous and give subscriptions to the organisation. Whatever the Committee do, I hope they will reject this proposal.
    Question put, "That Sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 89.

    Division No. 210.]

    AYES.

    [5.42 p.m

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Forrest, Walter

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Ganzonl, Captain Francis John C.

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Macleod, J. Mackintosh

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Gibbs, Col. George A.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W)

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Morrison, Hugh

    Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hailwood, Augustine

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

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Briggs, Harold

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Bruton, Sir James

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Burdon, Colonel Rowland

    Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    Hope, Sir H. Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)

    Perring, William George

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

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

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

    Hudson, R. M.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

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

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Coats, Sir Stuart

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

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Remer, J. R.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Renwick, George

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Davison, Sir W. (Kensington, S.)

    Kidd, James

    Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Donald, Thompson

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Stevens, Marshall

    Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Stewart, Gershom

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Sugden, W. H.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Lorden, John William

    Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Foreman, Henry

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Waddington, R.

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

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    White, lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson

    Wood, Major S. Hill. (High Peak)

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Hallas, Eldred

    Rodger, A. K.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hancock, John George

    Rose, Frank H.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hinds, John

    Sexton, James

    Barrand, A. R.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Irving, Dan

    Spencer, George A.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Spoor, B. C.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Taylor, J.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Lunn, William

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Briant, Frank

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

    Thomas, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    Mills, John Edmund

    Tootill, Robert

    Cape, Thomas

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Wallace, J.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Casey, T. W.

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Waterson, A. E.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Myers, Thomas

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Wignall, James

    Finney, Samuel

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Galbraith, James

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Gardiner, James

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wintringham, T.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Rae, H. Norman

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. G. Thorne.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. May I know why you have skipped over the Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Spen Valley (Mr. Myers), which deal with certain individual Land Duties which it is proposed to admit? It seems to me that it is perfectly in order now to move that the Land Values Duties, which include Increment Value Duty and the Undeveloped Land Duty, should be omitted. These are the two on which I desire to enter an emphatic protest. Do I understand from you that it is not in order to move that the Increment Value Duty and the others should be omitted?
    The CHAIRMAN: No, that is not the case at all. I referred earlier to the struggle of hon. Members to get to the main business, and I am endeavouring to assist the Committee in this matter. For that purpose, I have not selected these Amendments which raise side issues. Anything that the hon. and gallant Gentleman desires to say can be quite as well said upon the question I am now about to put.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: But I desire on each of these Duties that the vote of the Committee should be recorded. I am quite content to make short speeches, and leave the main arguments to be put forward on the main question. Some of us think the feeling of the House should be recorded, especially in view of recent Divisions which have gone strongly against the Government. We desire to record the votes of those who are against these Duties.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is within the discretion of the Chair to act as I have done. The question is—
    Mr. HOGGE: I think, perhaps, you misunderstand the feeling on these Benches if you think we are at all desirous of challenging your ruling. We agree with you. We have been trying, as I feel sure you will have observed from the Chair, to limit our speeches on Amendments in order to get on to the wider questions. But is it not a somewhat different thing when we say that we wish, through the lobby, without speeches, to have put on the Records of the House our objections to these specific Duties? That is really all we are asking: that you

    2447
    should allow us to have these Divisions on the understanding that hon. Members on this side are not prepared to put up speeches, but deal later with the wider aspects of the case?
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: That is the only object we have in view, Mr. Whitley—that on these three Duties, the Increment Value Duty, the Reversion Duty and the Undeveloped Land Duty, we should have Divisions, being content to have no speeches till later.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am quite willing that that course should be adopted, and
    I will therefore put the question on the first Amendment after it has been formally moved.
    Mr. MYERS: I beg to, move, in Subsection (5), to leave out the words "Increment Value Duty (including annual Increment Value Duty)."
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 82.

    Division No. 211.]

    AYES.

    [5.55 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W)

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Morrison, Hugh

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. E.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

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

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Haslam, Lewis

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

    Bigland, Alfred

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Pearce, Sir William

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Briggs, Harold

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Hope, Sir H. Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)

    Perring, William George

    Bruton, Sir James

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Burdon, Colonel Rowland

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    Hudson, R. M.

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W Ellis

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Cautley, Henry S.

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

    Remer, J. R.

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

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Renwick, George

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

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Rodger, A. K.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Jesson, C.

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips.

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

    Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Kiley, James D.

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    King, Commander Henry Douglas

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

    Stevens, Marshall

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Sugden, W. H.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Townley, M. G.

    Foreman, Henry

    Lorden, John William

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Waddington, R.

    Forrest, Walter

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

    Ward, Jackson, Major C. L.

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    M'Guffin, Samuel

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Gardner, Ernest

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Macleod, J. Mackintosh

    Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

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

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    Younger, Sir George

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Hallas, Eldred

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hancock, John George

    Rose, Frank H.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hinds, John

    Sexton, James

    Barrand, A. R.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Irving, Dan

    Spencer, George A.

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Spoor, B. G.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Taylor, J.

    Briant, Frank

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

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

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Lunn, William

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Cape, Thomas

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Tootill, Robert

    Casey, T. W.

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

    Wallace, J.

    Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)

    Mills, John Edmund

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Waterson, A. E.

    Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)

    Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Finney, Samuel

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Myers, Thomas

    Wignall, James

    Gardiner, James

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

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

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wintringham, T.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. T. Griffiths.

    Mr. MYERS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words, "reversion duty."
    Question put, "That the words pro
    posed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 91.

    Division No, 212.]

    AYES.

    [6.0 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

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

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W)

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

    Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

    Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Briggs, Harold

    Elliot, Capt. Waiter E. (Lanark)

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling &Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)

    Bruton, Sir James

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Burdon, Colonel Rowland

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Foreman, Henry

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Hudson, R. M.

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    Forrest, Walter

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Gange, E. Stanley

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

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

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

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)

    Jesson, C.

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)

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

    Stevens, Marshall

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Sewart, Gershom

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Sugden, W. H.

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    King, Commander Henry Douglas

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Pearce, Sir William

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Waddington, R.

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Perring, William George

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson

    Lorden, John William

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Purchase, H. G.

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

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Wilson, Lieut.- Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Remer, J. R.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Macleod, J. Mackintosh

    Renwick, George

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Rodger, A. K.

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Young, Sir Frederick W. Swindon)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Younger, Sir George

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Morris, Richard

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Morrison, Hugh

    Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hallas, Eldred

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

    Hancock, John George

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Rose, Frank H.

    Barrand, A. R.

    Hinds, John

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sexton, James

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bottomley, Horatio W.

    Irving, Dan

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Spencer, George A.

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Spoor, B. G.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Taylor, J.

    Briant, Frank

    Lunn, William

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

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Cape, Thomas

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

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

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Casey, T. W.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Tootill, Robert

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Mills, John Edmund

    Wallace, J.

    Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)

    Waterson, A. E.

    Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Fildes, Henry

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Finney, Samuel

    Myers, Thomas

    Wignall, James

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

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

    Gardiner, James

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wintringham, T.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Rae, H. Norman

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Grundy, T. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. G. Thorne.

    Mr. MYERS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words, "and undeveloped land duty."
    Question put, "That the words pro-
    posed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 90.

    Division No. 213.]

    AYES.

    [6.15 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

    Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Pearce, Sir William

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Perring, William George

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hope, Sir H. Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Briggs, Harold

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Bruton, Sir James

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Burdon, Colonel Rowland

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Raper, A. Baldwin

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hudson, R. M.

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Raw, Lieut.-Colonel N.

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Remer, J. R.

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

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

    Remnant, Sir James

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Renwick, George

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

    Jesson, C.

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

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

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Kidd, James

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    King, Commander Henry Douglas

    Stevens, Marshall

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stewart, Gershom

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(M'yhl)

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Lorden, John William

    Waddington, R.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

    Fildes, Henry

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

    Macleod, J. Mackintosh

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Foreman, Henry

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson

    Forrest, Walter

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

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

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Morden, Colonel H. Grant

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Morris, Richard

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Morrison, Hugh

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Younger, Sir George

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Murchison, C. K.

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Hallwood, Augustine

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

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Briant, Frank

    Gardiner, James

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Cape, Thomas

    Glanville, Harold James

    Barrand, A. R.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Casey, T. W.

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Bottomley, Horatio W.

    Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Hallas, Eldred

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Finney, Samuel

    Hancock, John George

    Hayday, Arthur

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

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

    Hayward, Major Evan

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Hinds, John

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Tlllett, Benjamin

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple)

    Tootill, Robert

    Hogge, James Myles

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Wallace, J.

    Irving, Dan

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

    Waterson, A. E.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (merioneth)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Lunn, William

    Rodger, A. K.

    Wignall, James

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Rose, Frank H.

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

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

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

    Sexton, James

    Wintringham, T.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Mills, John Edmund

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)

    Spencer, George A.

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Spoor, B. G.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Myers, Thomas

    Taylor, J.

    Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. G. Thorne.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I rise to oppose this Motion. We have now come to the conclusion of this part of the Finance Bill. There have been many discussions of very great interest and on a great variety of subjects, and I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer is glad, at least, that he seems to be approaching the end of this stage of his labours. I am afraid the temptation I hold out to him will not be sufficient, when I suggest that he might now conclude the Committee Stage of the Bill by dropping this Clause, which really is the most obnoxious Clause in the measure, one more calculated to arouse party passions, and one which has brought into the Division Lobby against him a greater body of aggressive opinion than any other Clause of the Bill. My appeal to the right hon. Gentleman falls on deaf ears, and I will therefore address it to the Committee, and ask it to reject the Clause. It is essential, if we are to consider this question properly, that we should carry our minds back to the circumstances under which this legislation was embodied in the 1909–10 Budget. The Committee really cannot adequately grapple with the question if it merely considers the phraseology of the Clause in that Finance Bill or the immediate circumstances under which that Bill was passed. It is also necessary to consider the policy which that Finance Act has enshrined and the causes which led to its being placed on the Statute Book.
    The great social fact in connection with our industrial prodominance was the aggregation of our people in the towns—
    2456
    in the great cities and in the large mining communities, marked as that aggregation was by a diminution in the number of those who lived in the country. As that diminution took place, and as the growth of population in industrial centres proceeded, it became evident to all concerned that one effect was, that as these communities developed the value of the land rose proportionately with the increase of population, and with the enterprise and effort on the part of the citizen. The more an energetic community welcomed expenditure on local needs the higher rose land values, and those values went, not to the community that created them entirely, not a fraction of them passed to the community, but they all passed into the hands of the men who owned the land of the country. That appeared to many social observers to be a grave monopoly. Every political economist from the time of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and Professor Marshall has suggested that there is no tax which a community might more properly employ than a tax upon the land values which the community itself has created. There were innumerable Royal Commissions and Select Committees in regard to this matter, and as far back as 1885 a Royal Commission recommended that there should be such a levy on land values, bearing in mind the fact that enormous sums, running into many millions, created by the community, passed into private hands, the community receiving no levy from it whatever.
    There was the additional disadvantage that the system was such that the owner of the land found his greatest advantage in keeping the land out of use as long as possible, because the longer he held it

    2457
    the greater became the demand of the community and the greater was the price which he was able ultimately to obtain. That had this obvious disadvantage, that the price of land being forced up in that way, it was impossible for those dealing with the housing of our people to provide gardens for working people, or, in the great cities, to provide the ordinary workman with a cottage of his own, with the result that there was terrible crowding and terrible congestion, and in all large cities, in the working-class districts the death rate among the children, deprived, as they were, of sunshine and fresh air, was twice as high as the infantile mortality in the districts where the richer people lived and where they were not crowded so closely together. It was no wonder there was a rising tide of indignation against a system of this kind, and there can be no doubt whatever the effect was the legislation ultimately placed on the Statute Book.
    The great agitation conducted by the present Prime Minister, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, prior to the passing of the 1909–10 Budget, had its root in this desire, that those who mere obtaining these large social values for themselves should be called upon to make a contribution to the public revenue. The Prime Minister pointed out again and again how, in his view, those who were able to obtain for themselves these social values had done nothing to earn them. In picturesque language he spoke of the case of London, and he asked what the great London landowners had clone which entitled them to the millions of ground rents they were able annually to apply to their own purposes. He said these great London landowners had done nothing by the exercise of their enterprise or by their own expenditure to create these values. London was a swamp, and the landowners did not even create that, and upon that theory he based his scheme that there should be legislation with regard to this matter. In order to show that I am not misrepresenting what the Prime Minister said, let me give a very brief quotation from a speech which he delivered in Carnarvon in December, 1919, in connection with the agitation with reference to this point. He was then in the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would
    2458
    ask the Committee to consider whether, if we had had to-day a Chancellor of the Exchequer animated by the sentiments which animated the present Prime Minister in 1909, we should have been presented with such a Budget or such a Clause as this. What did the present Prime Minister say? He said:
    "We say the country has need of money, and we are looking out for someone to tax."
    So far the position of both Chancellors is the same. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
    "We do not want to tax food; we will tax no man's raiment; we will not tax the house that shelters him and his family. What shall we tax? We do not want to tax industry; we do not want to tax enterprise; we do not want to tax commerce. What shall we tax? We will tax the man who is getting something he never earned, that he never produced, and that by no law of justice or fairness ought ever to belong to him."
    Holding those views, he endeavoured to give legislative effect to them in the Budget of 1909–10. I admit at once that, in my view, his legislative achievement did not fully realise the anticipations he had held out to the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members cheer, but why was that so? It was because from the start there was such a rally on the part of the landlord class and those whom they could influence against that Budget, that, even before the Budget was introduced, compromise had begun. Instead of having the direct tax upon land values which the country had been led to expect, we had these taxes which we are discussing to-day—the Increment Value Duty, the Reversion Duty, and the Undeveloped Land Duty. In my view these were compromises, and the reason, very largely, why it is possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come down and forcibly propose to repeal the Land Values Duties to-day is the fact that, as we are finding out in connection with so many matters, compromise inevitably results in such a hotch-potch that there is no satisfactory policy at all. There was no doubt the initial disadvantage that it was necessary, for the purpose of piloting the Bill through the House of Commons and endeavouring to get it through another place, to make concession after concession, and so we had the Budget in the form it was ultimately passed.

    2459
    I was going to say, so far so good, but it is, rather, so far so bad. I have already indicated what followed. The landowners of the country formed themselves into an organisation which sought to repeal the Budget and get rid of the valuation and of any levy on Land Values. So far as they were content with public agitation, one has no complaint to make. They had every right to make an appeal on the ground of reason and argument to their fellow countrymen. That appeal, however, did not fall on very fruitful ground. Whenever elections took place on this issue, whether general elections or bye-elections, the Land Union cut a sorry figure. At the election in January, 1910, and again in December, 1910, large majorities of the people of this country expressed their approval of the proposal embodied in the Budget, that there should be a levy on Land Values. Even subsequently, when the Courts had begun to give decisions, and it was evident that the duties were not of the full effect that was expected in regard to production of revenue, the candidates who were most successful in a whole series of by-elections were those who declared that the work already done ought not to be scrapped, but that we should go forward and make an effective levy on Land Values.
    The Land Union raised a large fund. They employed the very best legal advice in the country, and they endeavoured, so far as they could, to find such errors in draftsmanship as would enable them to bring actions which would make these taxes inoperative. It has, of course, to be admitted, with regard to the Undeveloped Land Duty, that so long as the Scrutton judgment remains, and no legislative action is taken for the purpose of altering the law as it emerges as the result of that decision, practically no Undeveloped Land Duty at all is being collected. With regard to the Reversion Duty, the result of the Camden case has been that, until legislation takes place, a very small amount can be collected. In the case of the Increment Duty there is, I believe, still a substantial yield, but we had the Lumsden case, and that is one action in connection with these taxes of which I express no disapproval. It established that the Increment Duty was not solely a land value duty, but partly a tax on builders' profits.
    2460
    So far as it is a tax on builders' profits, it was not intended by the House of Commons, and should not be carried through. Apart from the cases coming under that judgment, I believe there is still a fairly substantial yield from the Increment Duty. In the main, however, it is perfectly true that, for these reasons, the yield has been disappointing. Our hope that the result of the Undeveloped Land Duty would be to bring land into the market, and so assist housing and relieve congestion in towns, has not been realised, because the tax is not operative.
    What the Chancellor now says is, "You have here nothing but so much wreckage. What you have to do is merely to get rid of it and have a perfectly clear field again." That may seem plausible, but I should like to point out that it was not the view of the author of the duties in 1914. Every one of these legal decisions had been given before War broke out in August, 1914, and the position as the right hon. Gentleman describes it to-day existed then. What was the view of his chief then? Had he come to the conclusion which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has reached to-day, that, because these difficulties had arisen, it was necessary to get rid entirely of this policy? No; on the contrary, the Prime Minister then said that what was to be done when these difficulties had arisen was to take fresh steps by way of legislation to see that the levy upon land values, which the people of this country desired, should take place, and that there should be amending legislation for this purpose. I will give a few short quotations to establish that, because I think it is important. Although this Budget has been presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he serves under a Prime Minister who passed the Budget of 1909–10, and he has informed the House that the Prime Minister is an assenting party to his action. It is quite true that in 1912 these difficulties had not fully developed, but they had developed partially. What was the view of the Prime Minister then? What he then said was:
    "You have got to free the land, the land that is to this very hour shackled with the chains of feudalism."
    That is as true now, in 1920, as it was in 1912. What was the Prime Minister's view as to what should be done? Was

    2461
    it his view that we should go back? No! He said:
    "This Bill is a beginning, and with God's help it is but a beginning."
    In 1913 the Prime Minister had begun his land campaign. Did he seek to begin it upon entirely new lines? Had he come to the conclusion then that what was necessary was land legislation on other lines, that the proposal for a levy by way of land values taxation should be dropped, and that the valuation should be dropped? On the contrary, what he proposed then was, apparently, to strengthen his valuation. He said at Swindon:
    "We will have a valuation of the land of the Kingdom. We propose to hand over the whole of that machinery of valuation to the new Ministry of Lands."
    Apparently the passion for creating new Ministries is not entirely new. I do not associate myself, of course, with the proposal for that Ministry, because I think that, if the proposal for the taxation of land values is carried far enough, the land question will be solved without recourse to all this administrative machinery and expenditure upon new Ministries. At any rate, the view of the Prime Minister was not that the valuation should be abandoned, but that it should be strengthened, and, in his view, for the purpose of strengthening it, it was necessary to have this Ministry of Lands. That was in October, 1913. In January, 1914—if I may be allowed a personal reference—I was acting as honorary secretary to a group of 185 Members of the House of Commons, known as the Land Values Group. On their instructions I wrote to the then Prime Minister pointing out that, in their view, it was essential, if the land campaign was to serve any useful purpose, that attention should be directed to the question of the taxation and rating of land values. The Prime Minister replied to me, and amongst other things he said:
    "You may depend upon it that the Government definitely intend to utilise the valuation which they are putting there at great expense. There is no intention of shirking the issue; of that I can assure you."
    That was in January, 1914. In February he went a step further. Speaking at Glasgow, he then stated what the Government proposed to do, and practically all these legal decisions had then been given which, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, make wreckage of his proposals.
    2462
    So far from saying that that was a reason for clearing the rubbish out of the way and having nothing more to do with it, he said that what the Government proposed to do was to go a step further and to have a valuation which would be applicable not merely to a levy upon land values for Imperial purposes but to institute a system of rating of land values and to provide a system of valuation which would be satisfactory for that purpose. He said:
    "The valuation under the Act of 1909 secures for the first time a real valuation of the land and of the structures thereon separately, and I can assure you we mean to make use of that valuation. I cannot imagine there being any doubt in anyone's mind on the subject. I wonder why they think we have that valuation unless we meant to use it."
    I should like to make clear that I am not misrepresenting the Prime Minister, and I want to make it perfectly clear that he had in his mind a system of rating of land values for local purposes, and he proposed to take the necessary steps to secure that, and that was done after all these legal decisions had been given. He said:
    "We want new rating. I do not profess to know your rating system in Scotland, but I know the rating system in England and Wales very well, and certainly in England and Wales we want first a complete change in the methods of our valuation for assessment purposes. They are crude, inefficient and open at the present moment to a grave suspicion of partiality."
    Then there is the phrase I have read about the valuation securing for the first time a real valuation which was meant to be used:
    "Now the Government have already, through the chief, Mr. Asquith, accepted the principle of the rating of land values, and they intend to give effect to it by legislation."
    I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman is here, and very glad he corroborates that statement entirely.
    Mr. ASQUITH: It was the policy of the Government.
    Mr. RAFFAN: It was in a special sense the policy of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and he identified himself thoroughly with it and became very largely its chief spokesman. In May, 1914, three months before the outbreak of the War, he repeated that statement:
    "We are of the opinion that a national system of valuation for local taxation must

    2463
    be set up, a system which is fair and more equitable and more impartial between classes and localities than the present. We do intend that the taxation of site values shall henceforth form an integral part of the system of local taxation. That was what I meant by broadening the basis of taxation."
    That was the position when the War broke out. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to address himself to the question, what alteration the War has made which in his view renders it desirable that the right hon. Gentleman who voiced these sentiments and held these views should now come to the House of Commons and propose to abandon valuation, to abandon every one of these duties, to pay back every penny of duty that anyone has ever paid and to collect nothing in the way of arrears. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that in some way or other the War has so altered things as to justify him in taking that course. I shall be interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman explain why in his view it has done so. In my view the War has given a threefold reinforcement to the claim for the taxation of land values. In the first place the need of revenue is infinitely greater, as every speech delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the passing of this Finance Bill through Committee has shown. When we come to this stage that the right hon. Gentleman is obliged to invoke the party Whips, as he did yesterday, to secure for him £75,000 from the co-operative societies, which the obvious sense of the Committee left to a free vote was to reject, I think one is entitled to say if it was necessary to look round for someone to tax, as the Prime Minister said it was in 1910, it is infinitely more necessary to find sources of revenue now. The need of revenue is greater. That is the first change that the War has made.
    Then the fund available is larger. The land values of this country have increased. We do not get the figures because the valuation has not been kept up in such a way that the figures are available. But I think it is no exaggeration to say that if you are dealing with the land values of great cities like London, Liverpool, Birmingham and Glasgow, land values have doubled during the period of the War. Figures are being quoted in connection with transactions in London during the past few months which have never been heard of
    2464
    before. I remember a number of years ago when a little strip of land was sold in the city of London at the rate of £1,000,000 an acre, there were paragraphs in all the newspapers of the country about it. But the other day there was a transaction in which two strips of land were sold at a value of £5,000,000 an acre. I do not suggest, of course, that that is an average value even in the city, but you have transactions such as Devonshire House, where land is sold at the rate of over £1,000,000 an acre, and you have these transactions taking place all over the city of London, and I think it is no exaggeration to say that the fund available upon which taxation could come by a levy upon land values is infinitely greater to-day, probably, at least double the fund available in 1914. There is a third change that the War has made. The manhood of this country has been engaged from 1914 onwards fighting the battle of this country. They were appealed to by a recruiting poster, which pointed out to them the beauties of the land, and underneath was the legend, "Is not this a land worth fighting for? "The men of this land thought it was a land worth fighting for, and in France, Flanders, Mesopotamia, in every field of battle, they performed prodigies of valour. When these men come back I think they are entitled to say that at least some share of the value which they created and which they fought to defend should go to the common people. In my view, these are the changes which have come about as the result of the War. So far from being any justification for abolishing the valuation and abolishing these duties, in my view they give a triple reinforcement to the policy which the Prime Minister advocated in 1914. I think we are entitled to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if in his view there can be any reason except purely political motives for the action which he has taken.
    We are told, of course, the yield from these duties is small and the effect of them upon social conditions is negligible. I do not dispute either of these propositions, but what I suggest the right hon. Gentleman should do is what all his predecessors have done from 1914: keep these duties upon the statute book as the expression of the desire of the people of this country, manifested at two general elec-

    2465
    tions, that there should be a levy upon land values. Keep the valuation, bring it up to date, make it a really effective instrument, and then utilise the year which lies before you for making such inquiries as are necessary into the working of a real system of land values taxation—such a system as those to be found in Canada, in Australia, and in a great many of our Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman complained in his Budget speech that the Select Committee upon Land Values which he set up had not been able to give him very much assistance. I do not know how far he was kept informed as to the action which was taken at the sittings of that Committee, but the reason why the Select Committee on Land Values did not give him substantial assistance was that the Government neglected to give them the opportunity of so doing. The Committee was set up to consider the question of the abolition, the retention, or the alteration of these duties. At the very outset I and those who were acting with me asked whether it was permissible under the terms of reference to make an investigation as to the system of land taxation and valuation in the Colonies and other countries and to bring in a recommendation for an alteration of these duties and to substitute in their place a direct tax upon land values. I make no complaint as to the ruling of our chairman. He ruled that under the terms of reference it was not permissible, and then the Committee decided to ask the Government to extend their terms of reference to allow that to be done. I see a distinguished member of the Committee opposite who does not share my political views. I think he will agree that I am correct in my narrative. We met. I think, about once a fortnight for nearly two months—we were called to meet—but we could get no reply from the Government of any kind, either refusing to extend the terms of reference or granting our request, and we were ultimately compelled to bring in this Report, which, of course, gives no assistance to the Government, because those of us who thought the only proper method of dealing with this matter was to bring in a real levy upon land values were not, of course, interested in such patchwork proposals as trying to build these duties up again.
    7.0 P.M.
    I do not suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should set up a Select
    2466
    Committee again. It may be that this is a general objection to Select Committees, but a Select Committee which consisted on the one hand of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) and those who had for many years been associated with him in the campaign of the Land Union, and those who like myself hold very strong views on this matter, is, of course, a Committee which is not very likely to agree. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should stick to the valuation and bring it up to date, stick to the duties for this year. and himself take the necessary steps to investigate what has been done in the Colonies, especially in Australia, and try to devise between now and next year a system which will give us a real levy upon the land values of the country. If the appeal I make to him is an appeal which reaches only deaf ears, then one can only appeal to the Committee itself. If the Committee decides not only that these duties are to be sacrificed, but that the valuation which is the basis of any sound system of land values taxation is also to go, all I have to say to them is that those who think this is the end of this movement are doubly mistaken. There is no movement which has so profoundly touched the hearts of the people of this country as the movement for the reassertion of the rights of the people in the land, and although the right hon. Gentleman, who has, like the Leader of the House, fought these duties tenaciously, step by step and inch by inch, now has the satisfaction of seeing his policy carried through, I am quite certain that his action is only stirring up again a sentiment upon this question. Before many years are over we will have another Chancellor of the Exchequer—
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope so.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Who, although he could not be a more industrious or a more conscientious one, will on this matter be in greater accord with the sentiments of the vast majority of the people of this country and will give us in place of these paltry land values a real tax upon land values which will amount to a reassertion of the rights of the people to the land that God has given them.
    Mr. MYERS: I think I shall be reechoing the sentiment of every Member in this House when I say we all pay a

    2467
    tribute to the hon. Member who has just sat down, not only for his excellent and, in my view, unanswerable speech, but for the long period of sacrifice, energy, and enthusiasm which he has given to this question, both inside and outside the House. I feel that very little I can say will go in the direction of emphasising the case he has presented, but there are one or two points of detail to which I may. refer. I daresay that Parliamentary experience and records could be drawn upon during this last half-century or so for numerous Parliamentary and political contradictions, and the probability is that they will be produced, but in the whole history of Parliamentary procedure it would be very difficult to find a contradiction as glaring as the one which is under discussion to-night. Everything that has been said by the hon. Member through the quotations he has read to us as to the position in 1910 could be reasserted to-day with infinitely greater emphasis. The needs are greater, the demand is much more pressing, and the general situation in the country demands that something of the sort claimed then should be carried out now. Earlier in the Debate I referred to the Report of the Select Committee upon Land Values, and endeavoured to point out the tremendous work that had been done in the direction of forming a large staff, the energy and experience put into this particular Department, the tremendous number of documents sent out, the numbers returned, the decisions .arrived at, and the information collected.
    We have always asserted, like the hon. Member who has just sat down, that increasing land values are due absolutely to social developments, that land values are a social product, and ought to go back into the common fund, for the benefit of the community as a whole, never mind when or at what point. That is the general position upon which we stand. Now facts have been disclosed by the valuation, which embraces 56,000,000 acres of land in the United Kingdom. The land in North London was found to be worth£5,197 per acre, in South London £1,005 per acre, in South Lancashire £474 per acre, in North Lancashire £359, the West Riding of Yorkshire £201. Against that we have to put the average for Great Britain, £94 per acre, and the average for Scotland, £26 per acre. In the value of the land in these industrial and city areas that I have
    2468
    referred to there is obviously a value which is the result of the growth of the community and the activities of the community, and we say that, in some form or another, those values ought to be appropriated by the community.
    I am a municipal representative, and 16 years of municipal administration is an experience which teaches one something, particularly in this direction. At the outbreak of the war the local rates paid to the great rating authorities in England and Wales amounted to £70,000,000 a year. I understand, though I have not seen the figures, that the Minister of Health stated in reply to a written question the other day that that figure has now reached £100,000,000 a year. That is a great burden on the local authorities of the country. The people who come under the jurisdiction of these local authorities are subjected to all the influences which are surrounding our national life. They have been called upon to pay heavier national taxation, increases in the cost of living fall upon all of them, and, in addition to that, the extra demands that are being made upon them by the local authorities have jumped up from £70,000,000 a year to £100,000,000. Instances innumerable could be produced to show how in the development of towns, local rates have gone in one direction and the real proceeds of the value of the land has gone in another. In my immediate neighbourhood agricultural land is let at £1 and £1 10s. per acre. I have watched the district develop, houses and factories galore have been erected, and there is great difficulty in purchasing land—the land is taken largely on lease—and I know innumerable instances where agricultural land which was occupied as farming land and the rent of which was about £1 or £1 10s. per acre has been let for building land at 6d. a yard, which is £120 an acre; and the responsibility the landowner had for the local rates has instantly been removed from him. As soon as a house has been erected upon that site, the responsibility for the local rates has gone on to the bricks and mortar, and the landlord has walked away with the ground rent in his pocket and with no responsibilities to the locality. The Ministry of Health and the various public authorities in the country can tell us the amount of money that has to be paid for land for housing schemes.
    Here, again, we have had agricultural land let at £1 or £1 10s. an acre sold for

    2469
    our housing schemes at from £200 to £500 or £600 per acre. This increment of £500 an acre is taken by the landlord, and the responsibility for the local rates is pushed on to the people who occupy the premises If we could take that land value which has come from social development in the industrial towns of the land a tremendous development could be made in municipal enterprises, and something of this sort will have to be done in the future, because the Government cannot continue putting Acts of Parliament on the Statute Book which call upon the municipalities to do this, that and the other, and call upon the local authorities to provide the greater portion of the money; and if these great steps in the direction of social re-construction have got to be carried out. and carried out in the national interest, though applied locally, then it is the business of the State to find some revenue for that work.
    Sir WATSON RUTHERFORD: On a point of Order. For our guidance in this debate I should like to ask whether a disquisition on the rating of land has anything to do with the subject of the Increment Tax and the Undeveloped Land Duty, because if so we are going to have a general discussion which will probably last a very long time. The present point, as I take it, is as to whether this particular tax should be retained or not.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): This is a proposal to repeal the Land Values Duty, and I think that opens up a rather large subject. I do not know what may be said in the future, but, so far, I do not think I have heard anything going beyond the subject.
    Mr. MYERS: In addition to all the responsibilities thrown upon the owners and occupiers of dwellings, we have also the penalty which is imposed upon local authorities in other directions. There is not a local authority in the country requiring a school or any other public building which has not to pay toll to the ground landlord in excess of the value of the land for the public service it desires to put into operation. I am a believer in the doctrine that the entire increment of land should come to the community. The late Herbert Spencer, reactionary though he was in his later days, made a very definite pronounce-
    2470
    ment on this matter. He said, "The right of mankind at large to the earth's surface is still valid, all deeds, laws and customs notwithstanding." I agree with that declaration. I have advocated that doctrine, and I hope to do so again, and until the time comes when the community at large can secure for itself that heritage and rightful possession which I think it ought to secure of the income arising from these duties for public use and for public purposes.
    I think also, on other grounds, these duties and this valuation ought to be retained until some alternative source of revenue is found. The country to-day cannot afford to let go by the board any source of revenue. Obviously these Land Duties and this policy were put into operation for the purpose of raising revenue. We have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the revenue from this source has been £1,329,000, and that there is a sum of £541,000 owing in ascertained arrears. That is a sum of nearly £2,000,000, and if the tax were to be continued, that sum or more would be yielded. If there are any imperfections in these taxes or in their application, they should be removed by the Government, but I strongly suggest that they should be retained until some alternative method is found. Many have asked the question why these are being surrendered, and why this contradiction of policy as between now and 1910? I hope that the observation I am about to make will not be considered offensive, because it is not used in that spirit, and I make it because I conscientiously believe it, and that is that it is a surrender on the part of the present Prime Minister for the Tory support he has got in this House and the country. That is the sole reason, in my judgment, why this contradiction of policy is before the House. I wonder what the country is going to say upon this question if these duties are not continued, and if the arrears are not reaped in. We have had concessions amounting to nearly £2,000,000, and there was a concession of nearly £400,000 to the liquor interest, and a surrender on the question of a war wealth levy. What is the country going to say on this point when it puts against it the tax upon our co-operative societies, the tax upon the consumable commodities of the country and upon the breakfast

    2471
    table? It is going to say what it is entitled to say, that it is class legislation of the most pronounced character.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I expressed my opinion upon this proposal when, nearly three months ago, the Budget was first introduced, and I am not going to repeat at any length what I said then. There is the less occasion for going over the ground, so far as I am concerned, in detail, since my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan) has in a most able and brilliant speech, for such it was, stolen, as I am frank enough to confess, any little stock of dialectical thunder I may have had in reserve for the purpose. I do not grudge him at all what he has done, since he has made much better use of it than I could have done. But I must call the attention of the Committee to what I believe to be an almost unique situation. This Clause proposes to abolish the land duties, to cancel the arrears, and to suspend the whole process of valuation. It is not often in our legislative history that we directly reverse a policy which has been deliberately pursued by preceding Parliaments. That is a very rare event, but I believe it to be without precedent that a reversal such as that should take place at the instance of a Government, the head of which was the author of the policy which it is proposed to reverse. I know, at any rate, from my own experience and my reading of Parliamentary history, of no precedent or example for such a course being pursued. I am speaking within the recollection of many who were Members of Parliament in 1909 when it was proposed, and in 1910–11 when this policy was enacted. They will bear me out when I say that never was there a policy which had less the character of improvisation about it. We have seen a great many improvisations of recent years, and they have become the stock-in-trade of politicians and even of the Government. But the policy embodied in the famous Budget of 1909 was a policy deliberately conceived and subject, as I know well, to an amount of Cabinet deliberation which has hardly ever been applied to any specific political topic. It was debated in this House with a minuteness of discussion and acrimony of spirit and with an enthusiasm both in support and in antagonism which I cannot recall. It was passed by large majorities
    2472
    here in the House of Commons and rejected by the House of Lords, with the result that we were confronted with the gravest constitutional crisis of our time. What followed? We dissolved Parliament, we went to the country, and we got a majority.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: You lost 100 seats.
    Mr. ASQUITH: We got a majority quite big enough, not only upon this particular issue, to bring the House of Lords to its knees and to carry the Parliament Act also. I should be quite content myself, if I were ever to assume a responsibility of that kind again of leading this House, with such a majority as that which we had in the year 1910. We appealed twice to the country in the same year, and with the same result. Was there ever in our Parliamentary history a process by which with more deliberation in Parliament, and with more public discussion on the platform and in the country, a system of taxation was brought into existence and passed into law? None. I am not going—my hon. Friend (Mr. Raffan) has amply performed that task—to indulge in the alluring luxury of quotation. I will only cite, to show the view taken at the time, from a publication entitled "The Budget, the Land, and the People, the new land value taxes explained and illustrated. A complete guide to the great question of the day," issued by the Budget League, a very powerful propagandist organisation with which I am not ashamed to say I was connected, and which had for its principal organiser my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman). This publication had the advantage of a preface by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am going to read one sentence with which the preface started.
    "The land value taxes of the Budget of 1909 mark a new departure in the fiscal policy of our country. After a few years' experience they will, I hope, be as familiar and accepted a part of the apparatus of the tax-gatherer as the death duties, once so strange and so strenuously opposed."
    That is what we all believed and proclaimed on platforms, and what, so far as we can judge by the verdict of the constituencies, the country also believed. I am not surprised that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House look upon this Clause with a light heart. They would be

    2473
    less than human did they not regard it with equanimity. I will go further and say they would be more than human if it did not rouse in their bosoms a faint, decently repressed, emotion of exhilaration. When I survey the Treasury Bench at this moment I understand the absence, and I deeply deplore it, of the Prime Minister, for there never was an occasion when the House of Commons needed his presence more; but he is, as we know, engaged elsewhere in discharging Imperial functions. But I have looked and I have scanned that Bench and in vain for persons whose public duties do not require them to leave these shores, or even, so far as I know, these precincts, and where are they? I refer to my old colleagues who perambulated the country in my company and in the company of the present Prime Minister, preaching the pure gospel which is laid down in the little volume from which I have quoted. Where are they? I think the House would be glad to hear from them, and it would be much more appropriate than from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, some of the reasons which have led them in 1920 to jettison, I do not suggest, as my hon. Friend did, that party considerations have had anything to do with it, but I want to know, in the atmosphere of the temple of pure reason, what reasons have led them to jettison in the year 1920 duties which they and I agreed in 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, and 1913 were essential to a just and equitable system of taxation. As my hon. Friend pointed out just now, it is not as if this was a passing gust or wave of enthusiasm which swept off its legs the Liberal party or the constituencies of the country in 1909–10. On the contrary, up to the very outbreak of the War we were preaching the same doctrine, we were proclaiming the same faith. All the legal decisions which have been referred to; which whittled down and emasculated, as we thought, the intentions and effect of the legislation of 1909–10, had been already pronounced. They had been weighed and adjusted by the Government and their advisers. In the year 1914, some months before the outbreak of the War, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the authorised exponent of the financial policy of the Government, said—it was in the month of January—on the question of the rating and taxation of land values:
    2474
    "You may depend upon it that the Government definitely intend to utilise the valuation, which they are putting through at great expense, for this purpose."
    In the following month there is an allusion to myself.
    "The Government have already, through their Chief"—
    That is me.
    HON. MEMBERS: That is I.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I was trying not to be egotistical—
    "accepted the principle"
    —not merely the principle of these land taxes which are to be found in the Act of 1909—
    "of the rating of site values, and intend to give effect to it by legislation."
    What has happened to make this declaration, deliberately made—this again was not improvised, it was the result of Cabinet decision—an obsolete and negligible thing. which has no longer any weight or sanction?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman forgot the people who put him into power. That is what happened.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I am always interested in the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend, but I fail to see the relevance of that remark. I have not changed my view. I still believe, as my Chancellor of the Exchequer said in February, 1914, in the necessity, first of all, of the valuation, and next, as a consequence of that valuation, and as a proper purpose to which it should be applied, the taxing for public purposes, both imperial and local, of the site values of land. Further it has always been to me one of the great recommendations of the valuation and the taxation of land that land may be acquired by the community for public purposes at the same rate and upon the same terms upon which it was taxed. The converse is even more true, that it should be taxed and rated at the same price at which the owner is willing to sell it to the community, when the community wants to purchase it. I have not changed my views upon that by a hair's breadth.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I only regret that you did not do it while you were in power.
    Mr. ASQUITH: We were doing it; we were on the point of doing it, in the spring of 1914—as I have shown by the passage I have quoted—by legislation. Then came the War in August of that year which rendered such legislation impossible. If it is suggested that the War and the consequences of the War have made, or ought to have made, any logical difference in the position, I find myself totally unable to accept that view. The War has not altered the rules of justice between the different classes who ought to contribute to the revenue and expenditure of the country. The War has certainly not diminished the value of land. The War has certainly not in any way impaired the importance both of discovering new sources of taxation and of not abandoning those sources which are already at your disposal. So far as the experience of the War is relevant to the matter at all, it appears to me to enforce rather than to impair the arguments which were used in 1914. I should like an explanation of the change of view. I do not expect it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not ask him for it. He is perfectly consistent. He has been one of the doughty and resolute opponents of these duties from the beginning. I do not expect from him, but I should like to know from some of those who were ardent prophets, apostles and evangelists, some of them even displaying the energy of Boanerges himself, in the great crusade of 1909–10, what are the relevant considerations which made them not only acquiesce in, but become active parties to the repeal of these duties and the abolition of the valuation, after the experience we have had during the last five or six years. I remain impenitent. There is no reason whatever to change the views which I expressed in the Government of which I was the head of these taxes and valuations, regarding which we took very great risks in our endeavour to carry them into effect. I shall vote for the omission of this Clause.
    Mr CHAMBERLAIN: We have listened to two very interesting speeches. One was made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan), in regard to which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) paid a deserved compliment. In that compliment those who differ from what he said may be permitted to join. We have also had the speech of my right hon. Friend.
    2476
    The hon. Member for Leigh spoke with all the fervour and conviction of a prophet and with all the prophet's disregard of ordinary mundane conditions. My right hon. Friend never speaks with the fervour of the prophet, and on this occasion he is certainly the merriest mourner at a funeral that I have ever known. Indeed, I think I may say that the opponents of the Government in this matter are divided into two classes, which can be very clearly distinguished upon the opposite Benches. There are the followers of the prophet, men of deep and passionate conviction, who believe that they and their teachers have found a solution of all human ills, and that if we swallow their pill there will be no more earth. There is also a small but active body represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, whose principle interest in the Debate is the opportunity which it gives to them for baiting the Prime Minister.
    Mr. ASQUITH indicated dissent.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not wonder that my right hon. Friend regrets the absence of the Prime Minister. Bear-baiting in the absence of the bear is not a very merry sport. Nor am I going to spend much time in offering apologies for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has great qualities which all of us who have watched him in this House and still more those who have watched him in council recognise, and he has other qualities which those of us who at one time or another have been in opposition have been not slow to characterise with less condemnation. He is human, but he has one great quality not given to every man, and that is that in middle-age and after middle-age he can still learn. He is no coward who fears to own a change of mind or to admit altered conditions, and he is no pedant who refuses to alter any views which he first took up when a case was first presented to him. I trust the Committee will give some consideration to the condition of these taxes and the results which legislation has produced, and, if so, they will see that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his Government are right to repeal them, and that never was time or energy more lamentably spent than all the time and energy which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) says he and his colleagues devoted to the preparation and elaboration of these taxes. May

    2477
    I say before I deal with the taxes themselves, that it seems to me that the affection of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) for the taxes grows as the taxes approach their mournful end. I do not remember any note of enthusiasm or fervour in his early speeches on the subject. He told us a great deal about what passed in the Cabinet. Of course, I was not a member of the Cabinet, but rumours did reach us, and we never understood that my right hon. Friend was an early or enthusiastic convert to the principle of these taxes.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I would ask my right hon. Friend to apply to the Prime Minister and ask his views on that.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, I am speaking of something which I cannot know of my personal knowledge, and if the rumours that reached us were not correct and if my right hon. Friend says that, I shall say no more about it. I would ask the Committee to consider this as a business proposition. I wonder how many Members of the Committee have read the Memorandum presented by the Deputy-Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue on behalf of that Board to the Committee which was set up to examine this matter. That report was drawn up for the official information of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and was presented to me as one of the first matters which I must consider when I took office last year. It is a document drawn up, not by party politicians, not by people who were accustomed to take or do take any share in our party strife, but by officials whose business it was to make these taxes work, and he said that they are not workable in their present condition. It is a cold and damning document; an absolutely damning document. I do not want to trouble the Committee with too many quotations, but I would call attention to a few. Hon. Members will understand that I am omitting words in reading. It is on page 16. He says:
    "The general difficulties which have been encountered by the Board in connection with the work of valuation may be summarised as follows:
    (a) The necessity of assessing and collecting the Land Values Duties simultaneously with the process of making the valuation, thus diverting the time and energies of the staff from the work of valuation to work in connection with the duties,
    2478
    (b) The unusual nature of the values which have to be ascertained under the Statute, values of a completely new character with which neither expert valuers nor the public were familiar."
    Values which nobody had ever had to deal with, hypothetical values for the purpose of the tax not entering into any transaction of a common kind.
    Having referred to the prolonged and organised opposition which was offered by the public, they say:
    "Further, there were difficulties of a technical character which experience has shown to be inherent in the provisions of the Act itself."
    On page 17, Section 11, they say:
    "The complexity of the duties, especially of the increment value duty, is such that it is impossible for the taxpayer, except in the simplest cases, to form even an approximate estimate of the duty he will be called upon to pay, and even when he has received his assessment it is impossible in very many cases for him to grasp how it is computed without incurring the expense of employing expert assistance."
    They go on to the Undeveloped Land Duty:
    "Since February, 1914, its assessment and collection has been suspended in consequence of the judicial decision which laid down that the basis adopted was wrong, and which directed a basis which is not capable of practical application as being the basis."
    That is not all. My right hon. Friend dwells lovingly on the great purposes for which he cherishes these taxes. He wants the land to be developed and not held up against the public. He wants the public to buy land at a fair price. So do we, so do the Government of which I am a representative, and the Government, in this House of Commons, have proved it, not by mere observations in Debate, but by the passage of the Land Acquisition Bill for the acquisition of land at a fair and just price. What help do you get out of these things? Undeveloped land duty was to fall upon land that was ripe for building and which the owner was wrongfully holding up in the expectation of a greater profit. In so far as that duty has been operative, it has failed to achieve its object, namely, to tax land which was ripe for building, but was held up for other purposes. On the contrary, in practice, the tax has not fallen upon land which was ripe for building to any great degree. It has fallen on land which has a building value, but

    2479
    was not ripe for building, and which nobody at the time could be found to build upon. It is exactly what we said would happen and what my right hon. Friend denied. Facts are stubborn things. It is all very well to be a prophet, but it is not worth while to prophesy as to results which happen so quickly afterwards that you live to see the falsification of your own prophecies. The expectation which the right hon. Gentleman held out, and which he used as a justification for the tax to-day, has been absolutely falsified. Next, apart from these drawbacks, the duty has proved most difficult and expensive to administer. Experience has shown that a tax of this character does not lend itself to work as a centralised tax. That is the undeveloped land duty.
    Coming to increment value duty, we are again taxing what nobody wants to tax; what we said it would tax; what the right hon. Gentleman said it would not tax. But he promised to amend it, but the Bill was never able to be got through.
    "Apart from other difficulties, administration"
    —says the Board in paragraph 18—
    "was further rendered difficult because in the case of a very large number of assessments it is necessary to make difficult mathematical calculations and apportionments both of the increment value duty which arose and of duty paid or deemed to have been paid on previous occasions and to apply highly scientific principles for ascertaining the amount of duty payable."
    They go on to say:
    "As time elapses constant apportionments and reapportionments and calculations of previous apportionments are applied, and add still further complications. Cumulatively the effect of all these difficulties is overwhelming. The charge upon minerals is one which, except in a limited number of cases, produces most inequitable results and yields no visible revenue, and drastic amendments are necessary if it is to be rendered workable."
    Finally, come to the Reversion Duty, where
    "The duty is largely in abeyance in consequence of the decision of the Court, and further legislation will be required to make it work."
    When I hear my right hon. Friend describe and dwell upon the unparalleled, almost unexampled, care which they gave to the preparation of this measure in these long Debates and
    2480
    contrast it with the hasty improvisation of a later Government, I think that, after all, there is something to be said for hasty improvisation by practical men instead of long Debates by men of theory producing something which has no relation to practice and is unworkable.
    That is the case against these duties. From top to bottom they are unworkable. You cannot make them workable without an immense mass of new legislation. You have got to alter and change and alter again. Why are they what they are? I grant that as they were introduced they might have been workable and might have produced a revenue. But they ceased to be workable and to have a chance of producing a reasonable revenue in proportion to the cost of collection because of the concessions and Amendments which were made in the passage of the Bill through this House. But do you suppose that those were made by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member or by my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister out of love of the Opposition, or with the intention or belief that they would ruin the taxes? Nothing of the kind. They were wrung from them by their sense of justice, because they could not sit on this Bench silently and let the case, which from different quarters was put to them, go by default, and simply vote it down without giving any argument against it. Their sense of justice did not allow them to permit the injustices which the Amendments were intended to remedy. The consequence is—and I call attention to it because it is the inevitable result of trying to apply these simple theories drawn from the circumstances of new countries to the complicated conditions of a country with an old-established civilisation in a thickly-populated land—was that in trying to prevent the injustices which would have arisen from the original proposal they made their proposals unworkable or non-revenue producing.
    In those circumstances what are we to do? I think I have got work enough on my hands in this Budget. I was not encouraged—I should not have been encouraged in any circumstances—to undertake the immense work of revision. amounting to a complete re-casting of the taxes, the repeal of the old taxes and the provision of new taxes, in the present

    2481
    year, even if I thought it desirable. I thought, and my colleagues agreed, that in the circumstances the right thing was to recognise facts, to admit failures, and to act like sensible men, rather than to be afraid of the taunts of gentlemen whose consistency is shocked by political or personal antagonism, or moved by that prophetic fervour which is admirable in the individual, but dangerous in the polity of the State. My right hon. Friend wanted an explanation of the Prime Minister. I have given as much explanation as I think the circumstances require or the Committee expect. But has my right hon. Friend himself nothing to explain? I wish he had quoted from himself. He said:
    "I now come to the final charge against this tax"
    —that was the Undeveloped Land Duty.
    "The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) having made it before, repeated it this evening. He said that this was not a fiscal proposal in any sense at all, on the ground that the yield of the tax would be less, or certainly would not exceed probably this year the actual cost of valuation. I do not assent to the right hon. Gentleman's proposition. I defend this tax and all the taxes contained in this Finance Bill as fiscal instruments, and if anyone can demonstrate to me that they are not I shall agree that they ought to be excised from the Bill. I shall agree that they shall be excised if anyone can show that they will not be useful, profitable, and fruit-bearing for fiscal purposes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th August, 1909, col. 318, Vol. 9.]
    Mr. RAFFAN: That was before the Scrutton judgment.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That judgment declares the law but does not alter it. I wish that the late Prime Minister had quoted that to the House and justified it in relation to its present attitude. What are the facts? The taxes have yielded £1,300,000 in the course of the years they have been imposed. There is duty assessed, but much of it assessed on a wrong basis, to the extent of another £500,000. That is a maximum yield to date of something below the figure of £1,800,000. The cost of the valuation and collection which was estimated by my right hon. Friend's (Mr. Asquith's) Government at £2,000,000 in all, has been £5,000,000. We have spent £5,000,000 to obtain a valuation which is useless for every other purpose in life.
    Mr. RAFFAN: The valuation alone has not cost £5,000,000.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The cost of valuation and collection from the inception has been four times the revenue earned.
    Mr. RAFFAN: It is nonsense.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Behold the prophet! I did not interrupt my hon. Friend, but with his permission I am going on to say what he would probably call more nonsense. It is all nonsense which does not agree with his sense. I have given the history up to date. What of the future? Suppose we legislate to reverse every judgment which has gone against the claims of the Crown. Suppose we have everything our own way. What do you suppose is the annual r venue that you might conceivably expect to get? I am told that the possible yield may be about £600,000 a year, probably rather less, and the probable annual cost for collecting these duties, apart from other duties attached to the men employed in the Department, would be £400,000. You have an annual cost of collection £400,000, and an annual revenue of £600,000. That is a net advantage to the whole body of taxpayers of £200,000, or less, I should think, than would be spent by the individual taxpayer in providing the infomation required by the Inland Revenue or in checking the calculations on which the Inland Revenue sought to assess you. I call upon my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) for an explanation. I call upon him for more. I call upon him for action. He said he would agree that these taxes should be excised if anyone could show that they would not be useful, profitable, and fruit-bearing for fiscal purposes. I call upon him to fulfil his undertaking and to support me in the Lobby.
    Major BARNES: If these duties are repealed we now have the assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the effect will be to make a saving of £400,000 a year in the Department. I gather that he is going to get rid of these Duties. He has made up his mind, and all the evidence goes to show that he has a sufficient majority to get his way. We do not blame him or wonder at it. It is extremely natural that he should desire to repeal these duties. He has said nothing that is not perfectly consistent with his attitude from the beginning, and he is entitled to a very natural triumph. One is rather surprised that the right hon.

    2483
    Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) is not here to share that triumph. If we are not all fox hunters we are sufficiently "sports" to understand that we are beaten on this point. The Chancellor is going to get rid of the duties, and he has told us that he will save £400,000 a year by doing so. I am rather amazed to get that figure from him, because he probably does not know that I spent five or six years of my life in trying to make this valuation and I know something of the Department. Moreover, I was on the Select Committee, whose report I have in my hand. I am very surprised to learn that the effect of throwing over the Duties is to make a saving of £400,000 a year in the Department.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say it would make a saving of £400,000 a year on the present expenses of the Department. What I did say was that to collect a duty which might produce £600,000 a cost of £400,000 would be involved.
    Major BARNES: This question about figures is rather unfortunate, because I am sure that a large part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that these taxes are not worth collecting, that they were very costly, that they entailed a great burden on the taxpayer, and that they produced very little result to the revenue. That is a proper attitude for the Chancellor to take. His business is to get revenue with the least annoyance, with the least amount of work, and with a view to the greatest possible return. I certainly gathered that his argument was that if we go on with these taxes, and if we get all our own way, the most we can get is a revenue of £600,000 a year, and that it will cost £400,000 to get it. It seems to me that the argument then is that if we do not go on with the taxes and do not get the £600,000 a year we ought to save the £400,000. We have at last really got to a saving.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: You have to provide for the new work that will be required, but the cost of collecting the taxes would be that. You cannot stand idle doing nothing. The reductions in the Valuation Department have been enormous.
    Major BARNES: I am disappointed with the Chancellor's statement. I look upon him as one of the fairest Members
    2484
    of the House and as one whose arguments may be taken most explicitly, but in his last argument I fear that he was rather misleading us in stressing the point of the cost of this tax, if he now tells us that he is not going to save this amount, that he is going to get rid of these duties, but, at the same time, the staff that would be employed to collect the duties must be retained. If that is so, it is not quite fair to put the whole cost of the staff against the cost of the duties.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have tried to be frank and fair. I never said that, starting from the position in which we are to-day, you could make a saving of £400,000. In the position in which we are to-day you could not collect the taxes. The difference between having them to collect and not having them to collect is £400,000 a year.
    Major BARNES: The difference between having them and not having them is £400,000, but that £400,000 is not going to be saved; some portion of it is to be spent.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. That is the additional charge. I will not interrupt further.
    Major BARNES: I want to address myself to some of the difficulties. It is not a simple matter of expense; it is not that the tax is a small tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a number of taxes which produce no greater amounts than these duties. The tax on films, I believe,. is bringing in an even smaller amount than these land taxes, but he is not abandoning them on that account. In regard to the Tea Duty, the right hon. Gentleman said he was not prepared to throw away money for an economic theory. He is throwing away a certain amount of money here, because during the years the taxes were imposed they have brought in something like £1,300,000. The arguments that have been addressed by the Chancellor against the duties have not been addressed against the principles of the duties as such, but against the difficulties of applying them. One remark able thing about the action of the Government in this case is that, just at a time when they are converted to the principle of increment value, they are throwing it over in these duties. Those hon. Members who were in the House when the Indemnity Bill was introduced will re-

    2485
    member the speech of the Solicitor-General. One finds that the Government has adopted the principle of increment value in dealing with rum, but that the principle is thrown overboard in dealing with land. In the controversy on the Budget it was said against us that we attempted to deal with the land as if it was a special kind of commodity to which special principles could be applied, and when we said that land acquired a particular value given to it by the community we were told that that value pertained to a great many other articles as well. The Government seem now to have arrived at the position that, while there is a value given to a great many commodities by the demand of the community, they must throw that principle overboard with regard to land. What was the whole basis for the increment value taxes? It was that land acquired a special value owing to the needs and demands of the community. in the speech to which I am referring the Solicitor-General said:
    "When you talk of market price, are you talking of something that is a genuine market price, or are you talking of something to which a fictitious value has been given by the needs of the community?"
    That was a case in which a quantity of rum was requisitioned by the Government and. the owners of the rum wished to have the market price. The point of the Government's case in refusing it was that the price was caused by the demand of the community. I think the price that was wanted was 50s. a gallon, and the Government, I think, actually paid between 20s. and 30s., and they contended that the whole of the difference in price was due to the soldiers' demand. That was the whole basis upon which the Increment Value Duty was imposed in the Budget, and it seems a strange thing, at a time when the Government has adopted this principle and is applying it on a huge scale under the Indemnity Act in respect of a great many commodities which have been requisitioned by them, that they should be abandoning the principle in the particular case of land with which we are now dealing. It seems to suggest that in the counsels of the Government the influence of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) is on the increase and that of the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) is on the wane. When they take increment value off the land
    2486
    and put it on to rum, it seems to suggest that the landowners have got the better of the brewers in their influence upon the Government. If it is true that the general principle of increment values has been adopted, it is also true that the practice in applying these taxes is largely adopted now. What was suggested at the time of the Lumsden case was that the Increment Value Duty was taxing the builders' profit, and that was looked upon as something which they ought not to do, but the situation is very different in these days. We have not got the same views about taxing profits as in the days of the Lumsden judgment. A great outcry at that time was made about taxing builders' profits, but to-day, under Excess Profits Duty, we are taxing everybody's profits, and therefore it seems to me a strange thing that, even if Increment Value Duty, under present Conditions, has the effect of taxing profits in this particular direction, we should be abandoning it at a time when we are extending the principle of taxing profits in all directions. If in 1913 there had been any effort made to reverse the Lumsden judgment on the ground that it was taxing profits instead of increment, there would have been a great deal of opposition, but the point of view has been so changed by the War that if the Government had brought forward legislation to reverse that judgment and so enabled Increment Value Duty to be collected, they would have met with very little opposition at all at the present time.
    Then there is the Reversion Duty, in which there was a judgment which turned on a very simple point. The whole question was whether the value was to be taken as a deferred value or as the actual value, and a comparatively small alteration would have been required to make that tax effective. In regard to the Undeveloped Land Tax, it is generally believed that very great difficulty would be felt in bringing agricultural valuations up-to-date. The real position there is that the Scrutton Judgment turned on a very simple point, as to whether, in deriving the assessable site value of land, you were to deduct the grass or not. The Commissioners took the view that you were not to deduct the grass growing on the land, and the Court took the view that you were. If these duties had been looked at purely from the point of view

    2487
    of the present financial position and the necessity for getting in all the revenue possible, the Government would have found it comparatively easy to introduce a small Bill with a few simple Clauses, and that Bill could have been passed almost by consent, the effect of which would have been to have restarted the whole machinery of these duties. I think, in proof of that assertion, one need only point to the passage of the Land Acquisition Bill, in which, so far as it went, was embodied one of the principles the maintenance of which by the Courts held up the Increment Value Duty. The two main causes of stopping the collection of Increment Value Duty were the Lumsden Judgment, under which it was held that builders' profits might be taxed, and the Plymouth Case, which was a judgment in which it was held that you had to take into account the special needs of special purchasers. That position, that you had to take into account the special needs of a special purchaser, was abandoned by the Government in the Land Acquisition Bill, and we have in that Bill a Clause laying it down that in determining the market value of land for public purposes you are not to take into account the special need of the special purchaser.
    I make that point simply to enforce my argument that the difficulties that have been presented by the Chancellor were not so great as were made out by him and that the amount of legislation that would have been required in order to make these duties really effective was not considerable, would not have been complicated, and would, under present circumstances, have met with a very large measure of consent. Those who have read this report, which has been referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will perhaps realise that the machinery of these duties was a plant of two units, that all over the country you had the valuations going on, and in London you had the assessments being made. The real difficulty and the real congestion, so far as there were difficulty and congestion, was not in the making of the valuation, or even in the task of coming to an agreement with the people concerned. The real congestion took place in making the assessment, and what has broken down has not been the valuation machinery, but the assessment machinery, and I think that, to a very
    2488
    considerable extent, does prejudice the report on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer relied so much.
    In his Report one of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue set out the general difficulties encountered by the Board in connection with the work of valuation. The first was the necessity of assessing and collecting the duties simultaneously with the process of making the valuation. The difficulties were not by any means insurmountable, and I think the proof of that can be seen by referring to the progress of the valuation which accompanies the Report. If those figures are examined, I think they show that, so far as the original valuation was concerned, by the end of September, 1915, the percentage of the valuations that were made amounted to within two or three per cent. of the whole amount that was required, so that at the end of 1915 the number of provisional valuations that had to be settled were only two or three per cent. of the whole quantity. On page 50 there is a table showing the number of provisional valuations which had become final on or before 30th June, 1914, and it shows that in the whole of Great Britain 5,752,687 valuations had been served, and that out of that number no less than 5,000,000 had become final, and that there only remained about 11 per cent. of valuations which were still to become final. That does not necessarily involve that they were under dispute. The progress of the valuation shows that they were being served at a very considerable rate at the latter end of the period, and I have not the slightest doubt that of those valuation, 671,794, which were not final, probably 400,000 or 500,000 were not final, as the period had not elapsed during which they had to run, so that really the position as regards these duties was that if it had not been for the War the valuation would in all likelihood have been entirely completed at the end of 1915. I cannot help thinking that if that had taken place, a very great improvement would have been made in the progress of assessment which has taken place in London.
    Unfortunately for those who support the valuation and duties, one of the effects of the War undoubtedly was to impede the progress of valuation. Another effect was that in respect of the new taxes—the great increase in Income Tax and the Excess Profits Duty—it put a strain upon

    2489
    the Commissioners of Inland Revenue which, I think, made them rather anxious to get rid of these particular taxes. They did feel them to be a burden, and that the work thrown upon them was not commensurate with the returns the duties were bringing in. That was undoubtedly the case, and their feeling was a very natural one. But what I suggest is that now the War is over, and we are settling down, more or less, to a settled fiscal policy, when every £100,000 which can be retained is required, when the work of valuation is practically complete and some portion of the staff can be put on to the work of assessment, these taxes might have been retained at least for another year or so, until some alternative could have been found either to put in their place or the machinery improved. While we cannot accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any inconsistency so far as his attitude towards these taxes is concerned—he thought they were bad at the start, and he thinks they are bad at the finish—yet, from the standpoint of doing away with revenue without providing an alternative, I do not think he is taking up the same attitude with regard to this tax as he does with regard to other taxes in the Budget. When he was pressed to do away with the Excess Profits Duty, how did he meet it? He said it was a bad tax. I am not sure that, in his opinion, it is not a worse tax than the Land Values Tax. But when he is pressed to. do away with the Excess Profits Duty, his answer is, "Give me an alternative, and I will do away with it."
    In days like these it is generally agreed that taxes are not only to be put upon wealth, but also upon industry. It was the strong argument of the Leader of the House last night, when the Government was faced with a crisis over the Corporation Profits Tax, after the striking speech made by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). One would have thought that the Chancellor, in going into this matter, would have said: "Here is an amount of revenue required; is there not some alternative to the proposal to withdraw these taxes?" The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), last night, in dealing with the Corporation Profits Duty, suggested to the co-operative societies that they might find some alternative to that tax. He said to them: "Accept the present proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and come to him between the
    2490
    Committee and the Report stage with some alternative method of being taxed." I think the Chancellor might have put that doctrine into force in this case, and might have suggested to the owners of land that, seeing they derived certain benefits from the community in which: they lived, that they might be prepared, if they did not like the present taxes, to suggest an alternative method of raising. the money.
    It is from points of view of that kind that we feel that these duties that are-being abandoned without proper consideration as to the position. It is quite sound that the Chancellor should be guided partly by personal considerations, but mostly by the consideration of the revenue to be obtained. At the same time we cannot entirely ignore the effect which a tax will have upon the general community. You cannot divide the government of a country into watertight compartments and deal simply with big questions from a narrow and limited field of vision. On that ground the Chancellor does not seem to have arranged this tax the same way as he has done the rest of his Budget. The tax, he complained, was a complicated tax, difficult to understand, and part of his argument was the irritation and annoyance which this tax gave to those upon whom it was imposed. That is certainly something to be taken into account. But there is another side to that. Here the right hon. Gentleman is going to throw away a probable £314,000 to placate perhaps 4,000 people, and is going to endeavour to get hold of another £l175,000 while irritating something like 4,000,000 of people. So that from that point of view, we think we are entitled to feel that some amount of sectional consideration, it may be class bias, has come into this particular tax.
    I cannot help feeling that when the people of this country hear that in the Budget, where enormous taxes are being imposed upon the working classes and a sum of £350,000,000 is taken from theme in direct taxation, and where some of the commonest articles of diet—tea, sugar and the rest—are bearing a very heavy burden, that in a budget like this, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not only remitting the present taxes of the owners of land, but is actually reimbursing the taxes that have been paid in the past, they will be disappointed,. to say the least. Indeed, already it has

    2491
    produced a very bad impression, indeed, upon the community. The Chancellor suggested that it would be an unfair thing to allow people who had paid their taxes cheerfully and willingly to bear the burden of them, while those who had been dilatory and reluctant were allowed to escape. That, on the face of it, seems to be a fair thing. But when he followed that up by telling us that a great deal of this was paid in very small sums, and that it was very unlikely that these small sums would be claimed, what it really amounts to is this, that the benefit of this reduction is going into the pockets of people who can very well afford to do without it. This money, so far as it is returned at all, will be returned in large sums to those people who in the past have undoubtedly reaped most largely from the growth of society and the development of prosperity in the communities in which they held land which they subsequently sold. From all these points of view it appears to me, and not at all from the party point of view—for I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is open to the criticism which might be very rightly and justly urged against some of his colleagues—and I do not think his action has been challenged on the ground that he has not got a fairly impartial mind and detachment as between the various taxes imposed in his Budget—but in considering this proposal he has allowed himself to be swayed by other considerations than those applying to the taxes which form the main part of his Budget. He has conferred a benefit upon those who did not need it, and he has increased the burden upon those who are already heavily burdened.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: We have listened to several speeches from the other side of the House, some in favour of retaining these taxes, others against. I am going to follow the line adopted by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, who in a very excellent and enthusiastic speech appealed to the Chancellor to retain these taxes until such times as some alternative proposal has been put forward to replace it. I am going to appeal as a Welshman to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to keep this child of the Prime Minister alive. I have vivid recollections of the elections which took place in Wales in 1910. I am just thinking of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr.
    2492
    Towyn Jones) on the Benches opposite. In those days every little village, every hamlet, every Nonconformist chapel in Wales was filled with leaflets urging the people to sing "God gave the land to the People." I believe the hon. Gentleman opposite joined in the song himself. It was sung in the day schools by the children, and by others. I am not saying what I do offensively, but if these land value taxes are repealed I am afraid that it would cast a grave reflection on the political reputation of the Prime Minister in so far as Wales is concerned. There is no doubt about that. We fought two elections on the land question in 1910, and the votes at the election were given in favour of it. Now the votes given during that period have been flouted by a combination of Liberal and Tory Coalitionists so far as the Government is concerned.
    I think we are all bound to admit that the Act was badly drafted. It was intended to be a blessing to the people of this country, but it proved to be a blessing to lawyers instead. That, however, is no reason why this Act should be repealed at the present time. We think the Government ought to wait until such time as they can put forward some alternative proposal. The Increment Duty is 20 per cent. on the capital value of the land, the Reversion Duty is 10 per cent. on the expiration of a lease, that is a tax to be put on undeveloped land, and a 5 per cent. duty on minerals. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is a business man and I would like to ask him, does he know of any concern that pays its way during the first 12 months or two years? It does not.
    This business has not paid its way, but with the increased value of land to-day and with the increased increment in the value of land as a result of the exorbitant prices that have been charged in London and other cities it would pay the Chancellor to retain these taxes during the next 12 months, and collect them, and that would add to the revenue instead of being a loss. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested some time ago that if anybody could suggest to him a channel or source from which he could get £50,000 he would gladly act upon that suggestion. Here is the suggestion. In consequence of the exorbitant price of land the Government would be able to draw a very magnificent sum in so far

    2493
    as the increment value of land is concerned. Leases are running out day after day and week after week. The proposal of the reversion duty of this 10 per cent. is one of the very finest things that has ever been introduced into this country.
    I will give one illustration. I am taking the house that I live in. I pay a ground rent of £l3 10s. per annum on a 99 years' lease. Probably I shall not live for the 99 years, but if I do there will be paid ground rent to the extent of £350. It states in the lease that when it expires the house is to be handed back to the landlord in good repair and in good condition, after receiving £350. After a period of 99 years the house goes back to someone not yet born. Those to whom the house will go have not even contributed a brick towards the construction of the house, and that is one of the greatest injustices that can be imposed upon the working classes of this country who have endeavoured to build a little home for themselves.
    I come now to the machinery set up in the Valuation Department, and the money which has been spent upon it. You had a chief valuer for this country and for Scotland, you had second and third-class valuers, draughtsmen, assistants, and hundreds of clerks carrying out the work of that Department. You had enormous bills for stationery, draughtsmen's instruments to pay for, and thousands of books and ordnance sheets. What is going to become of all the statistics and information that was gathered by this Department, which is a sort of 20th century Domesday Book? What is going to become of all that if the Act is repealed? Unless the Prime Minister has completely changed his mind and forgotten his Limehouse speech, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will listen to this appeal and keep this tax for another twelve months, or until such time as some new Act or other provision has been made in order to replace these Acts.
    I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that every home in the land understands the land question, and the people are going to resent the repeal of these Acts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said across the Floor of the House that he was going to refund the money that had already been collected, because Mr. McKenna had given a pledge in this House that that should be done. I want to point out that that is one of the chief causes why Mr. McKenna
    2494
    lost his seat. I want to say this, that the Division lists for to-night will be scrutinised in the country, and there will be a good many other Members who will lose their seats. This question is one of the utmost importance. We derive everything from the land, all the necessities of life come from it, we get our coal from it, we get from it the clay and stones needed for building houses: Indeed every individual in this House to-day is himself a part of the land. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to postpone this proposal for 12 months. The child is not yet dead. It will not die until the Division bell has rung, and then we will have its funeral procession through the lobbies. I am appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to save the life of this child, and at the same time to save the political reputation of the Prime Minister, so that we may eventually solve this great land question which lies at the root of all the social evils we suffer from in this country.
    9 0. P.M.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I am one of the Members who in the year 1909 tramped unceasingly through the lobbies of this House day and night in support of the present Prime Minister in order that these duties might be placed on the Statute Book. I can well understand the attitude towards this tax of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of other right hon. Gentlemen on that Bench, for if I recollect rightly they were among the strongest opponents of the duties in those days. I am glad to see at least one Liberal Minister has the courage to be present on that Bench. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke (Major Barnes) referred to the land songs that were sung in the year 1909–10 and I venture to say that at that time there was no greater land reformer who stepped out of Wales than the hon. Gentleman now sitting there (Mr. Towyn Jones). Everyone sang those land songs in those days and the hon. Gentleman was among the loudest of the singers. It would be very interesting to hear hon. Gentlemen, who at that time supported the taxes, now state the reasons why they are determined to acquiesce in their omission from this Bill
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a passage with the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), said that after the first Election of 1910 the party which proposed these taxes lost over a hundred seats. I would venture to remind the

    2495
    Government that, so far as Scotland is concerned, that was not the case. We went to the country holding sixty or sixty-one seats out of seventy, and we came back, after a contest, in which we had clearly and fully explained this tax to the Scottish people, with exactly the same number of seats as we held before the Election. That, I suggest, is a very material point to be borne in mind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech, appeared to me to make out a very good case not for the omission of these Land Duties, but for their revision. Many Bills have been passed through this House that have proved in certain respects to be unworkable. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the battles we had in the year 1911 over the National Insurance Act. I would like to ask how many Acts have since been passed amending that Act—two or three at least. I suggest in all seriousness that if in certain respects these Land Duties have have proved unworkable for the reasons stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, the concessions that were made to the Opposition when they were going through the House—it was the duty of the Government to come down to the House with legislation in order to improve the machinery for the collection of the duties. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke suggested that the duties should not be cut out of the Bill, and that at least a period of 12 months should be given in which further consideration could be devoted to the matter. That is another alternative that is open to the Government. What are the real facts of the case? They are, of course, that the Prime Minister, in this respect, has given way to the views of other Members of his Cabinet who opposed this tax in the year 1909, who disliked them then and who dislike them now. He has given way to those views, and it is for that reason that we are asked to pass this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from the Report of the Select Committee on Land Values, and in doing so referred to the opinion of the Chairman of the Inland Revenue Committee. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer had turned over a few pages and quoted the opinion of Mr. Harper, the Chief Valuer of the Board of Inland Revenue. If I may be permitted to do so, I will give a few
    2496
    quotations from the evidence put forward by that gentleman, as they are very material to the point we are discussing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this Department, which had been set up by the Land Valuation Department, was useless for every other purpose in life. What does Mr. Harper say on that point of the utility of the Department for other purposes?
    "The experience and information gained by the staff during the progress of the original valuation has been of considerable advantage in connection with other duties. they have had to discharge."
    Then Mr. Harper goes on—and this is of much importance in considering the reasons why neither the Department nor this Duty should be dropped:
    "The original valuation now forms a reliable record of practically all real poverty in Great Britain. It is not an ordinary valuation such as might have been obtained by payment of appropriate fees to a large number of practising surveyors working independently. It is a detailed analysis of values made by a single co-ordinated staff. It could not have been prepared except by a staff specially trained for the work. It can afford information not merely of the values of individual poverties and of the distribution of value over various areas, but also of the constitution of each of the different values with details of the way in which they are built up. The difficulties referred to in previous paragraphs, while increasing the time and cost involved in the work, have compelled the recording of a great quantity of detail in a thorough manner, and all that is now necessary is to keep the records up to date and revise the values from time to time."
    That is what the Government do not propose to do. They propose to scrap the whole thing. In regard to the future, what did Mr. Harper say? Presumably we can take his evidence as being that of a gentleman with great experience and great knowledge, and this is what he says with particular reference to the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—
    "The future value and utility of the work done in the original valuation will largely depend upon the maintenance of the existing organisation and the machinery under which particulars of conveyances, leases, etc., of land are presented to the Inland Revenue Department."
    I venture to say that this Department has saved the Government, and the country, and the taxpayer millions of pounds more than it has cost in its maintenance and upkeep. Turning to Table "D," Estate Duty Valuations (England

    2497
    and Wales), at the end of this evidence, I see that, up to the end of March, 1919, the increase due to this official valuation under the Land Valuation Department amounts to £41,338,383. I do not wish to weary the Committee with arguments which have already been placed before them in favour of the retention of these Duties, but I very deeply regret that the Government has put these Clauses in the Bill. I believe, and I think my right hon. Friend will agree with me, that in Scotland, at any rate, there are no two opinions on this matter. In Scotland the vast bulk of people of all parties and of all opinions look upon these Duties, and upon the Land Valuation Department, as the beginning of a fiscal instrument which in years to come would provide very largely for the financial necessities of the State. It is no argument to say that, because these Duties are not now bringing in more than a few hundred thousand pounds to the revenue, they could not bring in more in future. If the machinery is revised and the necessary legislation introduced to make the Duties effective, they could very easily be increased. We know, of course, that that would not meet the views of some Members of the Government, but it ought to meet the views of the Prime Minister, under whose standard and banner many of us have fought for these Land Duties. I must say that I have given up all hope of anything in the nature of land reform from this Government. I do not propose to travel outside the scope of this Debate, but I merely say, and I hope that at any rate some hon. Members opposite will agree with me, that we have had a succession of Bills none of which have fulfilled our hopes and expectations. There was the Land Acquisition Bill, which was disembowelled in another place, feeble enough as it was here. There is the Agriculture Bill, which is now being discussed upstairs, and there are other Bills of a like nature. I venture to say that throughout many parts of Scotland this action of the Government will be deeply deplored, and that in days to come those Members of the Government who happen to represent Scottish constituencies and have to explain their attitude to their constituents, will have one of the hardest tasks that has ever faced them in the whole course of their lives.
    Mr. JOHN MURRAY: I have sat through this Debate with a deep sense of bereavement, feeling, as a great many more hon. Members must feel, that I have been assisting at the death of an old friend. Something seems to be dead, but something seems also to be alive. I should like to hazard to the Committee my idea of what it is that is dead, and of what it is that remains alive and will have to be dealt with, either by this House of Parliament or by some subsequent House. In my opinion, what is dead and is going to be buried to-night is a number of false theories of taxation. First of all, I would mention the theory that we heard a few moments ago from the Front Opposition Bench that everything comes from the land, that we come from the land, that we are the land, and that, therefore, presumably, all taxation ought to rest upon the land. The fallacy is in supposing, in the first instance, that taxes are placed upon commodities instead of upon people; but let us examine it a little more closely. Is it the land that we really need? We do not live by land; nobody can eat land. What we eat is bread. Shall we put the tax upon bread, or shall we not rather put it upon the person, because taxes rest upon persons and not upon things? Shall we pass it on to the baker? To argue so, in a matter of taxation, seems to me to be nothing more or less than rhetorical sentimentality. If the land is so important, if bread is so important, if the baker is so all-important, we may resort to one of two alternatives. We may pass on all our taxation to the baker, or we may make a god of the baker, make him the lord of creation, and free him entirely from taxation. Taxation seems to me to be entirely distinct from sentimental reverence or partiality for any caste among men or any kind of commodity. I hope that that false theory, which goes back about 150 years, is going to be well buried to-night.
    One theory is that taxation does not suffer by being mixed up with other motives. With the Unearned Increment Tax I have great sympathy. I believe in it as a tax. But those who imposed it, while believing in it as a tax, believed in it also as something entirely different, namely, as a great engine for altering the social face of the country. It was a great way of getting at the land in the

    2499
    interest of the community. Therefore, you had a political motive mixed up with the taxing motive, and the result has been to ruin the tax as a means of raising money. Another phase of this taxation, with which, personally, I have no sympathy, is the tax upon undeveloped land. That tax has a double aspect, and was initiated for two reasons—firstly, as a means of raising money, and, secondly, because it was thought to be a means of bringing land into the market which ought to be brought into the market. There, again, there is a confusion of ideas, a mixing up of two motives, and the net result has been that neither has the land been brought into the market nor has the money been raised. Those are three theories—or rather one theory and two exemplifications—which, it appears to me, are going to be well buried to-night
    I am glad to say that that is not the whole of the story. There are things which are very much alive to-night. The first is the interest of all communities in the land on which they stand and in its rising values. The second is the grievance, whether great or small, of a man who desires to use land for a factory or a dwelling and cannot get it because the landlord will not sell at his price. My question to the Government, supporting them, as I do, in the burial of these false theories, is, what are they going to do in substitution for the duties which are to be repealed to-night, and what are they going to do for the community and its just claims to the values which it creates for the land on which it stands? And what are they going to do for the man who needs land and cannot get it? As to the first point there are many answers. Some people say nationalise, and some say municipalise. If I might venture a suggestion it would be neither to municipalise nor to nationalise, but to put it to the owners of landed property in towns that they are in an exceptionally favourable position, and that they ought to live up to it. They ought to conceive of the land as being a great and primal need of the community and as a thing that ought to be at the service of the community upon some terms of co-operative holding. I suggest the trustification, under a new set of conditions to be established by legislation, of land in municipalities. Secondly, as to the single man who cannot get land to build on and
    2500
    whose hard case was going to be relieved by this plausible and spurious duty upon undeveloped land, why should he be in a worse case than a public body which, when it needs land for a good purpose, can have a valuation made and settle it in a court of law? The grievance of that man, so far as it exists, is not a taxation grievance at all. It is not a grievance or a difficulty which can be met by any method of taxation. Taxation is a détour, and in my opinion a cynical détour at that. If there is a grievance, if there is someone who wants a piece of land and there is a landowner who is holding it up, let the matter be brought to court and settled in judicial fashion, and let it be kept entirely away from questions of taxation, for our experience since the Budget of 1909 has been that if you mix up taxation with other motives and other purposes, political or social—and this has a big application quite apart from the taxation of land values—that taxation will not be successful.
    Mr. SPENCER: One has listened tonight with mixed feelings to the case which has been put by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government. One can very readily understand the attitude that he and some of his Friends are taking up to-night, because, at least, they have been insistent in their constant opposition to these taxes. The opposition to taxation of land values is based upon principles and upon questions of expediency. To-night the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he is opposed to this form of taxation because it is unfruitful. It does the maximum of harm and gives him the minimum return, so far as money is concerned. But one needs to remind him that he has not been guided right through this Budget and the Finance Bill by the question of fruitfulness. If he had, he would never have pressed the question of the Corporation Tax upon the co-operative societies, because, so far as they are concerned, it is going to yield less than he is going to give up to the great landlords under this Clause. You cannot judge the value of the Land Taxes by their return to the Exchequer. I have not an extensive knowledge of theory, but I have some immediate practical knowledge, and I have some knowledge of the operation of this tax when it came into force. A good many hon. Members upon these Benches have received

    2501
    part of their training on local authorities, and they have had some experience in the purchase of land. I distinctly remember that before the 1909 Act was passed, in the district on which I served on the education committee, we were paying about 7s. a yard for land to build schools upon; but as soon as ever the 1909 Act was passed, and we required land again in close proximity to the land we paid 7s. a yard for, we could get it for 2s. So that the fruitfulness of these Clauses cannot exactly be judged in the immediate returns to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They must be looked at from a wider point of view, and from that wider point of view—from the point of view of the general public—these taxes have been very fruitful indeed.
    Again, in looking at the question from the point of view of fruitfulness, one has not to allow one's mind to dwell upon the immediate return to the Exchequer, but one has to consider to what extent this source is capable of yielding revenue. This is a source whence the Chancellor of the Exchequer can derive almost unlimited revenue if he will take the trouble to derive it. In the "Times" of 9th June there was a report of a sale which had taken place at 36 and 38, Cornhill. In one instance £430 was paid per annum for the site and in another instance £285. It worked out per annum in the first case at £323,000 per acre, and in the second place at £270,000 per acre. That would realise, if capitalised at 5 per cent. £6,500,000 per acre. When we are approaching this question from the point of view of its fruitfulness, we have not to ask ourselves how much is it yielding now, but how much is that source whence the tax has come capable of yielding. The value of land has been derived not from anything the landlord has done, not because of any contribution that he has made, but simply because of the fact that the public are there, and it is out of the labour and energy and industry of the people that this land has derived its value. In considering this question of fruitfulness the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not allow his mind to rest merely upon the £200,000 he is going to derive, but he ought to extend his consideration to the possibility of the source whence he can derive infinitely more than that £200,000. That is one consideration. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say that to make this tax of any value
    2502
    would require very complicated legislation. Why should be not have that complex legislation? If the source whence you derive this revenue is capable of yielding revenue, and if the tax is a just tax, then however complicated legislation may be, that legislation certainly ought to be got. I have an impression in my mind that if legislation of a complex character were required to impose bur. dens upon the labouring classes it would be readily passed through this House. If it is necessary to pass complex legislation to derive the revenue that is essential, surely the House of Commons would be prepared to pass such legislation. However, I venture to think this House of Commons would do no such thing, because the Report from whch the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has been reading indicates that there is very great opposition to this tax by the people from whom these few hundred thousand pounds have been derived, and I venture to say the opposition is not based upon the fact that they have had to pay these few hundreds of thousands, but upon the fact that the landlord when selling his land has been faced by the valuation which has been made, and wants that valuation swept entirely aside. Therefore, by propaganda and the use of all the agencies he could bring into play, the landlord has been using all the powers he has got to make this tax as unpopular amongst his section as he possibly could. The Report from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been quoting goes on to say:
    "Organised opposition to the valuation has been extended also to the assessment and collection of the duty. The smooth administration of taxation must to a great extent depend upon the consent of the public to bear the tax imposed upon it. In the case of Land Values Duty such consent has never been apparent on the part of the bulk of the taxpayers affected."
    That is to say, that so far as they are concerned there has been strong opposition to this form of taxation. A little booklet which the Land Union has circulated—and I think that without any offence I may say that the Land Union is the mouthpiece of the great landlords of this country—says that it is unfair to impose taxation upon land values. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted to defend the removal of the tax from that point of view, but they do, and they say that the land has to bear Estate Duty and Legacy Duty and Succes-

    2503
    sion Duty, and Income Tax also, and that for these reasons it ought not to bear the further imposition which the 1910 Act imposed upon it. The statement that it does bear Estate Duty and Legacy Duty and Succession Duty is not true. They are not based upon the land as land, but are based upon the fact that a person has died and the person who is going to succeed has this immense fortune handed over to him, and he has got to pay, not because it is land, but because it is a fortune. Therefore, when the Land Union say they are having to pay these things, they cannot say they are having to pay because it is land, because it is not so, and the deduction is entirely wrong. On the other hand, they say the imposition of this tax has retarded building, and that we are suffering to-day from the imposition of this tax. Housing should never depend at all upon private enterprise. It is not true to say that housing has been impeded because of this tax. It has been impeded because people can derive a greater advantage by investing their money in other directions. Housing should be made a question of public consideration rather than a question of private consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking this afternoon, said he opposed this tax and this valuation because it was a fictitious valuation, not a valuation based upon something which approximated to reality. He called it, I think, a metaphysical valuation, and he wanted a valuation based upon the fact of the exchange of the article, from one day to another. That valuation would set entirely on one side any benefit the public could hope to derive from a genuine valuation. On this side of the House we want a policy which will fix once and for all the value of the land, and, then, whatever increment is derived from that land should pass to the community. Why do we on this side believe in the taxation of land values? In the first place, we believe in it because a great deal of the land of this country which actually belongs to the people, has by the use of the legislative machinery of this House and of another place been taken from the people. In many instances for land which is supposed to be possessed by men belonging to this House or the other House, they can show no legal title. I have been associated with a co-operative stores, which in three
    2504
    instances has had to purchase land from the lord of the manor, who was a very Noble Member of the other House, and in each of those three instances no title deed whatever has been forthcoming from the supposed possessor of the land. We have had to take the signature of the chief agent, who has stated that to his knowledge the land had been in possession of the Noble Duke for more than 20 years, that being the only title deed they had to the land at all. We say this land is the property of the community, and if it was taken wrongfully and unjustly when our forefathers were comparatively ignorant and asleep, it is not wrong now to impose a tax upon it, and it would be right and virtuous to take it back again and give it to the people to whom it belongs. The next reason why we believe in the taxation of land values is concerned with the increment value. I have a case where land was sold recently in London at a figure which, if capitalised, would come out at £6,500,000 per acre. Where has all that value come from, year by year? It has come from the industry of the people employed there. That is a source that is capable of yielding a great deal of revenue, and it is a source that certainly ought to be taxed. Machinery should be put in force in order to derive more taxation from this source. The Prime Minister stated years ago that the annual increment of London amounted to £10,000,000, and that of Glasgow to £2,000,000. There is a great source of revenue. Instead of scrapping the machinery the Chancellor should make it effective in order to get more money and to enable the people to get hold of parcels of land for building, smallholdings, and agricultural purposes. You are losing a sum of £1,300,000 and not collecting arrears of £500,000, and at the same time you impose a tax of £175,000 on the co-operative societies, and the other day a Minister told us they had no money to increase unemployment benefit beyond that 15s. I ask the Chancellor to retain the money received, collect the arrears, and make this machinery more permanent and productive, and if he adheres to his present attitude, let him go to the co-operative societies and say, "In view of what we are doing for the landlord, we will revise the Budget and free you from the imposition of the Corporation Tax."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The first thing to be done in speaking in this Debate is to congratulate the Land Union. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) remarked to-day that, this reversal of a considered policy of one Government by another in the matter of taxation was unique. That is not so. In my researches I found that in 1418 Parliament even in that day passed a Land Tax. So horrified was the Land Union of that day at the imposition of that tax that in the following year it was not only repealed, but it was ordered that the record of it should be expunged from the records of this House. They were more thorough in that day, but not much less thorough than is the Land Union now that it has got the whip hand of the Government of the country. They have been consistent throughout. These taxes were not popular with the Land Union, which means the great vested interests of the landlords of this country. They were only introduced one day when the great protagonist of the Land Union, and I think its author, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), rose in his place and remarked, with authority, as it turned out, that the taxes would not lead to any surplus, and that they would be wrecked. Addressing the present Prime Minister he said:
    "I venture to state to the right hon. Gentleman across the Floor of the House that I shall absolutely refuse to make any such valuation at all."
    And he stuck to his promise, and by influencing the rest of his kind they have wrecked the valuation and taxes. He was replied to by the present Prime Minister in these words:
    "The hon. and gallant Member says that he for his part will not send in any declaration of value at all. If that is to be the attitude of the landlords in the Kingdom, then I agree that the valuation will be a much more costly valuation, and in that case all that will have to be done will be to send a valuer at once to the landlord's property."
    That was a right threat, but unfortunately it was not carried out, and Form 4 has not been answered to this day. When we are told that these taxes are a failure we must not forego our tribute to the Land Union for their capacity to make good the threats of their representative in this House by refusing to act upon an Act of Parliament by which they broke that Act of Parliament. This is a lesson which we on these Benches will be slow to forget.
    2506
    It is possible to refuse to work Acts of Parliament. We have in this Session a Mines Bill and an Unemployment Bill, and we have threats that those Bills will not be worked, and I am quite confident that the great unions who say that they will not work those Bills will be as powerful to do so as was the Land Union to break the Land Values taxes. We ought to understand how it is that for the first time in our modern history we have seen a vested interest too strong for the Government of the country. In the first place, we must admit that the Government of that day which introduced these taxes was pushed into them from outside, and was not heartily in cooperation with the spirit that introduced the taxes. They were forced, and they had very strong opposition to these taxes in their own party. Little surprise need be expressed at the fact that, as these taxes went through this House, they were whittled away, amended out of all recognition, and, finally, rendered unworkable by the process of giving way to the vested interests. That has had a large share in the wreckage of these taxes. Another reason why they failed, and why they are now being repealed, is that they were a compromise intended to please the people outside who were asking for taxation of land values, and at the same time to satisfy the landlord interests in this House. Take the Increment Duty. This is an admirable case in point. It was a compromise which was finally put into the Budget by Mr. McKenna. He was always an opponent of the taxation of land values, and, therefore, he invented this Increment Tax as a compromise. The Increment Tax never had the support of the people who wished to tax land values. For my part, I am heartily glad to be rid of that tax; but it was based upon the fundamental view that land values are in an entirely different category from what we call capital; that land values are the creation of the community. No one put this view better than the present Prime Minister. In defending the Increment Duty, which we are repealing to-day, and which was a tax of 20 per cent. on any increase in the value of land, he said:
    "We are taxing the owner of this kind of property not upon something which he has created by his own capital or by his industry, enterprise, or foresight, but entirely upon that part which is created by

    2507
    the enterprise or industry of the community as a whole."
    That is the fundamental distinction between land values and any other sort of property. The value of any piece of land anywhere is in fact the exact measure of the benefits conferred upon the owner of that particular plot of land by the community. I do not think one could better illustrate the profound distinction between land values and capital than by the illustration which I am about to give. Suppose you went to some hard-headed business man who has no theories but who knows how to make money, and you said to him, "Here is a little village. In 10 years it will be a great city. In 10 years the railway will have replaced the coach. In 10 years electric light will have replaced the candle. In 10 years this little village will be a city, full of all those inventions and economies which so enormously increase the productive power of labour. In 10 years, will the interest on capital be any higher? He will say, "No." He will say, "The interest on capital will be exactly what it is to-day. In fact, if there is a larger supply of capital than there is now, interest on capital will be lower." Then you say, "in 10 years will the wages of common labour be any higher?" He will say "No. The wages of the common labourer in the big city will not be any higher than in the little village. In fact, the labourer will be lucky if he does not find that the growth of the village into the city has produced more competition among his kind and has actually driven down his wages." "What then," you say to your hard-headed business man, "will be higher?" He will tell you at once that the value of the land will be higher, and he will say, "Go and get yourself a piece of land for your own possession." And if you act on his advice you need do nothing more. You may sit down and fold your hands. You. may go up in a balloon or down a hole in the earth, and in 10 years' time you will be a rich man. At the end of 10 years your wealth will have accumulated, and among the public buildings in that town which has sprung from the village will be the union workhouse.
    That is what happens whenever civilisation develops. Competition prevents capital or labour getting any higher wage or any higher return, but land goes
    2508
    on rising in value as the community increases in number and increases industrially, and the owner of the land reaps the benefits which should go to the whole community. There you see the distinction between land and any other form of capital, and that distinction is at the bottom of the opposition of the landlord interest to-day. They know perfectly well that, in so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts taxes upon income or upon capital, those taxes, sooner or later, are transferred from the person upon whom they are originally levied and on to the backs of the community. If you tax anything that is produced by man, the production of that article is restricted, the price, therefore, rises, and the consumer pays the tax. If you tax wheat, your bread will cost you more. If you tax boots, your boots will cost you more. The more you tax capital, the more your capital will cost you. But there is a profound difference between any taxes such as those, taxes which are almost welcomed by the capital interests of this country, because they know that they can pass them on, and a tax on land values or upon any form of monopoly. They know quite well that a tax on land values is the only tax that cannot be shifted. Let me prove that from the Debates of 10 years ago. The right hon. Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), then the Member for the Black-friars Division, made the position perfectly clear. He said:
    "I am glad to have had from the leader of the Opposition an admission of the fact that this tax would diminish the selling price of land, because it is a conclusive answer to many who still say with regard to the proposition for a tax on land that the landlord is going to shunt it on to somebody else. The landlords know better than that. They know that they are not going to shunt it on to anybody else, and that is the true inwardness of their opposition to the taxation of land values."
    That is perfectly true. The real reason of the success of the Land Union has been that these taxes cannot be shifted by the landlord on to the tenant or on to anybody else. They definitely injure the vested interests in land monopoly throughout the country. The same may be said of any other tax upon a monopoly. Any taxes upon monopoly are paid by the monopoly owner, because the monopoly

    2509
    owner is already getting out of the community all that the community can pay. Therefore, the tax cannot be shifted and the monopoly owner pays the tax. There you have the grounds of the opposition to these land values taxes. These taxes were resented not on account of the amount of money that would definitely be transferred from the pocket of the landowner to the community—restored, rather, by the landowner to the community—but they were resented because they might lead up to taxes which would definitely break their monopoly, force land on to the market, and force them to sell land at slaughter prices to anybody who wanted to get it. With these Budget taxes I was looking forward to the creation of new industry in this country. I hoped to see landlords employing commercial travellers, just as manufacturers employ them travelling round the country offering goods for sale, offering the land which they have to sell. We did not succeed in breaking the land monopoly. Instead of that they have done their best to break the community.
    The tax that more nearly fulfilled our wishes on these Benches was the ½d. on undeveloped land. That tax was never put into operation at all because the law courts upset anything that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer could manage to get through the House, but that tax certainly, if it had been imposed, would have forced land on to the market and brought the land everywhere round towns down in price. That would have been a crime from the point of view of the landlord, but an unmitigated blessing from the point of view of the community, because, after all, cheap land is what we most want in this country. Cheap land means greater production. Every time I see right hon. Members opposite going about the country preaching to the working classes that they ought to produce more, I wish the working classes would ask them to give them a chance to produce more, because production must depend first upon access to land. Unless you can get access to your raw material you can produce nothing; as long as they do their best, as they do in the repeal of these duties, to keep up the value of land and to increase it as long as that is their main policy it is obvious that there is less chance of production to those who want to get land to produce wealth for the whole of the community.
    2510
    Right hon. Gentlemen prevent others from getting the raw material which is essential to them. Little wonder, we are told, that the working classses will not work hard or produce all that they might produce at the present time. If there is only just enough work to go round human nature and common sense tell the worker that he must share that small amount of work that is available out equally among the number, so that one man working too hard does not mean that another man shall lack work altogether, but that will only continue so long as there is only just enough work to go round. If once we could throw open all the raw materials of the world to the workers of the world there would then be endless opportunities for producing wealth, and production would increase and prices come down.
    10.0 P.M.
    I do not know how I can make clear to this Committee that if they want to increase employment and prevent unemployment the only way to do it is to give a fair chance to the worker. The only sort of work that is worth doing is useful productive work. There is no use employing the people to dig up farm colonies with spades when they can do it more economically with ploughs. That is only making useless work for people. There is no good employing people to sweep the streets by hand when there is more economical machinery for doing it. It only means useless work. The only thing worth doing is to increase useful productive work. Every sort of useful work you can think of is taking some part in the conversion of land or raw materials into something that is required. It begins by the application of labour to land and raw material. Neither capital, nor organisation, nor labour will get the work unless they can get raw materials. Just that sort of work which we want to increase depends on access to land. It depends on making land a little more accessible to labour. One of the ways in which one can increase that sort of work is by making land more accessible than at the present time. That is by making it cheaper. Every time land falls in price the opportunities for production increase, and, speaking of land generally, I mean minerals, clay pits, sand pits, building land, every sort of natural product. If those products are made more accessible to labour,

    2511
    that is made cheaper, then there are opportunities for more work to be done. Naturally the people who own these raw materials, who own nature, object very strongly to what they owe being brought down in price. Even though—it is only natural, too—it must be of inestimable value to the whole community both in order to absorb the unemployed and get things produced cheaper, even though the interests of the whole community are in favour of cheap land and raw material, the owners of land and raw materials will strongly oppose it.
    We are not all philanthropists, but it is the business of this House to look at the question from the point of view of public interest, and we cannot have a clearer example of the opposition between the public interest and the vested interest. It is the interest of the vested interest, the landlord, who owns all the raw materials, to keep the prices up, and it is the interest of the whole community to get those prices down, and is your legislation to be directed towards assisting vested interests to keep up the price of what they own or bring it down? Any sort of tax levied on land values will not only bring the price of land down, but enable this country to produce more. I submit that it is a case where the owner's interest must give way to the interests of the community if we are to get through the critical times in which we are at present. We shall have unemployment before a year's time far worse than ever before. At present we are taking no steps to meet that except by putting our hands in our pockts to provide a fund to keep these people when out of work. Nobody wants to see them out of work or kept out of benefits. What we want to see is that they should get employment quickly and access to raw material to start work.
    I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—quite hopelessly, because the present Government must do what the Land Union tell them—that he should scrap these very unsubstantial, unsatisfactory Land Duties and replace them by something that is seriously meant, something that will not only bring in revenue, but, above all, will bring down the value of the land. I am not concerned with the revenue side so much as I am with the cheapening of land. It seems to be far
    2512
    more important to provide opportunities for employment than to provide revenue, and everything we can do to cheapen raw material is far more important to everyone in this country than to make provision of revenue for State purposes. We suggest that there should be a real valuation of the land of this country. We do not expect that we can ever get a satisfactory result from the present valuation. That valuation has been destroyed by the action of the landlords through the Court, who are naturally enabled by the intricacies of the original Act to make the working of that Act far more difficult. What we shall do when we do resurrect these taxes will be to have a fresh valuation, and next time a landlord's valuation, such as the valuation in Australia, for instance. Every landlord will be asked to send in the value and the plan of his property, and anyone who does not send them in will be held to have surrendered his rights to that property. That will deal with the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) and his like, who refuse to send in valuation. The valuation will be on lines almost similar to the valuation passed in Australia about 18 years ago.
    We shall use that valuation for two purposes. In the first place we shall use it for a general tax, which will enable a certain amount of revenue to come in. We take Schedule A of the Income Tax, which is the Income Tax based upon all landed property and at the rate of 6s in the — now brings in something like £30,000,000 a year. That is a tax which at present is levied upon the annual value of property, land and houses together. We shall not levy any additional burden on property owners, but we shall base it, not upon the annual value of land and buildings together, but upon the land value of each man's property. Some men will pay more, some will pay less, and some will pay exactly the same, but they will pay upon the land value and not upon the building or improvement value. The same burden will fall upon property owners as a whole, but all those who have improved their property by putting up buildings or factories or who have made two blades of grass grow where one grew before, will find that their burden will be lighter because they will have had above the average of improvements effected upon their property. On the other hand, those

    2513
    who have starved their land of capital, who have allowed it to run down, whose house property is falling to ruin, will find that their burden will be enormously increased. In that way there will be an incentive to people to improve their property and a distinct incentive to the bad landlords to clear out and let someone else get their land and use it instead of allowing it to lie idle.
    I am sorry the landlords in this House do not like that. They are not likely to like it. I am quite aware that many of them think that the only way to get round it is to laugh at it, but we know perfectly well that they who laugh at it to-day will smile on the other sides of their faces a little later on. It is not necessary to deal with Limehouse speeches in order to deal with landlords. The ordinary elector in this country is perfectly alive to the fact that by the repeal of these duties and by this Budget they have been "done" by the landlord, and they are not likely permanently to put up with that state of affairs. You may be in this House in a majority now, but it will not be very long. I have dealt with the general tax. We also propose to use the valuation in order that local taxation may be put on a sound foundation. Everyone knows that at the present time the landlords and the farmers escape the payment of their proper contribution to the rates. Agricultural farms all over the country are assessed far below their proper value, many of them at one third of their value, whereas the small holder and the allotment holder alongside are assessed at the full value of their property. In that way small-holdings and allotments are prevented, in that way any improvement in agriculture is harassed and stopped. What we propose is to use a new valuation as the new assessment upon which local taxes as well as this Imperial Tax can be raised. All local rates can just as well be based upon land value as upon the present annual value. Property will be contributing exactly the same sum year by year to the local rates, but there again the people who improve their property will benefit, and those who do not improve it will suffer. That is what we want.
    The man who builds upon his land finds now that his assessment for rates increases with every house he puts up. But across the road there may be an idle
    2514
    piece of land used for empty tins and dead cats, and the owner of that property pays practically nothing to the local rates. What we ask is that the owners of those two pieces of property, whether they use them or not, should make the same contribution to the rates, and thereby induce the man who is not using his land either to build or to sell to someone else who will build. In that way you will force the landowners to use their property to the advantage of the community. You will also make it easier for public authorities and private individuals to acquire the land they find necessary for their improvements. I am quite convinced that it will be impossible to do without some form of purchase. Not only the Labour party but the Liberal party are in favour of a combined system of rating and purchase which will enable the land monopoly in the hands of the present landlords to be completely broken. The only thing I can hope for is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he has finally destroyed that which the Prime Minister created, will as soon as possible vacate his seat and allow another Government to occupy the Treasury Bench. Until then it is quite hopeless to suppose that we shall get any real land reform. We shall have many measures tricked out in order to catch votes, but I can assure the Chancellor that he will not catch the votes of the people who cast them in 1910. The people of this country are far better educated on this question of the land than are most right hon. and hon. Members of this House. It comes home to them. The man who wants works and sees a building site lying idle, the man who wants a house and sees a site used for dead cats and empty tins, the manufacturer who wants to increase his factory and finds that the landlord is asking £1,000 an acre for a bit of land, realise the land problem of this country. They know that unless we solve that question the whole of our social legislation will fall to the ground. I know, too, and I think all those old Members of Parliament who went through the 1910 elections know, that there is nothing that appeals to the electors better than a sound economic attack upon the landed interests of this country.
    Mr. C. WHITE: I do not think it is possible to introduce any further argu-

    2515
    ments into this Debate, nor do I think it will be very much use. I want to refer briefly to what has transpired since the inauguration of this campaign some years ago. I am not well acquainted with the procedure of this House. I do not know whether it would have been possible, at the beginning of this Debate, to have moved to report Progress. I certainly should have done so had it not been that the Leader of my party had made a promise that a certain step should be taken. I should have moved to report Progress so that the Prime Minister could have been here himself to have explained his attitude in this matter. Surely it is not respectful to bury the child without the presence of the father. At any rate, an explanation is due to those men and women who, at his bidding, fired by his religious fervour, by his perorations, carefully prepared, but called impromptu perorations—I remember many of them—went out, many of us who could not sing very much, singing the Land Song with our unmusical voices. It all seems so unreal now, that we can scarcely credit that those days have gone until we get another Government on those Benches. The Prime Minister was then delighted in being called a robber of hen-roosts, but he now stands convicted by his silence of deserving some such a name as that. At any rate, if he does not deserve that, he does deserve to be called a man who deceived some of us in the years that are past.
    I spent my last shilling to go to Bedford when this campaign was inaugurated, and I remember the right hon. Gentleman who has just gone out of the House—he must have had an inspiration—now Minister for the Overseas Trade Department (Mr. Kellaway), supporting his chief. He was actually the chairman at his meetings, and he made a most brilliant speech in support of the very proposals which we are going to bury and destroy to-night. I wonder what part he is taking in this Debate to-day; I wonder which lobby he is going into. I seem to think I saw him walking out of the "Aye" Lobby this afternoon, after one of the Divisions, and my mind went back to those days at Bedford when the Prime Minister inaugurated this compaign. I also remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour
    2516
    (Dr. Macnamara) was a very brilliant speaker that day, advocating these things which are to be destroyed without any explanation from these Gentlemen who were so to the front then in encouraging us to hope that at last we were going to break this land monopoly. The Minister for War (Mr. Churchill), too, was one of the chief advocates of it, and he was not a simple crusader like oneself; he was one of the chief men, as indeed he must be if he is in any movement. We minor lights were tramping the country for many months advocating these land reforms and the breaking up of this monopoly which has been so eloquently described by my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood). We felt somewhat the inspiration, I believe, of the Prime Minister, and we felt that we were fighting for a noble cause. I was assaulted in many of the villages where I went by men paid by the landowners of this country to drive me out of the village when I went to explain the faith I had learned from the Prime Minister—and not a word of explanation from him to-day or from his Government colleagues who were supporting him on that occasion. It reminds me of the distinguished father of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, many years ago, when fighting vested interests, as we- are fighting them to-day, said this, pointing to the men who were advocating Protection in those days:
    "A merciful Providence fashioned them hollow,
    On purpose that they might their principles swallow."
    I make no apology for quoting those words, which were used by the father of the right hon. Gentleman. who to-day is assisting in the obsequies of this Land Tax. The Prime Minister to-day, in my opinion, at any rate, by his silence is shedding the last semblance of Liberalism by his action, or inaction, in this matter. The day will come when Members opposite will regret, as we regret, the faith that we placed in him in those days that are past. In my simplicity I always thought that the Budget was an instrument for raising money. I find that I am not altogether right in that, because this does raise money on the one hand from sources from which it has no business to raise money, but it gives it away with the other hand, and it gives it away in a manner that it ought not to do. It is going to give nearly £2,000,000 back to

    2517
    those people, members of the Land Union, who are the Government to-day, at any rate, whatever they are at any other time. They have had their way, and they have had their say. The other day I got a letter and a little book from them, asking me to subscribe to their funds. I can promise them that the subscription will not be a very large one. The audacity of these people in sending on these things! A good deal has been quoted about the Land Union to-night, but I notice they are anticipating, as they have every cause for anticipating, what is going to happen to-night in the House of Commons. This is what they say:
    "Repayment of the Land Values Duties. The Land Union will advise members claiming repayment of these Duties, and assist them as to methods of claiming repayment."
    Before it is decided by this House what is to be done, they issue a book telling us how it is to be done, and then ask some of us to send on subscriptions for them to be able to do it. There is no question of Parliament not sanctioning the Budget proposal. The Land Union to-day, whatever they are at any other time, are the masters of the Government. I want to say, with all seriousness, that the return of these taxes is the most scandalous, the most amazing, the most impudent proposition ever put before any Government. We are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day that it has been done largely because Mr. McKenna promised it should be done. I notice how Members of the Government look up their Official Reports for many years past to see if they can make a small debating point by quoting what some Minister said at one time or another. I wonder they do not follow the advice of Mr. McKenna in very many more important matters. I should like to hear Mr. McKenna's explanation of this. I think it would somewhat differ from that given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon. Although I do not doubt his integrity, veracity, and honesty of purpose, I think Mr. McKenna would have some further explanation about that.
    I am under no delusion as to what is going to happen here to-night The Government will carry their proposal—there is no doubt about that! There are quite sufficient registering machines here for them to do that without inquiring about
    2518
    the why or the wherefor. But a day will come when justice will assert itself, and when we shall have another Government across there, and there will be this much about it: it cannot be worse than that which has gone before. Until then we must fight on. But just as surely as light follows darkness, we who in 1909 and 1910 fought, and up till now, although we relaxed our efforts during the War, must continue. We shall go on, not led by the crusader who has deceived us, but by men who are prepared to stand by until justice is done, and the land monopoly of this country is broken.
    Mr. HOGGE: We have had a long and interesting Debate; obviously, I think, not too long, because the subject we are discussing is a subject which involved the country in two General Elections and a conflict between this House and the House of Lords. To dismiss that important decision, even with a Division in the Lobbies—the result of which is always assured—is to attempt to turn our backs on something which is of very serious import to many of us who sit on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer twitted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) on the fact that he was a very merry mourner on this particular occasion. After all, there are those of us on this side who quite confidently believe that this is not our funeral, and that the Government, which is a Government of coalition, is attempting by a policy of collusion between the various interests of which it is made up to destroy the results of the progressive propaganda that we have attempted to push in past years, and which we have succeeded in obtaining by the legitimate means at our disposal. I notice that the Minister of Overseas Trade has come back. When the Chancellor has finished talking to the Minister I trust I may have his attention for a few minutes. I am sorry to ask this privilege from the right hon. Gentleman, but, after all, he is the only Liberal who has appeared on that Bench this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "No," "a Tory," and "Fisher."] He is an importation. The right hon. Gentleman was brought in as an educationist in the same way as other men were brought in as business men to make up a Government. But my right hon. Friend opposite(Mr. Kellaway) fought as we fought, just

    2519
    as he sung himself hoarse on land platforms in the old days. Therefore I trust the Chancellor will allow me to address a few remarks to him. We who were his old colleagues in the days before he was of the higher rank that he now occupies, in the days when, with some of us below the Gangway, he was much more interested in the casualties of motor omnibuses in London than he was in the high questions of policy in which he is now interested—we want to know from him, as the only remnant of Liberalism left in the Committee to-night, if he will explain the position of the Liberal portion of the Coalition on these land taxes. I think that we arc doing the Prime Minister an injustice by discussing this question in his absence, and I do not know that the proper method would be to report progress in order that the Prime Minister could return from Spa in order to make out a much better case than has been made out by Members of the Front Bench for repealing these taxes. If the Prime Minister cannot be present, why cannot we have the presence and the speech of the hon. Member for Argyle-shire (Sir William Sutherland). He is the one Member of this House who devilled assiduously for years on the subject of the land, and he published books at the request of the Prime Minister which never sold, and he knows as much about the land as the Prime Minister has forgotten. Why should we not have some explanation? The only explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that these taxes and this system of valuation is not a business proposition. I will quote from the same Report as was quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, the Report of the Select Committee on Land Values. The right hon. Gentleman tried by his quotations to convince the House that as a business proposition the system of Land Valuation had entirely failed. I turn to page 46 of the evidence before this Select Committee, and what do I find? It says:
    "The experience and information gained by the staff during the progress of the original valuation has been of considerable advantage in connection with other duties they have had to discharge.
    One of the most important of these duties is the determination of the principal value of real property and leaseholds passing on death. The results of the work of the
    2520
    Valuation Office are shown in the accompanying Table D."
    With regard to improved results, the Report says:
    "But with the completion of the original valuation and the accumulating records of sales and leases at their command, district valuers have been able to produce results above the average shown by the table for the whole period of nine years, notwithstanding that during the War they were working under instructions to valuers No. 961, which authorised them to accept returns made by executors in cases where there was no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of the value returned where consistency was not primarily involved and where the duty at stake was not large.
    Executors sometimes approach the district valuer with a view to agreeing values before making a return, and in these cases the official records do not show in figures the effect of the district valuer's influence, as the increases have been obtained before the accounts are lodged. In a case last June a district valuer obtained in this way an increase over the executors' figures of 32 per cent."
    If there were time, and if it were not that I do not desire to interrupt the proceedings of the House, I could read paragraph after paragraph on pages 46 and 47 of the Report, showing the results of the existence of the Department which he is going to scrap. On page 60 of the same Report will be found Table D, which gives a very instructive set of figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer probably overlooked in trying to establish his case that the system had failed to produce the anticipated results. What do I find? In the period from 31st March, 1911, to 31st March, 1919—the number of cases dealt with was 318,623, and the valuation as brought in by the accounting firms was £715,000,000, as against a valuation certified by the Department of £756,000,000—an increase due to the official valuation of £41,388,000. I am reminded that that duty has actually been paid, and is in the possession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In other words, in nine years, owing to this system of valuation, the increase to the Exchequer has been over £41,000,000, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in trying to establish a point against the right hon. Member for Paisley, says the valuation is of no use and ought to be scrapped.
    What was the point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It was that because certain things had occurred from

    2521
    the imposition of these taxes, the value of the system had been rendered nugatory. Who rendered it nugatory? The Law Courts of this land. Those of us who are Scottish Members know perfectly well how the decisions of the Law Courts have vitiated the whole system of getting men on to the land in Scotland. If it had not been for the decisions of the Law Courts, Scotland would have been re-populated in many parts. What often happens as a result of law decisions? You get legislation brought into this House to put those decisions right and to make it possible for an Act passed by Parliament to be operative among the people in whose interest it was passed. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman face that problem and use the machinery which he has to hand to make his system effective? He twits the Prime Minister whom, by the bye, he serves. He told us this afternoon that the Prime Minister had certain qualities which he admired—those were qualities which he approved—and certain other qualities not so good, and they were the qualities with which he disagreed. After all, the right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that the whole reputation of the Prime Minister is staked upon these taxes. The Prime Minister has made many speeches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Lime-house!"] He made one at Limehouse. There are a great many people who did not like his Limehouse speech, but the only difference between that and his speeches now is in the vocabulary. I am not going to quote the Prime Minister's speeches; I am going to take a much more matured reflection of the Prime Minister. I suppose we all have in our libraries—no doubt even the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in his library—the famous volume known as "The People's Budget." I see that the Leader of the House is amused. I have heard him often on the subject of the People's Budget before it was published. Here we have, not only the Prime Minister's speeches, but his matured opinion, written down in a preface. Here is what he says, after thinking the matter over—and we know, of
    course, that that is a final decision in. every case with the Prime Minister:
    "The greatest provision for all unemployment, in my judgment, is contained in the Land Clauses of the Budget. Those provisions must have the effect of eventually destroying the selfish and stupid monopoly which now so egregiously mismanages the land. Only the business community of this country, and those who have been associated with it all their lives, can fully appreciate the extent to which the present ownership of land hampers and embarrasses trade and industry. Ask any man with a growing business in town or village in this country, and he will tell you more than all the theorists and agitators in Europe about the mischief done by the unintelligent greed of some of the land-owning class. It is not merely that extravagant prices are demanded and impossible conditions imposed, 'but what a business man minds even more is that an atmosphere of uncertainty is created by the powers of incessant interference and imposition reserved for the landlord and his agents. The Budget strikes the first real blow at this mechanism of extortion and petty persecution. No class of the community will have greater reason to feel joy at the triumph of the Budget than the men engaged in putting their best energy of mind and moral into the building up of the commercial greatness of our nation."
    That was what the Budget was based upon, and that is what we are deserting to-night. The Prime Minister, speaking, as he did, frequently on this subject, and speaking with the Leader of the House in his mind at that time, said further:
    "I say more than that. I cannot conceive of a more shabby opposition."
    The Prime Minister, with the consent of the people who deserted with him to that Bench, has surrendered the one just tax that can be imposed upon any community; and he has surrendered it to those who led at that time the "shabby opposition."
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 53.

    Division No. 214.]

    AYES.

    [10.45 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Barrand, A. R.

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (L'derry, N.)

    Bottomley, Horatio W.

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Briggs, Harold

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Perring, William George

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Haslam, Lewis

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Bruton, Sir James

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Remer, J. R.

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)

    Campbell, J. D. C.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Casey, T. W.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert

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

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Seddon, J. A.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Jesson, C.

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Courthope, Major George L.

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    King, Commander Henry Douglas

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Stevens, Marshall

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Elveden, Viscount

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lorden, John William

    Sugden, W. H.

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Taylor, J.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Fildes, Henry

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Macleod, J. Mackintosh

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Waddington, R.

    Forrest, Walter

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Wallace, J.

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Manville, Edward

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Matthews, David

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Gange, E. Stanley

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

    Waring, Major Walter

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Whitla, Sir William

    Grant, James A.

    Morrison, Hugh

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tevistock)

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

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

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Gregory, Holman

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Gretton, Colonel John

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

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hancock, John George

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    NOES.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Rose, Frank H.

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hinds, John

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hogge, James Myles

    Spencer, George A.

    Briant, Frank

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Cape, Thomas

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Waterson, A. E.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Kiley, James D.

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Lunn, William

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

    Finney, Samuel

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Myers, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grundy, T. W.

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Neil Maclean.

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 68.

    Division No. 215.]

    AYES.

    [10.55 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Grant, James A.

    Neal, Arthur

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

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

    Amery, Lleut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Gregory, Holman

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Perring, William George

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Hailwood, Augustine

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Haslam, Lewis

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry. S.)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Remer, J. R.

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Briggs, Harold

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Bruton, Sir James

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Seddon, J. A.

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

    Butcher, Sir John George

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

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    Jesson, C.

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Chadwick, Sir Robert

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Stevens, Marshall

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

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    King, Commander Henry Douglas

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Lorden, John William

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Courthope, Major George L.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Waddington, R.

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Macleod, J. Mackintosh

    Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Whitla, Sir William

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Manville, Edward

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

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Matthews, David

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

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

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

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Forrest, Walter

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Morrison, Hugh

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Mount, William Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Murchison, C. K.

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Nall, Major Joseph

    NOES.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Cape, Thomas

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Barrand, A. R.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Casey, T. W.

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Bell, James Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Hancock, John George

    Bottomley, Horatio W.

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Finney, Samuel

    Hayday, Arthur

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Briant, Frank

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Hinds, John

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wallace, J.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Waterson, A. E.

    Kiley, James D.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Lunn, William

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Rose, Frank H.

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

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

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

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Spencer, George A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Myers, Thomas

    Taylor, J.

    Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Tyson Wilson.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision for Cases where Assessments, Returns, etc., have been Lost, Destroyed, or Damaged.)
    (1) Where any assessment to Income Tax, Excess Profits Duty, or Munitions Exchequer payments for any year or period, or any duplicate of assessment to Income Tax for any year, or any return or other document relating to income Tax, Excess Profits Duty, or Munitions Exchequer payments, has been lost or destroyed, or has been so defaced or damaged as to he illegible or otherwise useless, the commissioners, surveyors, assessors, collectors, and other officers respectively having powers in relation to Income Tax, Excess Profits Duty or Munitions Exchequer payments, as the case may be, may, notwithstanding anything in any enactment, to the contrary, do all such acts and things as they might have done, and all acts and things done under or in pursuance of this Section shall be as valid and effectual for all purposes as they would have been if the assessment or duplicate of assessment had not been made or the return or other document had not been made or furnished, or required to be made or furnished:
    Provided that where any person who is charged with Income Tax, Excess Profits Duty, or Munitions Exchequer Payments in consequence or by virtue of any Act or thing done under or in pursuance of this Section, proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners having jurisdiction in the case that he has already paid any Income Tax, Excess Profits Duty, or Munitions Exchequer Payments for the same year or period in respect of the subject matter and on the account in respect of and on which he is so charged, relief shall be given to the extent to which the liability of that person has been discharged by the payment so made either by abatement from the charge or by repayment, as the case may require.
    (2) In this Section the expression Commissioners' means, as the case may require, either the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or the Income Tax Commissioners concerned and the expression 'Income Tax' includes 'Super-tax.' "—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This is a Clause for making provision in eases where assessments and returns
    2528
    have been lost, destroyed, or damaged and is necessitated by the events which have occurred in Ireland, in which certain documents required in connection with assessments to Income Tax have been lost. Without this Clause the tax cannot be collected.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This Clause is an important one and we are entitled to some explanation as to what is to be done. I know that tax collector's offices have been burned down in that unhappy isle. In the case of these lost or destroyed Income Tax papers, are you going to take the basis of the last year's return or the last available returns, or are new forms to be sent out to be filled up? Having retired from His Majesty's Service, I have had three Income Tax returns sent in this year, and I have filled up each one. Therefore, I see no objection or difficulty in having fresh Income Tax Papers sent out in Ireland, collected, and sent over to this country. I do not like to see any revenue lost in Ireland or anywhere else.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The position is that in the course of the attacks that were made three offices of inspectors of taxes were burnt down and the whole of their contents destroyed. In many other cases books, assessment returns, income accounts and other records were destroyed or damaged or carried off. In some cases the reconstruction of existing records is possible. Information exists in duplicate and missing documents can be reconstructed. In other cases, however, that cannot be accomplished unless we can proceed afresh as if no steps had been taken, beginning again from the beginning. The Clause gives that power, but of course protects the taxpayer against having to pay twice over, though he may be called on to make a return twice over in respect of his liability to the tax in the single year. We all deplore existing conditions in Ireland, but none of us desire, because of these unhappy conditions.

    2529
    that taxpayers who ought to pay their taxes should go free to the injury of the others who are left to pay. This is a piece of necessary machinery.
    Clause read a Second Time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSEE.—(Amendment as respects pre-war standard in accounting periods ending after 31st December, 1919.)
    In the application of Part III. of the principal Act to excess profits duty for any accounting period ending after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and nineteen, the following provisions shall have effect:—
    (1) For the pre-war standard of profit there shall, on the application of the taxpayer, be substituted a standard (in this section referred to as "the substituted standard") of an amount equal in the case of a trade or business which had no pre-war trade year to the statutory percentage on the capital employed in the accounting period, and in the case of any other trade or business to the percentage standard, with the addition in either case of a sum of five hundred pounds in respect of each working proprietor in the trade or business:
    Provided that—
    (a) the amount of the substituted standard shall not as respects any trade or business exceed the sum of seven hundred and fifty pounds in respect of each working proprietor in the trade or business; and
    (b) in computing the profits of a trade or business in any accounting period as respects which the substituted standard is in force, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of the remuneration of any working proprietor; and
    (c) where the accounting period is less than a year the substituted standard shall be proportionately reduced; and
    (d) where a substituted standard has been adopted in the case of any trade or business for any accounting period the provisions of paragraph (4) of section twenty-six of The Finance Act, 1917, as amended by this part of this Act, shall not have effect as regards that trade or business in respect of that accounting period.
    In this paragraph—
    The expression "trade or business" means any trade or busi-
    2530
    ness carried on either by an individual or by persons in partnership or by a private company within the meaning of The Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908;
    The expression "proprietor" means, as the case may be, the individual carrying on the business, any partner in the partnership, or any director of the company owning not less than twenty per cent. of the share capital or stock of the company;
    The expression "working proprietor" means a proprietor who has, during not less than half the accounting period, worked full time in the actual management or conduct of the trade or business, but no person shall be deemed to be a working proprietor in the same accounting period in respect of more than one trade or business;
    (2) Any trade or business carried on or owned by a company or other body corporate whose directors have a controlling interest shall, for the purpose of the provisions of the principal Act relating to the statutory percentage as amended by any other enactment, be treated as if it were a trade or business carried on or owned by a body other than a body corporate:
    In this paragraph the expression "director" includes any person engaged in the management of the trade or business whose remuneration is provided out of the funds of the trade or business.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I would like some explanation of this very important Amendment. As I understand, it 10 principally to mitigate hardships which have been put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not only in this House, but by means of deputations. I have read through the White Paper and find it difficult to follow. It contains references to two or three Statutes. Clauses which are referable and relevant to the explanation are not set out in the White Paper. The only way in which we can understand what the Chancellor really intended would be by having the actual sections of those Statutes spread out before us. There are very many hardships. I may instance one or two of which I have some personal knowledge.

    2531
    In my own constituency there is a large number of paper mills. There are two ingredients in making paper—esparto grass and wood pulp. It is no exaggeration to say that the cost of these two very important raw materials has gone up 500, 600 or even 700 per cent. Some of these businesses are very hard hit. How far under the new Clause are such circumstances met? I see that there is to be a substituted standard. I also notice that there are no fewer than six Amendments to the Clause on the Paper. I do not know whether the hon. Members whose names are attached to those Amendments are present, but I should have thought that after an explanatory statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the meaning of this new Clause it would have been better to have reported progress and to start on this very important matter with minds which are not full of the somewhat heated and rather unmusical demonstration which we have just seen and heard—to start with minds much more adapted to the intricacies of the Chancellor's new proposals.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have done our utmost to meet the convenience of the House. My hon. Friend knows, and no one knows better, what efforts the Government have made to meet the particular desires of himself and his party in respect of the matter we have just discussed. My right hon. Friend knows that hopes were held out that the discussion would end at the dinner hour. It was not Ended by dinner-time and until 11 o'clock no effort was made to bring it to a conclusion. We have done all we can to meet the right hon. Gentleman and his friends and the House generally, for instance those who were interested in the Corporation Profits Tax, by giving good time for discussion. But we are now working within narrow limits of time. There must be a reasonable interval for reprinting of the Bill and the consideration of Amendments between the Committee stage and Report. There is a limit by Statute of the time within which we must have the Bill through not only this House but the other House. According, we must finish it on Friday. I submit, that if the Committee will co-operate it will be for their convenience to get through these clauses which are clauses giving concessions, to-night, and then to adjourn,
    2532
    and to take the clauses moved by critics of the Budget on Friday.
    The clauses I have put down are designed to fulfil, and do fulfil, a pledge given first by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary to the Treasury, and subsequently repeated by myself, that we would propose amendments to alleviate the pressure of the tax in respect of new businesses and small businesses. By these clauses we confer four reliefs in regard to all accounting periods ending December 31st last; we increase by one per cent. the statutory percentage on increased capital and capital in new businesses. That is at a cost to the Exchequer in a full year of £4,000,000. We increase the small business allowance at a cost in full of £5,000,000, and we grant a new relief to small private businesses, including private limited companies which are conducted by the proprietors. The relief consists of a right to substitute for the normal standard a substituted standard consisting of, first, £500 for each working proprietor, and, secondly, the statutory percentage on the capital, subject to the overriding qualification that the substituted standard so fixed shall not exceed £750 for each working proprietor. The Clause contains ancillary or correlative relief for private limited companies. The total cost of that in a full year is £5,250,000. Hitherto we have treated these cases harshly, because we have treated the private trading companies like partnerships where it was to the advantage of the revenue, and like companies where it is to the advantage of the revenue. We ought to treat them on one footing or the other, and we propose to give them the relief which is correlative to the tax which they pay. These matters are not very easy to explain, but I hope what I have said is sufficient to indicate to the Committee, at any rate as supplemented by the White Paper, both the purpose for which I have put down the Clauses and the extent of the relief which we have given.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent exactly the two Clauses are alternative and to what extent they are cumulative? In regard to one provision they are clearly alternative, viz., the Amendment of paragraph (4) of Section 26 of the Finance Act, 1917.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that is the only case in which they are alternative, the single case where the man must choose which of the two measures is the most favourable to him, but he cannot have both. Otherwise the provisions are supplementary one to another.
    Mr. REMER: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's speech can be passed over without a word of protest against taking a matter after 11 p.m. upon which the business world are thinking very deeply. We have listened this evening to a debate on land taxes which I do not think the people of this country are thinking two minutes about.
    The CHAIRMAN: We must not revert to that. It is a matter of the procedure of the Committee.
    Mr. REMER: We feel deeply on this question, and we should like a full discussion of it, because there many intricate matters in this new Clause.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is really in the general interests of business and the convenience of Members, as I think they will come to recognise in time, that I make this appeal to-night. Of course this is not the last stage. We have still the Report stage.
    Clause read a Second time.
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause in Sub-section (1) after the word "business" ["working proprietor in the trade or business"] to insert the words "or widow of such proprietor."
    The object of this Amendment is to extend to the widow who has lost her husband, and who has a working partner in her business, the same advantage which the husband would have had had he survived the War.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is an extension I had not contemplated, but I am ready to accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In Sub-section (1a) after the word "business" ["in the trade or business"]
    2534
    insert the words "or widow of such proprietor."
    At the end of Sub-section (1) insert the. words
    "The expression widow of such proprietor means the widow of a working proprietor where the business is carried do for her benefit and the relief could have been claimed by her late husband had he lived and retained the position in the business which he held before joining the forces."—Lieut.-Colonel Spender Clay.
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
    "Provided that, where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or of the General or Special Commissioners on an appeal to them that, owing to alterations of value or other circumstances, the pre-war standard of profits, as, defined for the purpose of Part III. of the principal Act, no longer represents a fair basis of comparison with the profits of the accounting period, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or the General or Special Commissioners, as the case may be, shall add to the pre-war standard as so defined such percentage of the amount of the standard as so defined as is required to make the pre-war standard a fair basis of comparison, and that amount so increased shall be taken as the pre-war standard for any accounting period on and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty."
    There are many cases where the pre-war standard is manifestly unfair and unjust. We know special and exceptional circumstances. I maintain that there ought to be some right of appeal, and that these circumstances should be taken into consideration by the Assessors of Income Tax and if a case can be proved, some adjustment or alteration of the assessment should be made, and the injustice remedied. I could recall many cases, but I will only give one instance, that of a flour mill. Three years before the war this mill was equipped with old-fashioned and inefficient machinery. Its receipts, owing to this uneconomic working, got very low. In the year preceding the war the proprietors installed new, modern, and very efficient machinery. During the installation the output of the mill was naturally limited by the fact that this work was going on, and therefore the three years' standard of profits was very low. The new machinery was made full use of, and the profits rose. Now we have got to the end of the war, the mill is efficient, and capable of earning considerably higher profits owing to the outlay of

    2535
    the proprietors. I submit in all the circumstances of the case the calculation for the purposes of the Excess Profits Duty should be made on a juster basis. Many appeals would overwhelm the officials, I quite admit, but some machinery should be provided for exceptional cases to be decided on their merits.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I desire to associate myself with the appeal which my hon. and gallant Friend has just made, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept the Amendment. I have had a great number of cases submitted to me of extraordinary hardship of firms reconstructing and re-equipping their works within the period that comes under the datum line and but for the war they would have had much higher standards. The grievance s is against the datum line, and there is no equality between two firms capable of equal production because one has a high and the other a low datum line. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will grant power to allow the Commissioners to examine cases on their merits and allow any appeal either to the Commissioners or the Referees. I want to make things easier in these hard cases which are rankling in people's minds. I am not trying to whittle down the tax, and what is suggested by the new Clause will not involve any recasting of the Budget and will not give much trouble. This is a very genuine grievance, and in view of the great victories which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has secured all along the line in connection with the Budget I think he must be merciful in this case and endeavour to make the burden of this tax less oppressive. I trust that this proposal will be accepted.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: If I thought the result of this proposal was likely to be to knock a hole in the Chancellor's scheme I would not support it. I understand that hon. Members who have supported this new Clause accept in a perfectly loyal spirit the decision of the Committee on the tax. What they are urging is that here is a very great and an admitted grievance, and if it is at all possible either by the suggestion in this Clause or by some other method, they ask for a mitigation of that policy
    2536
    and request that these firms should be given an opportunity of laying their special grievance before an impartial tribunal. I am quite sure that if the right hon. Gentleman could do something of that kind without damaging his proposal too much he would be going a long way towards making this tax operate with a far less share of injustice than it appears to do at present.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I quite recognise the difficulty of the class of cases to which the speakers have alluded. It has been a difficulty which has been inherent in this tax from the beginning, and in my opinion the only way of remedying this grievance is to get rid of the tax altogether. After all, what is it that we are asked to do in this Amendment? First, let the Committee remember that the whole system of arriving at the standard on which the computation of excess profits has to be made was debated at great length in this House, and has been settled by Parliament. A basis was arrived at on which the tax has been assessed on the businesses of the country from the beginning of the tax until now. The Amendment asks leave to appeal to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, or to the General or the Special Commissioners, and it asks them to say whether the position of the individual company still represents a fair basis of comparison with the profits of the accounting period. In other words, when Parliament has laid down a method of doing this, certain businesses of this country are to be at liberty to appeal to some hundreds of different authorities, who will act without co-ordination, and may give almost as many different rulings as they are themselves in number.
    This must evidently throw into confusion the whole system of assessment. Probably there is no man in the Kingdom whom, if he realise that he has the power to make an appeal on the ground that he is not fairly assessed, will not make his claim. He has everything to gain by making it, and nothing to lose. He could not be in a worse position than he is, and he may be in a better. You would, by passing such a proviso, go away from what has been laid down, and you would put it into the power of any one of the authorities from one end of the kingdom to the other to alter the method of assessment agreed

    2537
    to by Parliament, and to impose some other mode. In my opinion, at the present stage of the existence of this tax, you would thus cause an endless amount of confusion. You might quite possibly upset seriously the calculations that have been made as to the receipt of income from and on all these grounds. I hope very much that the Committee will not pass this proviso.
    Mr. REMER: I think my hon. Friend has overlooked the fact that this Amendment is the corollary of the provision contained in Section 40, Sub-section (3) of the principal Act, the words of which are:—
    "Where it appears to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on the application of a taxpayer in any particular case that any provisions of the Fourth Schedule to this Act should be modified in his case, owing to any other special circumstances specified in regulations made by the Treasury, those Commissioners shall have power to allow such modifications of any of the provisions of that schedule as they think necessary in order to meet that particular case."
    It goes on:
    "If the Commissioners refuse, on any such application, to allow any modification, or if the applicant is dissatisfied with any modification allowed, the applicant may require the Commissioners to refer the case to a Board of Referees."
    In face of that, the right hon. Gentleman's argument falls to the ground.
    Major BARNES: I do not think that the allowing of applications to the Commissioners would have such a result as the right hon. Gentleman seems to fear. The Commissioners would have to decide, not the mode of assessment, but simply the facts of the case, that is to say, whether, the mode of assessment laid down by Parliament being applied, the result is a fair one.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On similar facts arising in different districts, coming before different tribunals, wholly different decisions might be arrived at. That is what my right right hon. Friend was explaining.
    Colonel GRETTON: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown that sympathy with grievances and injustice which he has been showing during the progress of the Bill, and I think he is badly advised. My right hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary, also, is a little less
    2538
    fair than he usually is, when he argues exactly on the wording of this particular Clause, and not on the case put before him. I took care not to associate myself with the phraseology, but to commend the case, and not the words, to my right hon. Friend's attention. As it is inconvenient to dispose of the matter at this very late hour, I propose to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment until a more convenient season.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add
    "(3) Article five of the Fourth Schedule of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915 (which limits in certain conditions the deduction which may be made for the remuneration of directors and others in computing profits for purposes of Excess Profits Duty), shall be amended so that the words 'exceed the sums' shall read exceed by not more than 50 per cent. the sums.'"
    The object of this Amendment is that the remuneration of directors and the salaries of higher officials should be raised to 50 per cent. over the pre-war rate, and be allowed as a deduction from the gross profits before ariving at the figure on which Excess Profits Duty is assessed. The law on this matter is at present governed by the Fourth Schedule of the principal Act. Sub-section (5) lays it down that the deduction from directors' remuneration shall not exceed the sums allowed for that purpose or paid to directors in the last pre-war trade year. That obviously is no longer fair. Wages have gone up enormously and salaries of all descriptions have risen and why should directors who were working at a certain standard six years ago be limited to that standard at present? It is true a discretion is allowed in this Sub-section to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue but that discretion is limited to special circumstances or to the fact that the remuneration of any manager or managing director depends on the profits of the trade or business. I take it that the latter category is the very class to which the provisions of this new Clause have already been applied by the Chancellor, and there is an equal claim on the part of public companies of other than a private character and it is felt very generally as a grievance at present that there is no statutory right to a reasonable increase in the remuneration under present conditions.

    2539
    Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to remedy the grievance by accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment and I think I shall convince my hon. and gallant Friend that it is neither necessary for the purpose he has mostly in mind nor in itself such a proposal as he would like to father. I think he did not quite appreciate the present position. The rule in question prohibits the allowance as deducted in computing the profits of any business for Excess Profits Duty in any particular year in respect of remuneration of a director, manager or person concerned in the management of the business in excess of the amount paid in the last pre-war year unless the Commissioners of Inland Revenue otherwise direct. In practice, and in pursuance of announcements made by Ministers in this House in the early days of the Excess Profits Duty, the Commissioners allow no deduction in excess of the pre-war amount of remuneration paid to a director or manager who has a substantial proprietary interest in the business, such as the proprietor or director of a private limited company, who is analogous to a partner in a private business. That places an individual in the same position as regards Excess Profits Duty, whether he is the proprietor of a private business or a director with a large proprietary interest in a private company. These two cases ought to be treated alike. The case I think my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind is not that case but the case of an employé director who is really a servant. In that case, again the following declarations made publicly, and within the knowledge of the House, the Commissioners in the exercise of their discretion allow as a deduction remuneration paid up to an amount equal to the remuneration paid in the last prewar year plus £2,000 per annum.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: For the whole of the salaries of the company?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: An employé director without a controlling interest. He is not to escape duty by taking his profits in remuneration instead of taking them in dividends.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to an in-
    2540
    dividual or to the whole company? If it is the case that the increase of £2,000 is payable to an individual it more than meets the case, and that was not in the knowledge of those who desired me to put the Amendment forward.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not confined to one individual in a company. It does not depend on the number, but on the nature of their position.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: It may be divided among a great many.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They can pay up to that amount in respect of more than one person provided he occupies a status which justifies him in being treated in that way. In other words, a director who is merely the servant of a body of shareholders and not the equivalent of a partner in a private firm could not get this relief.
    Mr. BIGLAND: Can every member of the same firm get it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. It is not a question of the number of people. It is a question of the position in which they stand. I hope I have fulfilled my object in rising, and that I have satisfied my hon. and gallant Friend that his Amendment is unnecessary.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation.
    Captain W. BENN: I have a case in my mind of a man holding a number of shares in a limited liability company. Suppose he is a director and is the proprietor of a large number of shares. He is disqualified from having his remuneration raised as a director because he holds a large number of shares or is a proprietor in this private company. That works very hardly upon him. He is called upon to retain his original salary because, for the purpose of calculating these duties, the Commissioners would never permit his co-directors to raise his salary above what it was before the war. That does not seem fair. If he was a servant of the company, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanation, the company would be permitted to increase his salary—there would be an allowance up to £2,000; but because he happens to be the owner of a substantial number of shares the Commissioners would be unwilling to make an

    2541
    allowance, and it is a case of keeping the lower salary. I should be glad to know from the right hon. Gentleman what size of holding a managing director could have who would not be ranked as a partner, and what salary would disqualify him for an allowance. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is the allowance to an employee who is a director, and what is the allowance to a director who holds shares in the company?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is very difficult for me to deal with a technical matter of this kind in reply to a question with reference to the particular case which the hon. and gallant Member says he has in his mind. I cannot go into the details of a case.
    Captain BENN: I only asked for a general statement.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will do the best I can to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am not making any complaint. I am only pointing out the difficulty of satisfying him in his inquiry upon an individual case. There is no absolutely fixed size of holding which will qualify or disqualify for the allowance because the cases have to be judged by the Commissioners on their merits. It is a question of evidence. He gave a case, as I understood it, of four or five people who own a company, or practically own a company—which is called a private limited company in which they are the partners. I can say this: they would not be allowed to divide up the profits among themselves in the shape of remuneration, thereby avoiding the payment of Excess Profits Duty. But if it was a case of a man who in order to be a director had to have a qualifying number of shares it would be different. He might even have more than the shares qualifying him as a director. It is a question of degree and fact to be decided on its merits in each case. The object of my predecessors and of those who have had to administer the Act has been, and is, that we should give relief in respect to the servant of a company who is not analogous to a proprietor and to a director who is not analogous to a partner. They should get the same relief and should be treated alike.
    Mr. FILDES: In my opinion this touches the very root and crux of the injustice which is felt with regard to this tax by many people. If a firm started
    2542
    business with a couple of partners, and fixed their remuneration at £100 per year each they are tied down to that sum no matter how the business has increased. An agent in Manchester who sells for another firm and who has a wife and five children made total profits for the year of £1,500 and he has had to hand over to the revenue authorities no less than a thousand pounds. A case like that should be remedied. In recent times a lot of people have touched substantial sums of money, and I submit you should allow a sum of £2,000 before excess profits are considered. That sum is reduced to £1,200 by taxation. It may be that such a man for the first time has the opportunity to send his boy to a public school, and that may be the only manifestation of his new position that his wealth can give. A man in that position should be allowed a living wage.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Is this in order on an Amendment relating to directors?
    Captain BENN: May I submit that the hon. Member's remarks refer precisely to what the Amendment is.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. Member is in order.
    Mr. FILDES: Men in South Wales who work with their hands are receiving from £30 to £50 per week, and men who start business may only be allowed a couple of hundred per year and that is not fair.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is an allowance of £500.
    Mr. FILDES: It is too little. I think the clause should allow £1,200 after all taxes are paid.
    12 M.
    Mr. TERRELL: I trust that the Chancellor will do something to remove the inequalities and injustice of this tax by accepting this Amendment, or a new Clause of which I have given notice, and which asks that pre-war agreements should be honoured. Great hardship is inflicted on managers and directors, who are the brains and the driving power, and who are restricted as to remuneration and exceptionally taxed. The treatment experienced rankles in the minds of a great number

    2543
    of people. Article 5 of Part I. of the Fourth Schedule gives a discretionary power to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in regard to special circumstances. From a reply to a question of mine it appears that the Commissioners, instead of going into every individual case, as they should, exercise their discretion by issuing a White Paper of instructions to the tax assessors. That is not fair treatment, and the action of the Treasury in regard to this question of remuneration has excited the bitterest feeling of hostility. I hope that the Chancellor may see his way to grant some modification, and, unless he does so, we shall have to consider this matter on Report and take the sense of the House on it.
    Mr. REMER: My right hon. Friend used the same argument last night, that the one man proprietor of a business could pay himself a salary and therefore destroy all the advantage of these profits to the Treasury, but he was overlooking the fact that anyone doing that would immediately make himself liable to super-tax.
    Major NALL: I understand that £2,000 is allowed, in so far as it is granted, to those who have no controlling interest in the business. That raises the difficulty—what is a controlling interest? In some cases blood relationship. Take father and son separately, neither has a controlling interest. Together they have, and the rule disallows the £2,000 in that case. The hon. Member for Stockport referred to the case of a father and son in Manchester. I think I know the same case. Before April, 1914, the son was receiving £500 a year. Then they formed a company. The father had a controlling interest because the son is still limited to £500, though he himself has no controlling interest. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might consider on Report three points—first, the definition of what is "controlling interest"; second, where there is no controlling interest to allow the £2,000 as now in force, and third, where there is a controlling interest that it is reasonable to allow some increase as compared with 1914, even if it is only £1,000.
    Amendment negatived.
    Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (2) to add a new Sub-section—
    (3) section forty, Sub-section (2), of the principal Act shall, as respects excess profits arising in any accounting period commencing on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty, have effect as if for "six per cent. "and" seven per cent." were submitted "ten per cent." and "twelve per cent."
    I cannot understand why there should be this difference between pre-war capital and post war capital.
    Mr. L. SCOTT: I raise the same point, though on a different percentage, on a new clause of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which comes next, and I would suggest that it would be more convenient to take it then.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps hon. Members would desire to take it in the next new clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    New clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.— Amendments of s. 26 of 7 and 8 Geo. V., c.31, as respects accounting periods ending after 31st December, 1919.
    In the application of Part III of the principal Act to excess profits duty for any accounting period ending after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and nineteen, section twenty-six of The Finance Act, 1917, shall have effect as though in paragraph (1) "four per cent." were substituted for "three per cent.," and as though in paragraph (4) for the words "five hundred pounds and" two thousand pounds," respectively, wherever those words occur, there were substituted the words "two thousand pounds "and" four thousand pounds," respectively.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Brought up, and read the First and Second time.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I beg to move to leave out in paragraph (1) the word "four" ["four per cent."] and to insert instead thereof the word "six."
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone so far as to agree that some concession is needed or the percentage to be allowed on new capital in a business. It is, therefore, not a question of principle but if arriving at a fair and convenient sum to be allowed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving an extra one per cent., which makes it 10 per cent. The suggestion of this Amendment is to

    2545
    give an extra 3 per cent., so making it 12 per cent. I think that 12 per cent. is a fair percentage to take. At such a time as the present, the prudent man would put at least one-third of his profits to reserve. I think it will be agreed that a rate of 7 per cent. is a reasonable rate in preference shares at present. Taking these two circumstances into account, if you allow 8 per cent. on the interest of the new capital raised, and the further 4 per cent. as a reasonable amount to put to reserve, I suggest that 12 per cent. is a reasonable limit to be put on this new capital, after which the Excess Profits Duty is to operate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must know that there are a great many businesses which have been carrying on very largely on Excess Profits Duty which has been held over, and if the Excess Profits Duty is to be paid out as due, then it is all the more essential that a fair free rate should be allowed upon the new capital in the business. This is entirely a matter of agreement, and I do not think it is asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give up a large sum of money. I gathered that the proposal he was making, of allowing an extra 1 per cent., would cost the Exchequer about £4,000,000. I presume that, as it rises, the rate would be somewhat less, but let me take it against myself. I will assume that for each one per cent the loss to the revenue would be £4,000,000. If so, this proposal only means a loss of £8,000,000 as against the loss on the Chancellor's proposal of £4,000,000.
    Mr. SUGDEN: It must be well known that during the last two years there have been more new businesses financed through the sources of reserved profits than in any two years in the history of the country. I have in my hand particulars of 165 firms—manufacturers, storekeepers, shopkeepers, and others (more particularly the hard-worked small shopkeeper and tradesman)—who, by the reserve they have been husbanding during the very recent period of the War, have been preparing for the advance in trade and industry which has been so much anticipated throughout the country. When we consider the market price of money to-day, and the figures which have been offered for municipal, housing and national loans, it is absolutely impossible for the concession which the right hon. Gentleman has made to businesses of
    2546
    1 per cent. to be of any use whatever to, the general trading community. That concession is of no practical use unless. it is increased to a figure of, say, 3 per cent., and I venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to enlarge that concession, and thus assist materially the small shopkeeping type of the community more particularly, as also the great. industries of our land.
    Mr. L. SCOTT: This Amendment is one of really very great importance. At the present time a very large amount of capital that would be put into businesses in this country is being deterred simply and solely because they cannot get a reasonable datum line for the purpose of Excess. Profits Duty. I have had a long conversation with a friend of mine in the Temple, who probably advises a larger number of commercial and industrial concerns on questions of Excess Profits Duty and Income Tax than any other man living. lie advises vast numbers, and he has told me that he has advised firms and companies. from the United States, France, Italy and also in this country on this very question as to whether, if they had to start here, their payments of the duty would be as. heavy as they think by reason of the poor datum line they think they would have. He has had to tell them they are right and that under present circumstances they cannot get anything approaching to a reasonable datum line, and in every single case, as a result of his advice, those new enterprises have been deterred from starting in this country. One of the raisons d'être of the Excess Profits Duty, from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that much of the profits of the last few years are still earned out of monopoly conditions, but in attacking monopoly in that way the Chancellor of the Exchequer is really giving monopoly a weapon with which to defend itself. By preventing these new concerns from starting, you are preventing competition and perpetuating monopoly and, of course, high prices, and really this particular proposal to give to capital a statutory percentage at a higher rate substantially than hitherto is a proposal which as much as any other will induce new competition, bring in new money, and help therefore to bring down prices generally, and indirectly to bring, through Income Tax, a large substantial return to the National Exchequer.

    2547
    At the present time I venture most earnestly to submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if this proposal is coupled with an extension of his other proposal, which comes up on the next Amendment in regard to Sub-section (4) of Section 26 of the Act of 1917, which allows an addition to the £200 datum line, if the two are added together on more liberal lines than the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing, my own view is that the great part of the serious grievance that new businesses and businesses with a very small pre-War standard feel would be met, and if that is met I for one believe a large part of the serious troubles caused by the Excess Profits Duty this year will be avoided and remedied. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on this particular point to meet us. I have the privilege of representing one of the very big business communities of the country, and I can assure him that I have had genuine letters and interviewed men in the constituency in an extraordinary number of cases where one and all said that new businesses are being cruelly prevented from starting, and if he will only do this we shall be satisfied.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and learned Friend and others have made an appeal, to me. I know nothing more disagreeable than sitting here listening to Amendment after Amendment and meeting them with a refusal. It is an odious task, and I do not do it for my own pleasure, and I hope I do not do it without good reason, but I beg my hon. Friends to consider a little whether they are meeting me quite fairly. They made an appeal at the earlier stage especially for new capital and for the small businesses, and I said I would meet them. It may have softened the temper of our Debates, but it did not prevent the opposition being persisted in till the last moment. They now come to my concessions with scarcely a word of thanks and they take them as a jumping-off ground to ask for more. There must be a limit. These standards must be arbitrary figures which cannot be fixed on any strictly logical basis, but I have sought to fulfil to the letter and in the spirit the pledges which my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury and I gave at an earlier time. The cost of the concessions which I am making—and you
    2548
    must look at them together, because my hon. and learned Friend bids for £8,000,000 here and for many more millions in another place in the same speech—is £14,250,000 on the £100,000,000 which I hope to get.
    This is a very large concession. I have endeavoured with an open mind, and with a conciliatory spirit, to listen to the arguments that have been addressed to me. Under these circumstances, I do appeal to hon. Members not merely to take my concession as a starting point for demanding that it should be doubled or trebled, but to accept it in the spirit in which it is offered, which is the spirit of the original Debate, at any rate, as regards the great majority of hon. Members.
    Major ENTWISTLE: The other night the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had to be adamant in respect to the demand for the reduction of the Excess Profits Duty. But he held out the hope that he was not going to be adamant as regards concessions in relation to the other proposals on the Paper, some of them his own. He led us to believe that there would be room for expansion as regards the particular proposals that he himself had put on the Paper. The public, or, at all events, the House, was led to believe that the Chancellor would see his way, although he could not alter the fundamental 20 per cent. increase, that he said he would stand or fall upon, to consider and make the concessions on the proposals he put forward. I submit to him, after all, that of all the Amendments he has on the Paper that there is not one on which a concession ought to be made, or on which he ought to expand, or on which he might be amenable to argument and persuasion than on this proposal. It is the one exception to the Excess Profits Duty to which the strong objection is taken that it interferes with enterprise and restricts production—that it tends to prevent new industries being started. In this matter it is most important that the percentage allowed should be sufficient to attract capital. I do suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he adheres to the words he used that he would be prepared to make some further concession, that this is the one Amendment on which he ought to do so. He said it would cost the revenue £4,000,000

    2549
    for the additional 1 per cent. I would ask him to let us know what he proposes to do with the£310,000,000 of arrears which he himself, in one of the White Papers issued dealing with financial assets, said existed on 31st March of this year. Has he taken that sum into consideration. Any arrears there are will not come into this year, but into future years, for the reduction of debt. This is so important that I would suggest to the Chancellor that a much fairer proposal would be to charge interest on arrears, so that those firms which pay Excess Profits Duty promptly should not be penalised as those which are in arrears. Some firms have not made up their accounts for the last three years and have never published any balance sheet and have paid no Excess Profits Duty at all, although it is acknowledged that they have made huge profits. Why should not some proposal be made so as to get in that money that is needed? As regards this vital matter of increased production—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now speaking on the Bill. We are dealing with the Amendment.
    Major ENTWISTLE: I submit that what I have been saying is very material, because I am appealing for this concession on the grounds that it would encourage new industries and encourage production, and that the danger of this tax is that it would decrease production and so decrease revenue.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a general proposal.
    Major ENTWISTLE: I think that this question of the 60 per cent. not producing as much as the 40 per cent. has an effect on new industries. Any concession that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives on this point of increasing the percentage standard will come back to him, so that he will not lose £4,000,000 or £8,000,000, but, in the encouragement given to production, he will get that back in revenue. Hopes have been held out, and this is the one important Amendment, and I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the matter and give us a more favourable answer.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The opening words of the hon. and gallant Member particularly appealed to me, and had he
    2550
    sat down at once I was ready to respond. But I confess that my sympathy got thinner and thinner, and had almost vanished by the time he had concluded!
    Major ENTWISTLE: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had interrupted me!
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Member says truly that I indicated that I had not said my last word. That is so. I will lay my cards on the table if the Committee will be fair with me. But if this is to be made the starting-off point fel beginning over again, I do not see why I should make the concession. I cannot go to the length suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, Sir P. Lloyd-Greame, but instead of making the rise he suggests of 3 per cent., I am willing to make a rise of 2 per cent. That will cost an additional £4,000,000. It is really an inroad on the revenue which I hoped to get. I make it with great reluctance. That is what I had in my mind of what I was prepared to do. I was only deterred from saying so at once, because I felt the hopelessness of ever arriving at any agreement by any concession I might make.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am very much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think his suggestion is not only extremely reasonable, but also the object of this moving this Amendment was not to start a ball rolling which was never going to stop. We felt that some advantage ought to be given where it was so much needed. The only thing was what was the right figure to give to the trading community? I think the 2 per cent. most reasonable, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. L. SCOTT: In view of the concession that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just made, I do not propose to move the Amendment that stands in my name. But I do want to put one point on it to the Chancellor for his consideration before the Report stage. There are a large number of men in the business as brokers where no large capital is employed. I know as a fact that, since the War, a large number of officers have started in businesses of that type. A number of them are finding it very hard to get on. Would the Chancellor of

    2551
    the Exchequer, in that type of case, before the Report stage, consider whether he could make any kind of concession that would not cost the revenue too much and that would be comparable to the kind of concession made in cases where a large amount of capital is involved. If he could, I can assure him, from my own knowledge, it would remove a large number of very grave hardships.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    Captain W. BENN: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer this. We understand that he has made a concession which, he says, will cost him £4,000,000. Does he mean to say that, out of the available margin allowed by the Chancellor when making his Budget, £4,000,000 has been given away? That is rather a serious thing to say.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The only Question now before the Committee is "that the Clause be added to the Bill." If the hon. and gallant Member objects to the Clause being added he must speak on that. He cannot speak on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to do in the Report stage, nor can he speak on a future Amendment on the Paper.
    Captain BENN: I submit that I was quite in Order.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have just pointed out that what the hon. and gallant Member said was not in Order.
    Captain BENN: On a point of Order. Surely the discussion of what the financial effect of the new Clause is, is perfectly in Order?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes, if the hon. and gallant Member would confine his remarks to that he would be in Order.
    Captain BENN: I propose to do so. I think it is a very serious thing for those of us who have other Amendments on the Paper which only involve comparatively trifling concesions to people who may be particularly deserving, when an Amendment is accepted on a new Clause to be added to the Bill, by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he will lose £4,000,000 out of the available margin.
    2552
    I think it is right to draw attention to that, because we shall have to put our case later on.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. and gallant Member is going to urge the same point later on, perhaps it would be for the convenience of himself and everybody else at this late hour if I reserved my arguments. I am entirely at the service of himself and the Committee. I estimated that the increase of the duty would bring in an additional £100,000,000 as the result of it being imposed at that rate for 12 months, and not that it would bring in another £100,000,000 each year I estimated that the £100,000,000 would be reduced by another £4,000,000 in respect of the concession which has just been made
    Captain BENN: I make no apology for venturing to ask a question on a point about which we have a doubt. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that £4,000,000 is net loss, or does he say that he anticipates, in consequence of the stimulus to production which this concession will involve, that the loss of £4,000,000 will be made up?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: When I said I expected to lose £4,000,000, I meant that I expected to lose £4,000,000.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.— (Amendment of Section 1 of 9 and 10 Geo. V., c. 6.)
    Paragraph (c) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Civil Contingencies Fund Act, 1919, which requires sums issued under that Act to be repaid to the Exchequer not later than the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty, shall have effect as though the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, were therein substituted for the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty.—[Mr. Baldwin.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I gave briefly the answer as to the reason for the insertion of this Clause in the Finance Bill, when I moved the Resolution. There was £66,000,000 in this fund, of which £36,000,000 is still in employment, or about to be employed, in the Civil Contingencies Fund. The reason I have to ask for the in-

    2553
    sertion of this Clause is that under the Act the money must all be repaid to the Exchequer by 30th September. When the Act was passed, it was hoped that by this time all food control would have ceased. Owing to circumstances with which the Committee is familiar, all food control has not yet ceased. It will still be necessary for some time to come to finance sugar purchases. It is necessary we should lay out our money for some time, because the sugar has to be paid for, and it is some time before it is distributed and the cash comes back again. There also will be in the near future payments to be made on behalf of meat imported into this country. There are also allocations, explained by the Board of Trade, for the purchase of zinc concentrates, which will run on through the ensuing year.
    Were we not to take the power I ask for in this Clause, we should have to do one of two things—to take up the time of the House by introducing a new Civil Contingencies Fund Bill, or have it included among the Expiring Laws Bill. I feel that that would hardly be treating the House fairly, because there is always the possibility of the Expiring Laws Bill going through hurriedly at the end of the Session, and it might escape observation. I think it is a matter that ought to be brought before the House, and I take this as the quickest and simplest way. I may remind the Committee that in all cases where payments are made on these trading accounts from the Civil Contingencies Fund, the service and amount is to be laid before the House, and in each case during the last year that rule has been carried out. This Clause gives no power to draw out any more money at all. It merely postpones the repayment of the money that is already there, so that it can be used for the financing of these purchases. I have looked at this matter myself, and I quite expect that at least half the sum will be paid into the Exchequer in the course of this financial year. But it is essential, in view of the continuation of food control, that this power should be prolonged for the period I have named. I hope, with that explanation, the Committee will give me this Clause.
    Mr. HILTON YOUNG: I do not think this extension of the new use of the Civil
    2554
    Contingencies Fund ought to be allowed to pass without a word of comment and even protest. The Civil Contingencies Fund was never meant to be used for such a purpose as this. It commenced as a small fund for dealing with special emergencies in the ordinary financial year. It was never meant to be used as a trading fund. The extension of the fund for use for that purpose was, I think, in the view of all Members who considered what the real use of the fund was, an error, and any extension of the fund and the continuation of its use for those purposes were a continuation of the original mistake which it is too late to rectify now. I do not say that it is anything but inevitable at this time of day that this extension should be taken, but a word ought to be said that in the general interest of the financial structure of the country the earliest possible opportunity should be taken of bringing to an end this use which is being made of the Civil Contingencies Fund. Even at the present time I believe it would be very desirable that the use of the fund should be immediately concluded, and a special fund for these purposes should be established. That may possibly not be worth while, but at any rate it should he very clearly recognised that these uses which are made of the Civil Contingencies Fund are definitely weakening. The more often they are repeated the more often do they weaken the whole scheme of appropriation established by this House. With a view to the reestablishment and re-invigoration of the scheme of appropriation which has been so much weakened by the emergency finance of the War, it is most desirable that this use of the fund should be brought to an end at the earliest possible moment.
    Major BARNES: The Committee will approve the frankness of the hon. Gentleman in explaining this Clause, and we are grateful to him. We have had an opportunity of considering what is really rather an important matter, the expenditure that is going to be involved in the continuation of these controls and the Sugar Commission. The concession is weakened by the somewhat late hour at which this matter comes before the Committee. I should like to know what is the cost of this to the Treasury? I take it that the Treasury is going to stand out

    2555
    for £30,000,000 for another year. I hope it will not be more than £15,000,000 a year, but to stand out for £30,000,000 in an ordinary business firm would mean you were standing out for a considerable sum. Is there no way by which the Treasury gets anything that recoups them? Is interest charged? Are prices to be put on sugar or anything done which recoups the Treasury for the delay in getting this money back? It seems that somebody has got to pay £2,000,000. Where is it to be found? Does it mean that prices are to be raised to those trading in sugar or any other kind of food, or will the sum be lost to the Exchequer this year?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I entirely agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young). Of course he recognises that this is a wholly exceptional state of things. The practical difficulty in dealing with the subject, as I think I explained on the financial resolution, is that payments have to be made for food as food comes to this country, and it is essential in those circumstances to keep, as it were, a banking account on which we can draw to serve us for that period. I hope and believe that this will be the last occasion on which we shall have to ask for any such powers from the House.
    With regard to the point that my hon. Friend raised, it is impossible to give any real estimate of how much money may be out at any given time, because, to use again the phrase I have employed, this account is, as it were, a banking account, and how much it is "out" at one time or how much it is "in" depends on the rate at which repayments be made in realising the various items on the trading account, and whether payment has to be made promptly, or whether credit is given and so forth. With regard to the utilisation of the money, the trading accounts themselves, of course, aim at covering expenses, and making both ends meet over the term of their existence. The practical opinion, of course, is that so long as a sum of money is outstanding we obviously have not got the benefit of that in the Exchequer, and my right hon. Friend reminds me that we are not charging interest on Government money in arranging for these purchases.
    Captain W. BENN: I do not desire to detain the Committee, but this is a great justification of the work that some of us are trying to do in examining minutely the Government proposals as they are put forward. Here we find, owing largely to the great frankness of the Secretary of the Treasury, that we are asked in this apparently innocent-looking Clause to supply the working capital of two of these Ministries whose existence and work hag been so very much criticised. I just draw attention to it because it shows that it is a public duty which is being performed by those hon. Gentleman who take the trouble to be present and to examine the new Clauses which are brought forward, and we have been assisted by the candour of the right hon. Gentleman. This is a matter of great importance, for here we are passing a Clause which is going to provide two—what some of us think—objectionable Ministries with the capital necessary for their working.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduction of duty in Ulf-case of certain transfers of stocks and marketable securities.)
    (1) Where stock is transferred on sale to a dealer or his nominee and the transfer bears, in addition to the stamp denoting the duty, an impressed stamp (hereinafter referred to as "the supplementary stamp") denoting that it has been stamped under the provisions of this Section, the maximum duty chargeable on the transfer shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, be ten shillings:
    Provided that a transfer shall not be stamped with the supplementary stamp unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the transaction to which effect is to be given by the transfer was a transaction carried out by the dealer in the ordinary course of his business as such dealer.
    (2) Where a transfer has been stamped with the supplementary stamp under this Section to whom or to whose nominee the transfer was made shall—
    (a) immediately on the expiration of two months from the date of the transfer furnish to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue a certificate in such form as the Commissioners may prescribe, showing what part, if any, of the stock comprised in the transfer has been transferred by him to a bonâ fide purchaser, and what part, if any, of the stock has not been so transferred, and shall produce such further evidence, by way of statutory declara-

    2557
    tion or otherwise, in relation to the matters aforesaid as the Commissioners may require; and
    (b) if any part of the stock has not before the expiration of the said two months been so transferred as aforesaid, pay to the Commissioners within fourteen days after the expiration of that period a sum equal to the difference between the amount of the duty actually charged on the transfer and the amount of the ad valorem duty which would have been chargeable thereon if the stock comprised therein had been the stock which was not so transferred as aforesaid.
    If any person fails to pay duly any sum which he is liable to pay under the provisions of this Sub-section that sum together with interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent. per annum from the date of the transfer, shall be recoverable from him as a debt due to is Majesty, and if any person fails to comply with any of the other provisions of this Sub-section a sum equal to the difference between the amount of the Stamp Duty actually charged on the transfer and the amount which would but for this Section have been chargeable thereon, together with interest on that sum at the rate of ten per cent. per annum from the date of the transfer, shall be recoverable from him as a debt due to His Majesty.
    (3) For the purposes of this Section—
    The expression "dealer" means a person who being a member of a stock exchange in the United Kingdom does not deal by way of business otherwise than with or through other members of that stock exchange or otherwise than as a principal, and does not carry on the business of a broker or agent;
    The expression "stock" includes marketable security.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Brought up; read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.— (Power to borrow on national savings certificates for purposes of investment in local loans, stock, and redemption of loans.)
    (1) The Treasury may at any time after the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty, borrow in accordance with the provisions of this Section such sums as they think proper to raise for the purpose of being invested or applied in manner provided by this Section.
    (2) Any sums which may be raised under this Section shall be raised by the issue through the Post Office of national savings certificates, and any certificates so issued shall bear such rate of interest and shall be subject to such conditions as to repayment or otherwise as the Treasury think fit.
    (3) The principal of and interest on any national savings certificates issued under
    2558
    this Section and any expenses incurred in connection with the issue thereof shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof.
    (4) The Treasury shall from time to time as they think fit issue out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof to the National Debt Commissioners sums equal to one-half of the moneys raised under this Section, and any sums so issued to the National Debt Commissioners shall as soon as practicable be invested by those Commisioners in local loans stock or in bonds secured on the Local Loans Fund, and may, pending such investment, be invested temporarily in such manner, subject to the approval of the Treasury, as the Commissioners think proper.
    (5) All sums received by the National Debt Commissioners by way of interest on investments made by them under this Section shall be paid into the Exchequer.
    (6) The Treasury shall from time to time as they think fit issue out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof and apply in the purchase, redemption, or paying off of any description of debt sums equal to one-half of the moneys raised under this Section, together with the sums paid into the Exchequer by the National Debt Commissioners under this Section.
    (7) The powers conferred on the Treasury by this Section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other power to borrow for the time being exerciseable by by the Treasury.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Brought up, and read the First and Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    Captain W. BENN: I only rise to ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us some explanation of this Clause?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not rise owing to the lateness of the hour. This is to enable us to apply a portion of the proceeds of the sale of savings certificates for the purposes of housing—such portion as is raised in a locality to go to that locality. This is a matter to which the Savings Committee attach the very greatest importance for the purpose of their work. They say that it will promote good relations between them and their local committees and local authorities, and that the closer co-operation and the additional stimulus and interest so given will lead to a great revival of the movement, which, I think, has been recognised as one of the most valuable by-products of the War.
    Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday next (16th July).
    The remaining Orders were then read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Two minutes before One o'clock a.m.

BRITISH ARMY.
  TROOPS IN INDIA (PAY).
  TROOPS IN INDIA (PAY).
  PERSIA (EVACUATION OF RESHT).
  PERSIA (EVACUATION OF RESHT).
  MILITARY PRISONER (PRIVATE OWEN).
  MILITARY PRISONER (PRIVATE OWEN).
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (ARMY FORM B. 199A).
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (ARMY FORM B. 199A).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  MAXIMUM PENSION (OLD AGE PENSIONERS).
  MAXIMUM PENSION (OLD AGE PENSIONERS).
  CHIEF ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICER F. C. CULL.
  CHIEF ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICER F. C. CULL.
  LATHAM FUND.
  LATHAM FUND.
ROYAL NAVY.
  HOLYHEAD MAIL BOATS (ESCORTS).
  HOLYHEAD MAIL BOATS (ESCORTS).
  ACTING PAYMASTERS.
  ACTING PAYMASTERS.
FINANCE BILL.
  CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.
  CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  CURRENCY NOTES.
  CURRENCY NOTES.
IRELAND.
  ROSCOMMON SHERIFF'S SALARY.
  ROSCOMMON SHERIFF'S SALARY.
SCOTLAND.
  SMALL-POX, GLASGOW (VACCINATION).
  SMALL-POX, GLASGOW (VACCINATION).
  STREET TRADING.
  STREET TRADING.
INDIA.
  LABOUR SITUATION, MADRAS.
  LABOUR SITUATION, MADRAS.
  EXPORT DUTIES (HIDES AND SKINS).
  EXPORT DUTIES (HIDES AND SKINS).
  IMMIGRATION (CRIMINALS).
  IMMIGRATION (CRIMINALS).
PEACE TREATIES.
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION, GERMANY (COST).
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION, GERMANY (COST).
  SPA CONFERENCE.
  SPA CONFERENCE.
  GERMAN PATENT AGENTS (DEBTS).
  GERMAN PATENT AGENTS (DEBTS).
  PROFITEERING ACT (BUILDING TRADE).
  PROFITEERING ACT (BUILDING TRADE).
  COAL PRODUCTION (FOREIGN BUNKERS).
  COAL PRODUCTION (FOREIGN BUNKERS).
GOVERNMENT STAFFS AND ACCOMMODATION.
  STATIONERY OFFICE (PRINTING WORKS).
  STATIONERY OFFICE (PRINTING WORKS).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
TRANSPORT.
  RATES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  RATES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  CHILDREN'S OUTINGS.
  CHILDREN'S OUTINGS.
  SUPERANNUATED RAILWAY SERVANTS.
  SUPERANNUATED RAILWAY SERVANTS.
  LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES (FARES, ETC.) BILL.
  LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES (FARES, ETC.) BILL.
EDUCATION.
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (GOVERNMENT'S OFFER).
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (GOVERNMENT'S OFFER).
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (POWERS).
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (POWERS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  DISTRICT OFFICERS.
  DISTRICT OFFICERS.
POST OFFICE.
  MAIL BAGS.
  MAIL BAGS.
  TELEPHONE CHARGES.
  TELEPHONE CHARGES.
HOUSING.
  LOCAL SCHEMES.
  LOCAL SCHEMES.
  HEALTH PROPAGANDA.
  HEALTH PROPAGANDA.
  TUBERCULOSIS (3RD LONDON GENERAL HOSPITAL).
  TUBERCULOSIS (3RD LONDON GENERAL HOSPITAL).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (COST).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (COST).
  TRINIDAD (DEPORTATIONS).
  TRINIDAD (DEPORTATIONS).
  ISLINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL (BRITISH FLAG).
  ISLINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL (BRITISH FLAG).
  LATVIA AND ESTHONIA (TIMBER ESTATES).
  LATVIA AND ESTHONIA (TIMBER ESTATES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND BILL. [H.L.]
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to increase the number of Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries of State capable of sitting and voting in the Commons House of Parliament, and to transfer the powers of the Secretary for Scotland to one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

TREDEGAR URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
PONTYPRIDD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) Bills reported without amendment.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTHAMPTON EXTENSION) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made.

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment.

  EAST AFRICA: STATUS OF INDIANS AND NATIVE LABOUR.
  LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the political and economic status of natives of India in British East Africa, Tanganyika, and the Uganda Protectorate; also whether he will make a statement in regard to Native labour in these countries; and to call for Papers.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will observe that the Question I have on the Paper divides itself under two heads, one relating to the status of Indians in the territories named; the other to the conditions under which native labour is employed in these countries and the general policy that His Majesty's Government intends to pursue in regard to them. The subjects are distinct one from the other, and I propose, with your Lordships' indulgence, to discuss them separately. It might be considered that they should form the subject of two questions and of two debates, but I hope that my noble friend, Lord Milner, who will reply for the Government, will agree that it will save time and be to the general convenience that the two questions shall be concentrated in one debate, enabling him to make one reply to both.
  As you are aware, both these subjects are of great local importance in British East Africa and the adjoining territory, and they have now become especially so on account of the adjacent territory of Tanganyika, which is to come under the mandatory system and under the direction of Great Britain. Both subjects have aroused considerable interest not to say anxiety, not only amongst those who are directly concerned, but also amongst many sections of people who are interested in the welfare of the populations in British East Africa. All of those to whom I have alluded are anxiously awaiting a statement of policy from the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  There is one aspect of the matter to which I would at once draw attention, though I am sure my noble friend, Lord Milner, is fully alive to it—namely, that whilst these subjects are of local importance in Africa, as affecting the position and the conditions of life of many of our fellow-subjects in the territories concerned, they are also of high Imperial importance, as they involve principles of wide significance, which extend far beyond those territories and affect the very foundations of our

  119
  Imperial system and the methods we intend to employ in the conduct of that system in the years to come. It is to this wider aspect of the subject that I invite the noble Viscount to give his earnest attention.
  Let me make a few brief remarks on the question of British Indians in British East Africa. This is no new problem. It has come before successive predecessors of the noble Viscount at the Colonial Office. For years past British Indians have been appealing to the Government to remove the legal disabilities and inequalities under which they live as compared with the European community in that country. To attain this object a deputation of British Indians visited this country this year and placed their claims before the Secretary of State. They asked for a readjustment of the conditions of inferiority under which they live. They also asked that there should be established a political and economic system in British East Africa by which the more acute forms of racial distinction and discrimination may be once and for all removed. The result of the war, the influence that it has had on all classes and races, and the fact that the adjacent country is to come under a British Mandatory system, convert what hitherto was a reasonable appeal into an urgent demand.
  As your Lordships are aware there resides in British East Africa a community of British Indians of various castes and occupations who, with their predecessors, have settled in the country for, I think, at least three centuries. These Indians are computed to outnumber the European population by something like four to one. It is estimated that there are about 30,000 British Indians and 6,000 Europeans. The development of the industry and wealth of British East Africa has largely been due to these Indian traders and settlers. The interchange of trade between India and British East Africa is a large element in the prosperity of the Protectorate, and, indeed, it may be said that the Indian has been a very important contributor to the development of British East Africa. The Indian took a very important part in the construction of the Uganda Railway. It is estimated—I give it for what it is worth, as I am not officially informed—that 80 per cent. of the trade and commerce of the Protectorate is carried on by Indians. The invested capital of the country, to a large extent, is in the hands of Indians, who pay
  120
  the larger proportion of the taxation. These are broadly the claims that the British Indian makes for consideration at the hands of His Majesty's Government.
  Let me now say a word as to their disabilities and those which they particularly ask should be removed as soon as possible. At present the Indian is not afforded any political franchise along with his European fellow subject. After a struggle for some years between the India Office and Colonial Office the latter were eventually induced to consent to the nomination by the Governor of two members in the British East African Legislative Council which was inaugurated in the year 1909. This is the only concession that has been granted to Indians, and that after considerable opposition, whilst the Europeans enjoy an elective system. I believe I am correct in saying that Indians exercise the franchise on equal terms with Europeans in the Cape Province of South Africa and in Rhodesia, and it is reasonable to assume that in British East Africa a proportion of the seats should be allotted to the Indian community, and allotted by election. On the Executive Council there is a non-official European representation, but at present Indians are excluded. They ask for representation on that Council.
  There is only one municipality, I believe, in British East Africa, and that is at Nairobi. Indians in that municipality have no franchise, though they represent the majority of the population and pay the greater proportion of the taxes. A representation of two, by official nomination, only places them in what they regard as an ineffective minority; so much so that the Indian members have declined to take their seats in that municipality. By the Crown Lands Ordinance of 1915—and this is a very serious grievance—power was given to the Governor to sell Crown lands for agricultural and building purposes to Europeans only, and he had the power to veto the purchase of those lands, by Indians. Notice of such sales in Nairobi limiting the bidding to Europeans, including British subjects, obtained the permission of the Governor in writing and appears in the Official Gazette. From 1908 to 1918 this veto was confined to agricultural land in the highlands of British East Africa, and was imposed on what was termed grounds of "administrative convenience." But by the passing of the Crown Lands Ordinance of 1918 the power of veto by the Governor

  121
  was extended to the acquisition of land in the township areas, and in the conditions of sale of these Crown lands a clause is inserted which says that no one other than a British subject of European origin is entitled to bid.
  I think your Lordships will agree that this latter case especially is an instance of acute racial distinction, and it is naturally bitterly resented by the whole of the Indian community in British East Africa and in India. There is no doubt that those who have played so important a part in the whole economic position of the country should, at least, have the right to purchase land in their adopted country. In this respect I ask the noble Viscount to inform the House and the country what arrangements are to be made when German properties are disposed of in the Mandatory country of Tanganyika and whether Indians are to have equality of rights with their European British subjects in regard to purchases of land in that country.
  Another point of grievance is the Segregation of Races Act, based on Professor Simpson's scheme. I cannot attempt this afternoon to deal with this extremely complicated and difficult subject, as I should occupy far too much of your Lordships' time if I did so. It is contended, however, that under this Act the interests of Indians are gravely prejudiced. They ask for its repeal. I am not competent to form an opinion on this difficult problem, and before one could come to anything in the nature of a responsible view there must be a careful examination on the spot by a detached and impartial inquiry. In regard to this particular grievance I venture to suggest that for the consideration of my noble friend.
  Now, my Lords, there is a long list of claims set forth by the deputation with which, of, course, I cannot deal in detail this afternoon. They have all been before my noble friend. There is the question of immigration and the question of the appointment of Indians to various public services. And another—which is a burning one in British East Africa—to which I must allude is with regard to exchange and currency. The Colonial Office adopted a new policy with regard to currency and exchange, and did so without reference to the East African Indians, who are very intimately concerned with it, or to the India Office. It has resulted, I understand, in a serious rise in the exchange
  122
  between East Africa and India, entailing a marked increase in the cost of food-stuffs; and it is alleged that this exchange works out solely in the interests of the European community, and to the disadvantage of the Indians.
  When my noble friend replies, I hope that he will explain to the House in a little more elaboration the recent announcement, which has appeared in the newspapers within the last few days, in regard to the British East African Protectorate, which is now to become a colony under the name of Kenia Colony. I understand that the coastal strip, including Mombasa and part of the Zanzibar Sultanate territory, remains a Protectorate, while the remainder is now raised to the rank of a Colony. I hope that in any new arrangement which is made, and in any constitutional concession afforded, my noble friend will be able to show that the Indian community are to be secured their prosier proportion of representation, whether in the Protectorate or in the Colony. I understand that Sir Edward Northey, the Governor of British East Africa, has been ordered to make a statement in East Africa in regard to the alterations in policy. The noble Viscount will probably inform the House regarding these instructions. I would venture to say here, in regard to these matters, which I am sure the House will agree are of much more than local importance, that it would have been better if Parliament had been informed and given the opportunity of discussing them and giving its opinion, before they were decided upon and a statement made in the Colony itself.
  The present policy as laid down in East Africa can, I think, only be construed as placing the Indian in a position of both civil and economic inferiority to the European section of the community. That is highly irritating to the Indian in view of the fact that Indians have played, and are playing, so important a part in the economic development of the Colony; and it compels them to ask themselves whether citizenship within the Empire has any true reality in it at all. It is of the first importance that this sense of inferiority should be removed at the earliest possible date. The continuance of it will have a disastrous effect upon the minds of Indians both in East Africa and in India. Indians on both sides of the ocean have only too much cause to suspect that the intention of the European settler in East Africa is to narrow

  123
  the field of Indian enterprise, and to restrict his status and position to the very narrowest possible limits.
  If you had had an opportunity—some of you probably have—as I have, of reading the recently issued Report of the East Africa Economic Commission, presided over by a high official and composed of other officials and European settlers in that country, you would realise to the full the spirit of antipathy which exists among a certain section of the European community towards Indians in that country. I venture to say that some of the expressions which appear in that Report are deplorable. They produce disastrous effects in the minds of Indians, and really make it impossible to impress upon them the sincerity of our profession of granting equality of treatment to them within the Empire. I hope that the Secretary of State, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, will emphatically repudiate those passages in that Report. We really cannot develop an Imperial spirit of loyalty within the circle of the British Empire if we allow sections of our British subjects to be treated in the way that is suggested in that Report.
  This question has lately assumed greater importance in view of the reforms that are shortly to be put into operation in India. We are about to admit the people of India to a new system of partial Constitutional Government. We have admitted the Indians of India to representation upon the Imperial Council, enjoying equal status with the other representatives from the Dominions. At these Conferences questions relating to imperial interests, and especially those which bear on the different parts of the Empire, are to be fully discussed; and it is important that the policy of our Crown Colonies where Indians reside, and have resided for a long time, should be directed towards full recognition and acceptance of those changes which are shortly to take place in Imperial organisation.
  It is important to point out in addition that Indians have been told in their own country, by the Viceroy, speaking as recently as January 30 in the Legislative Council, that
  "the position of the Government of India is, and always will be, that there is no justification in a Crown Colony or Protectorate for assigning to British Indians a status in any way inferior to that of any other class of His Majesty's subjects."
  124
  I hope that the Secretary of State will not only endorse this sentiment, but state the method by which it is to be faithfully observed. There is nothing more unfortunate, in my judgment, and at the present crucial juncture of Imperial policy, than that two great Departments of the State should be speaking with conflicting voices, and, still more, adopting conflicting policies. Consistency and sincerity must be a cardinal element in our future Imperial policy. I would say that it would be better, bad though it might be, to state frankly that you are going in for a reactionary policy, than to make a statement and a show of equity of action which you do not carry out.
  I am not unmindful, and nobody can be, of the many difficulties which beset the Colonial Office and the Secretary of State in regard to this problem. It is clear that in these matters conflict of opinion and interest must arise, but it is of the utmost importance to reduce that conflict within the narrowest limits, and to come to some working arrangement, so that Indians in Africa and in India may realise that their position as British subjects is recognised by His Majesty's Government, and that they are to enjoy fair treatment, and can reside under just conditions, with their European fellow-subjects.
  I would pass on to say a few words on the second Question, which is the future policy in regard to native labour. This matter has become urgent and has aroused great apprehension owing to a recent Circular that has been issued in Africa under the instructions of the Governor. The Circular expresses in strong terms the necessity for increased provision of labour. In regard to this Circular it may be said that it can be interpreted as merely encouraging those responsible to persuade natives to come out from their reserves and work, but it can certainly also be interpreted as an instruction to use methods to attain that object, approaching, I venture to say, perilously close to enforced labour, with all the attendant abuses resulting from enforced labour. The principle of freedom to work has for years been cherished under the British system, and anything likely to violate that principle requires examination and revision before it is adopted.
  This East African Circular raises the whole question of Colonial policy in semitropical areas. There are two of these

  125
  East African Circulars, one by the Chief Native Commissioner, Mr. Ainsworth, and the other by the Governor, Sir Edward Northey, and the main features of them are as follows. They postulate for the first time, I think, so far as is known, that in British Colonies there is administrative liability to provide labour for private interest. I would like to read one or two of the more salient paragraphs in the Circulars. I will take first that of the Governor. He says—
  "From some reserves plenty of good voluntary labour has been and is forthcoming; let this go chiefly to private plantations and farms. Work on large Government enterprises, such as railways and roads, is less popular; for this Government should, I believe, have the power to call out the idlers. I believe there should be an increased rate of tax on young able-bodied men. Our policy, then, I believe should be, to encourage voluntary work in the first place, but to provide power by legislation to prevent indolence."
  This is signed by Sir Edward Northey, and the method to be adopted for pressing this labour is set forth in the Circular issued by Mr. Ainsworth, the Chief Native Commissioner to the various officers throughout the country.
  Permit me to read one or two paragraphs to your Lordships. He says—
  "All Government officials in charge of native areas must exercise every possible lawful influence to induce able-bodied male natives to go into the labour field. Where farms are situated in the vicinity of a native area, women and children should be encouraged to go out for such labour as they can perform.
  "Native chiefs and elders must at all times render all possible lawful assistance on the foregoing lines. They should be repeatedly reminded that it is pant of their duty to advise and encourage all unemployed young men in the areas under their jurisdiction to go out and work on plantations. They should be encouraged to visit plantations Where their people are employed.
  "District Commissioners will keep a record of the names of those chiefs and headmen who are helpful and of those who are not helpful, and will make reports to me from time to time for the information of His Excellency. The nature of these reports will be communicated to the chiefs. In cases where there is evidence that any Government headman is impervious to His Excellency's wishes the facts should be reported to me for His Excellency's information together with any recommendations you may desire to make."
  I would point out in the first place that those so-called chiefs are petty servants of the Government, and are under the control of the Government, and it is no part of an administrative official's duty to act as a labour agent for private persons. It is an entire departure from our Colonial practice.
  I should like to ask if this Circular, before it was issued in East Africa, was referred to the Colonial Office. This practice to which I have just referred amounts to this—that if the so-called chief does not provide labour he is told that he will be punished. That is a very dangerous method to introduce with a primitive people, and it certainly is entirely contrary to British practice. It is entirely contrary to the attitude that has always been adopted, and that was so well laid down some years ago in Egypt by Lord Cromer. I would like to quote what he said, and what he put into effect all through his distinguished administration in that country. He said—
  "We reluctantly admit the necessity of compulsory labour in certain cases, and We do not stigmatise as slavery such labour when under all possible safeguards against the occurrence of abuses, it is employed for indispensable and recognised purposes of public utility. On the other hand, we regard the system when employed for private profit as wholly unjustifiable, and as synonymous with slavery."
  Later on Sir Frederick Lugard makes a statement on similar lines. That is a sound policy for labour, and one that should be adhered to strictly in British East Africa, but it certainly presents a very great contrast to the Circulars from which I have just quoted.
  There is one more quotation in this Circular which I should like to give, and it is in regard to the mandated areas. The Governor proposed in this Circular to obtain labour from mandated areas in Tanganyika. I suggest that such a step would imply a violation of the spirit and the letter of the League of Nations Covenant which sets forth the doctrine of trusteeship. The Circular says—
  "His Excellency instructs me to state that constant endeavours will be made by this Government to obtain native labour from the adjacent conquered territory in order that the supply of native labour in this country may be augmented. The native authorities might be informed of this, and it might be pointed out to them that should any considerable numbers of natives be so introduced into this country it will probably mean less money going into our native districts."
  That last paragraph looks very suspiciously as if Tanganyika is to be used as a kind of labour whip to the chiefs in British East Africa to provide labour.
  In all seriousness I say to your Lordships that this Circular ought never to have been issued, and when it was issued and found its way to this country an order should have

  127
  been made for its immediate withdrawal. It is a thoroughly bad Circular and, if given effect to, must lead to abuse in the case of such a primitive people. It is retrograde in the highest degree, and cannot be defended, and unless His Majesty's Government are really going to introduce a system of labour into the country which will go perilously near to forced labour it ought immediately to be withdrawn and something put in its place. British settlement in tropical areas like British East Africa must be determined by the free provision of labour supply. I am told that since the war many ex-soldiers have emigrated to that country, and I have no doubt it is due to that fact that there is a greatly increased demand for labour.
  I think, however, a much wiser policy would have avoided all these difficulties and these violations of principle. We should rather encourage emigration not to these tropical countries but to our Dominions where you have white labour and thousands of square miles of fertile soil ready to be taken up. We have been attempting in East Africa the colonisation of a white population. On the other hand in West Africa we have pursued the policy of development by the native producer. The economic results in East Africa have produced, and will continue to produce, friction and competition for labour. In West Africa you have contentment and prosperity throughout the country. In the Gold Coast alone the native to-day is producing cocoa in such volume that the production is actually in excess of the demand. However, it is quite clear that you cannot reverse the policy as it has gone so far; and it is impossible, of course, to attempt to develop East Africa on the lines of West Africa. I say again, however, that, difficult though it may be, it should be no part of the duty of an Administration to force on one section of the community laws designed for another section of the community.
  In South Africa and, I believe, in Southern Rhodesia, they have had their difficulties in regard to labour. Those difficulties have been largely overcome by the establishment of labour bureaus. Labour bureaus have many advantages. They exist to create a free current of labour towards the employer, and have the advantage that the cost of recruitment is greatly lessened, as is shown by the figures. In South Africa, where you had
  128
  2,337 recruiters in 1912, as the scheme and system became established in the country those recruiters had been reduced to 723 by 1918. Again, in Rhodesia—which is another illustration of finding labour by the labour bureau system—in 1903 the Secretary of State for the Colonies of that day was urged to sanction Chinese labour because there was such a shortage of labour generally. The Imperial Government refused to sanction Chinese labour, and the Chartered Company set up labour bureaus in the year 1915.
  The Chief Native Commissioner has reported that the supply during the year has shown appreciable increase, and that the average number of natives in employment has at all times been sufficient for the demand. In some cases it has been in excess of it. I cannot help feeling that, if this scheme were carried out as suggested by the Circular, forced labour would result, and that is wasteful and always leads to abuse. A free current of labour is cheaper and in every way more satisfactory. If private property has to rely only on a free system of labour the employer makes it his business to see that the employment of his men is attractive, and he soon learns that the best recruiting agents are the native labourers themselves. I commend to the serious consideration of the noble Viscount the scheme in South Africa and Rhodesia in substitution for the scheme as outlined in the Circular of the Governor in British East Africa.
  There is one more point with regard to the Circular on which I should like to ask the noble Viscount for information. Sir Edward Northey evidently had in his mind the intention to institute a differential taxation; because he says in his circular, "I believe there should be an increased rate of taxation upon young able-bodied men." This appears to be a very bad system. Taxation, after all, should be levied solely for administrative purposes and in accordance with ability to pay, and not based upon the physical condition of the individual. It might have very injurious political results. It is opposed to all sound principle. An increased taxation when made should have only one object—namely, that there should be a corresponding benefit to the native who pays that increased taxation. Some weeks ago I was asked to head a deputation to my noble friend at the Colonial Office in regard to these matters, and I then suggested for his consideration the appointment

  129
  of a Royal Commission— properly constituted, representing all the interests and all the races, with a thoroughly detached Chairman—to go out to these countries, to examine all these various complex and difficult problems, and to report on them to His Majesty's Government.
  In many vital respects uniformity of principle should be adopted over the great area which is in future to be controlled under the British Crown. Administrative methods necessary to comply with the covenant in the Tanganyika country—the Mandatory country—should not, I am sure your Lordships will agree, differ in any serious degree from the methods employed in the other countries. It would be unfortunate in the highest degree, and very invidious, to establish a higher system of civilisation in one of these countries than that established in the others. It would eventually lead to social, economic, and political difficulties. Those whom I have consulted are inclined to agree that it would be well worth while for a well-constituted Commission to visit those countries and to examine into some of those very vexed questions, to certain of which I have alluded this afternoon. I put this forward tentatively to my noble friend. I do not ask him for a positive answer this afternoon because I have not given him notice of this question; but I would like him to give it his serious consideration.
  One last observation, which I would make in the form of another suggestion. I make it with very much less hesitation; indeed, I urge it in the strongest terms upon my noble friend for adoption. Lord Grey, speaking the other day at the inauguration of the British Institute of National Affairs, made the remark that one of the great, lessons of the war was that to think nationally without thinking inter-nationally leads to disaster. That is a very sound doctrine with which every one should agree. It is a doctrine which should influence the considerations of all countries if we are to avert war in the future. I would like to paraphrase that remark, because I think it is apposite to our responsibilities in the Empire. I would say that "Thinking Imperially without thinking inter-Imperially will lead, under our modern conditions, to grave trouble, if not to disaster." The British Empire consists of so many territories, of so many various races intermixed
  130
  in these territories, that a true Imperial policy must take account of the interests and concerns of each, and give full consideration to the claims of all those who live under the British Crown and who expect to enjoy the privileges and the conditions of the Empire.
  In East Africa the population is composed of three distinct races—the British, the Indian, and the native aboriginal—and it is difficult in the extreme to establish laws and to ensure their favourable administration, so affording justice to all of them, without introducing acute hostility front either the one or the other. The only way to secure a working system based upon justice to each would be to establish a form of administrative machinery by which its Constitution should ensure that each race and each interest should obtain a fair measure of consideration in regard to these matters.
  I have had the experience of being in the India Office and in the Colonial Office, and I have given a good deal of thought to this problem. I strongly urge upon my noble friend's earnest consideration the following scheme: To establish a permanent Standing Advisory Committee composed of representatives of the Foreign Office and of the India Office, of an Indian representative from the India Council, and of a representative, nominated by the Secretary of State, who would speak on behalf of the interests of the native community. The Committee might have referred to it questions of status, the franchise of the Indian community, legislation dealing with land tenure and the country, where such affects one or the other races, questions of taxation, and all Circulars and Ordinances connected with the provision and conditions of labour. The Committee would, of course, be advisory, and not executive. It would send its reports to the Departments concerned, and it would issue annually a Report of its work, which would lie on the Table of both Houses as a public document, so that Parliament would know what was going on in those countries.
  I think that the composite mind which would be brought to bear on a Committee of that character would in most instances be able to bring about a fair adjustment of many of time very difficult problems. I am emboldened to make this proposal because it has been strongly urged, and, I understand, is going to be given effect to, in regard to similar problems in India by

  131
  the setting up of a Committee in this Country. I note that within the last few months, with a similar problem in South Africa, General Smuts, in introducing the Native Affairs Bill, has proposed a machinery similar in character to that which I have outlined for dealing with those vexed questions in that country, and therefore my noble friend will have a precedent for the proposal that I make. I would ask for a most earnest consideration of it.
  I must make an apology for having spoken at such length, but the Question, although it is down as one, comprises, as I have already said, two Questions, and they both involve very serious subjects, which it is difficult to compress into a short speech. I beg to move for the Circular on British East Africa in regard to labour, and the correspondence upon it.
  Moved, That there be laid before this House the Circular on British East Africa in regard to Labour, and the correspondence thereupon.—(Lord Islington.)
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I desire to say a few words about the second part of the subject which has been brought to your Lordships' notice in the very interesting speech of the noble Lord. It is a matter which, in its importance, ranges far beyond its local incidence. It is really an object-lesson of something which may be fraught with immense peril over a very wide and scattered area of His Majesty's Dominions, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has called attention to the far-reaching importance of the Circular which formed the basis of his remarks.
  The question is both geographically and, we may say, historically a very far-reaching one. The same problem which is dealt with in Sir Edward Northey's Circular has had to be dealt with again and again, both within the British Empire and outside it—in South Africa, in West Africa, in South-West Africa, in the Southern Seas, in the West Indies, and, as regards the Americans, in the Philippines and elsewhere. Sometimes it has been handled with singular success and effectiveness, with no wrong done to anybody, and with beneficial results to the community; in other cases—where no doubt the difficulties were greater—it has been handled, it seems to me, with far less success and far less beneficial results; I believe, so far as we can judge,
  132
  that the present example is one in which the prospects of a successful handling of it are far off, and the words of the Circular referred to and the probable action taken upon it are ominous in the very highest degree.
  But the subject, though it is wide in its range, gives us exactly what we want in a tangible, concrete, object-lesson of the way in which the principles at stake can or cannot work in regard to our relation to child peoples, as we call them, or the simpler races with whom we are in contact. I am sure that some of your Lordships must look back, as I do, to the time some thirty years ago when that very region of Africa was the subject of acute debate in this country, when the question of our relaxing or retaining our hold upon Uganda was before the world, when Mr. Bosworth Smith wrote a series of eloquent letters to The Times, and when Lord Rosebery, in some very memorable speeches, called attention to those letters, taking as his text certain phrases which had been specially used by Mr. Bosworth Smith, particularly on what he called "the continuity of the moral policy of England." The continuity of its moral policy was the matter that had been brought out, and also the fact that it was essential to the proper effectiveness of our rule, or our relation to other races than our own, that there should be a large policy, that it should be based on sound, moral lines, and that it should be continuous.
  It was brought out at that time that there were three great instincts that had charactcrised our British relation to races, African and Asiatic, with whom we had had to do—I will not say as rulers, but as those who were in a position of responsibility and, in some sense, of authority—the instinct of freedom, the instinct of Empire, the instinct of philanthropy. It was shown how all of them had found their scope, and how we seemed in a special way to have been able to give effect rightly to the instinct of freedom, making the great basis the freedom of every individual; the instinct of Empire—the Empire which had grown rather by accident than by deliberate intent and purpose, or actual conquest for the sake of Empire—and throughout it all the instinct of philanthropy, which had made us care, and show peculiar power of caring, for the infant or subject races with whom we had had to do. We cannot

  133
  possibly handle a local question of this kind without remembering its relations to those larger theories, those wider principles which ought to have been, and, I think, have usually been, governing principles in our action in regard to other races, especially the backward and the child races. But those principles are tested and are made clear when we get the kind of practical object lesson which has been brought before us in the present action of His Majesty's Government, or their representatives in East Africa, in regard to native labour.
  So far as I understand the matter, the present-day difficulties in this practical question are these. We are developing a very large territory, for the gain not only of its own people but, very markedly, that of ourselves as well. This involves doing some things which are, I would almost say, solely for our gain, but which we cannot carry out effectively without enlisting native co-operation and help in the way of labour. Over a good part of these East African regions labour is short locally unless it is imported from a great distance, and—I speak under correction, for there are others here who know the details better than I do, though I know something about it—the regions of the higher ground, particularly that which is now being developed by Englishmen in English interests, are not thickly populated with natives, and have not been, the natives preferring the hotter regions down below. But the result is that native labour is not easily procurable, or procurable by the ordinary offer of reasonable wages for those regions where we desire our development to go on. So we are told —there are plenty of documents to show it —that the need arises of helping artificially to secure labour. The offer of wages does not suffice.
  Is the local or central Government justified in bringing pressure to bear upon natives for the purpose of obtaining the labour, and, if so, what degree of pressure? I should be prepared to say that, while in abstract theory and ideal, we take as our watchword the fullest possible freedom for the individual—and I should never wish to lower that particular British flag—yet there have been, and there are, times when a qualification of that sentiment, expressed in that blunt form, is necessary. There are marked lessons like conscription in time of war, when we were interfering with individual liberty, or the systems existing in many
  134
  countries abroad (and for a long time in our own country, especially in Scotland), of what might be called compulsory labour for the sake of the upkeep of roads for the public advantage. I think I am right in saying that it is only within quite recent years, and the memory of people now alive, that the law has been abrogated that made labour compulsory in Scotland for the upkeep of the roads. Be that as it may, we have had in our own islands and in many parts of the Empire a system of interfering with the liberty of the subject for the sake of what is obviously public necessity.
  I should also admit the possibility, especially perhaps amongst simple peoples, of taking in the form of labour some part of the taxes which we must necessarily levy upon them— a certain number of days in the year in lieu of a certain number of pounds or dollars or whatever it may be. Provided it is properly safeguarded, properly inspected and properly regulated by the right people, it is not a principle which we ought to feel contravenes in any vital way the large theories upon which we desire to act. But all these are, of course, for the good of the community as a whole, including the persons who are thus taxed and are giving their labour in lieu of their money, and those who are thus labouring, whether they like it or not, for the community as a whole are part of the gainers in what is being done for the common good.
  But the document to which attention has been called to-night especially, goes outside of that in asking for native labour for non-native farms and for private undertakings. That changes the whole of the situation and, as the whole text of it shows, develops itself on totally other lines than those which are primarily, and certainly those which are exclusively, for the public gain and good. There, to use a favourite and somewhat hackneyed expression, we are at once upon an exceedingly slippery slope, because, as in other things, so here it is not possible very markedly to draw the line. A crop is required, a portion of which belongs to the Government, or is taken by the Government as taxation. That crop has to be got in. The greater portion of its profit is going to private individuals and a certain part to the Government. Is that crop to be got in rapidly and, if so, will voluntary labour suffice, for the purpose? If not, is pressure to be brought to bear? We see at once how exceedingly difficult it is to draw the

  135
  line and make the thing as clear as it ought to be.
  I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Islington, in his speech to-night, call attention to those weighty words contained in a passage from one of Lord Cromer's documents in which he pointed out the contrast between the necessity of labour for the public good where the gainers are the community as a whole, and the awful peril of once allowing the principle of compulsory labour for private profit to operate; because, as he puts it, it very soon becomes synonymous with slavery. That is what we are up against to-night, and that is what we have to face. It is in the hope that we may have some assurance that the expressions in the Circulars which have been published in East Africa relating to the matter, do not really represent the settled policy of His Majesty's Government, that I rejoice that this matter should have been brought forward.
  The perils have been described to some extent by Lord Islington in what he has already said, and the whole position is not hard to see. The white man in those regions, pleased, as I think, at the success which attended the system of the conscription of carriers for the war, feels that it ought to be a comparatively easy thing to obtain a supply of labour for other purposes in peace time, including the purpose for which he is there—namely, the augmentation of the interest which he represents, the interest of private gain. He therefore applies that principle which has worked well in war time to the conditions which prevail in time of peace, and asks that effect may be given to it, and that the Government may help him. The outstanding dangers are two. The first is the employment of agents, either the native chiefs—which is, perhaps, one of the most dangerous—or the paid middleman, whether he be white or African. You cannot trust, it is impossible to trust, the employer himself, human nature being what it is.
  No body of men who are anxious to become rich can be at all times trusted, as was well said the other day, to act justly towards those on whose labour their riches depend. Therefore, you are faced with considerable difficulty in regard even to the employers themselves, however much, in a large sense, they are well disposed, or however worthy their agents may be, and it is difficult to feel that they can act with
  136
  impartiality in the matter. But far less can you trust the native agent, whether he be the chief with people under him, men, women and children—for they are all in this Paper—when labour may be wanted generally, or adult labour alone. I find it difficult to think that it was not almost humourously, if one might use the word in this connection, that such words were used in a document, as that pressure should be brought to bear to urge the native chiefs to use all influence, to encourage by all lawful means. "Lawful" is, no doubt, a safeguarding word upon which stress is likely to be laid, but one imagines what it is likely to mean in this case.
  Further, the native chief is told here that the District Commissioner will keep a record of the names of those chiefs and head-men who are helpful and those who are not, and will make reports for the information of His Excellency. In cases where any chief is impervious to His Excellency's wishes, "the fact should be reported to me for His Excellency's information" —and so on. What does that mean when you apply that to the chief of a native tribe where labour is asked for, whose interest, and money, and so on are going to depend upon there being an adequate supply of labour from amongst those for whom he is responsible. His influence is likely to take a form which we know only too well, of the sjambok and the rope, which were used by the Germans in East Africa, before the war. That was the nature of the influence which was brought to bear and the pressure that was exercised upon the native chiefs as regards the compulsory labour wanted by them prior to the war. We are really in the gravest possible danger if we adopt phrases like that, and bring pressure such as the Circulars suggest we should bring to bear upon native chiefs in that way.
  The next danger is the deportation to a distance of the labour which is thus enrolled. Supposing a native desires of his own free will to go a distance, to go even to regions which he likes least in order to work there, attracted by the wages which are offered, good and well. But we have to be very sure that that is what is happening. The Circulars speak quite definitely of endeavours that are going to be made by the Government to obtain native labour from the adjacent conquered territory; that is to say, from a considerable distance away; and native labour has to be obtained to go

  137
  to regions to which it would not naturally flow, and that has to be done under the influence of the pressure that has been mentioned. It is a painful subject, but your Lordships know something of what happened in German East Africa before the war in regard to that; how some of the importations of native labour to one part of the country had to be stopped because of the mischiefs that had ensued, first front the conditions of disease in which the men, thus deported from their wives and families, returned, and the harm that was done in the neighbourhoods to which they came back. This furnished an awful picture of what was being brought about by deportation under little control. Then there is the question of the deserted families of those so deported, and the obvious danger of a complete lack of care and adequate consideration by native superintendents, or contractors, or agents, of the people who are deported. No doubt care will be taken to have them inspected, but we know what that likely to mean. We have seen something of that in other cases.
  Deportation is fraught with the gravest possible dangers and I think the Circular which Mr. Ainsworth has issued only requires to be read in order to see what perils are being run. I understand that one administrator in the conquered territory has refused to allow those over whom he is in authority to be deported. He knows the dangers and has declined to agree to any request to allow these people to be deported. He is acting in exact accordance with his duty; and perfectly rightly. We want to be secured against these perils much more firmly than the letters would lead us to suppose we are at present. I am certain that the danger of the interests of the natives being subordinated to the private interests of individuals, landowners, promoters, and purchasers of land, however admirable their intentions, is one which we cannot possibly allow to pass without the strongest possible protest. We dare not leave the matters as they stand now, and we await the assurance from the Government that these documents do not mean all that they appear to mean.
  VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I desire to add only a few words to what has been said in the instructive speeches of the noble Lord and the most rev. Primate. They have expressed the principles which have commended themselves to those who have followed this question for a great many
  138
  years, and have the welfare of the native races at heart. I should like to express my sense of the importance of trying to draw a very sharp and clear distinction between the employment of forced labour for public purposes and its employment for private purposes. Of course, at all times it is a regrettable necessity, but it can well be argued on behalf of the employment on public labour that it is employment of benefit to the whole community and to the native himself, and that it is no more than what has been done by native chiefs in matters which were of common interest to the community. By its very nature such work is conducted always under the public eye. Any abuse of it will be known and can be corrected. That is not the case when forced labour is employed by any private person. It is perfectly certain to be abused. The native is unprotected and in many cases he labours unwatched and unseen by any public official who can judge of the treatment he receives. You cannot watch all these private employers.
  Your Lordships will remember that many years ago a question of this kind arose with regard to indentured coolie labour from India imported into our West Indian Colonies, and I remember a Royal Commission which sat thirty-five or forty years ago to deal with that question as it related to British Guiana. There a state of things had arisen which resembled slavery. It was necessary to have a careful investigation, to lay down elaborate rules in order to protect the coolie labourer from being practically male a sort of slave. This abuse has long since ceased, but the very fact that it existed warns us that, wherever the native is put under control, where any compulsion is placed upon his own will, the danger arises of something approaching slavery. Our experience has happily shown us that we can always trust the British official, when he is charged with any duty, to carry it out in a spirit of justice and humanity; but you cannot trust a private employer of any nation to do so. Where private interests come in they will have their sway, and, therefore, we ought to exercise the greatest possible care in putting any one under any compulsion where it is to be exercised on behalf of private gain.
  The true policy, as has been indicated by Lord Islington, is to make employers I understand that their business is to make employment attractive. In other words,

  139
  they must pay the requisite wages and supply the proper treatment which the native labourer is entitled to expect. It has always been found if they do so that the natural current of labour supplies the employers with what he wants. The way in which improvement comes about in native faces, as it has come about in primitive races everywhere, is through the circle of the wants of the primitive man increasing. Man began with very few and simple wants, but the more civilisation increases, and the more he is brought into contact with people who live a life of greater comfort and enjoyment, the more his wants increase, and the only way he can satisfy those wants is by his labour. Thus there is a natural tendency for labour to increase, because man wants more and has only one way of getting it. This holds true of some of these races in Africa where the population has been brought below its natural level owing to the habit of constant raiding. Where British rule has introduced peace and security, where native raids are put an end to, there the population begins to recover, and with the growth of population the demand for labour naturally becomes satisfied.
  There is, therefore, a strong reason for believing that we might trust more to nature than to these Regulations which have an element of danger in them. I have heard of other countries where the people are even in a more savage state than those in North East Africa, but where, nevertheless, the natives are coming into labour when well-treated and good labour is offered. I refer to the races of New Guinea. I have the advantage of having had a conversation with a highly placed official who told me that the natives there are likely to come into labour when it is offered to them on proper terms.
  This is a case where we are bound in particular to be on our good behaviour. Your Lordships know that many questions have arisen, and further questions are likely to arise, with regard to the terms to be imposed upon nations who accept Mandates for the territories taken from Germany and which are being assigned to different European Powers under the provisions of the Covenant of The League of Nations. In the case of those Mandates questions have arisen as to what conditions ought to be imposed upon the Mandatory Power, and for what purposes ought the Mandatory Power to be allowed to impose
  140
  regulations upon the natives. Is the Mandatory Power, for instance, to be permitted to raise native troops, and if so permitted, is the Mandatory Power to be permitted to use those native troops for its own purposes?—for example, to bring them to Europe in case (unlikely as it is to arise immediately, and as we hope will not arise) of a European war, or a war outside the Mandatory territory. Other questions arise with regard to the kind of treatment which the Mandatory Power is bound to apply in its care for the native population.
  Now we—I understand the matter has not become public, but I do not think I am saying anything which is not more or less known—we have been taking the line that every possible provision ought to be imposed in a Mandate for the benefit of the population in the territories to be administered under it. How can we effectively make that demand, and continue to press it through our representatives in the League of Nations, unless we set a good example ourselves? I may be told that the territory to which this Circular relates is not a territory which we are to receive under a Mandate, but is an East African region which we have already held. My noble friend, Lord Islington, called attention to the fact that the Circular suggests bringing in labour from Tanganyika, and so far, therefore, the Mandatory question does arise, but, even if it did not arise, would it be possible for us to insist upon the treatment to be applied to the natives in Mandatory territories, if we do not apply similar treatment in our own territory?
  If we were acquiescing in, or enforcing, compulsory labour for the benefit of the private employer in our own territory, could we with any face insist that a Mandatory Power should not be allowed to do something which was consistent with what we were doing in our own territory? I think the rules which we lay down in our own territory must be the measure of what we ask for in Mandatory territory, and I believe, therefore, that this question is of importance, even greater than that which belongs to it as mentioned in the Motion of my noble friend. We are here laying down a principle which will have application in a very large area of the Mandatory territories of Africa—Our own, stretching from the frontiers of Abyssinia nearly to the Zambesi in the south, and other territories

  141
  which will be occupied by other Mandatory Powers, covering the bulk of Central Africa. The question, therefore, is of very serious and far-reaching importance, and on that ground alone I think is deserving of the careful attention of the Government and of the House.
  We are bound to go into this matter with clean hands. We have all through the war continued to insist, and we insisted in making Peace, that the prime reason for taking away from Germany her African Colonies was that she had acted in them with great harshness towards the natives, and that it was our duty, in the interests of humanity, to secure better treatment for the natives. Now we cannot, with any consistency, apply treatment in our own territory of which we disapproved when practised by the Germans. We have been claiming that we are acting in the interests of the natives. The whole principle of the Mandates, the whole principle which the covenant of the League of Nations sets forth, is that we are trustees, bound to regard and to safeguard the interests of the native population. if we make these professions we are certainly bound to live up to them.
  LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, there are so many of your Lordships who wish to address the House in regard to this matter, that I will endeavour to condense my observations as far as possible. Two important questions were raised by Lord Islington in his interesting speech, but I wish to say just one word only in regard to the part which deals with the Indians. Any one who heard the contrast that he drew between the treatment that is being meted out to India, and the policy that is being pursued towards Indians in East Africa, must have felt that there is an utterly irreconcilable difference in them. In India a large measure of self-government is being given to the people, and only last week, in another place, the Secretary of State for India, in an impassioned speech, said this:
  "Is your theory of domination or rule in India the ascendeney of one race over another, of domination and subordination, or is your theory that of partnership?"
  We are treating Indians in India as partners. We seem to be treating the Indians in British East Africa almost as pariahs. Is that the way to bind the British Empire together?
  I want now to say something about the Circular dealing with the natives. The
  142
  policy is a new one, I believe, and utterly unprecedented, at any rate as regards our policy in recent years. It involves the extension of the corvée for government works, and it involves a plan for bringing natives into British East Africa, a doubtful and most dangerous policy, and it involves persuasion, which I think is hardly distinguishable from compulsion, for private labour for white settlers. I admit that the problem of labour in East Africa is a very difficult one. In West Africa it is a different problem. The cultivation of palm kernels and of cocoa are native industries, but the money inducement there has been so successful that quite recently, in an Inquiry into the Cocoa industry, the administrator or official chiefly concerned with the matter actually proposed prohibiting further planting, because the cocoa industry had become so widely spread in that country that there was danger of the price being reduced too much, owing to the actual success achieved.
  That is a very different problem from East Africa, where the tribes are largely pastoral, and in the old days were nomadic. Some of them, at any rate at the time when I was at the Colonial Office, had great wealth in cattle, and there is a fear that these tribes, being now prevented from fighting, may deteriorate in quality. At the same time the white settlers are short of labour, but I do inquire why, if that is the case, so much inducement is offered to white settlers to go there when there are other quarters more suitable for them. I think myself that in these matters the policy should be one of festina lente, rather than one of making haste.
  It was in these circumstances that Sir Edward Northey was sent out to East Africa. He is a distinguished soldier with South African experience, and a great deal of military experience, but he had no Colonial service training. He arrived on February 1, 1919, and was entertained at dinner immediately on his arrival at Nairobi. The principal speech was made by Major Grogan, who expressed his views in an oration extending over two hours. It was nominally a speech of welcome, but the only welcome that he offered to Sir Edward Northey was a welcome because Sir Edward had had no Colonial service experience. The rest of his speech was a violent and insolent tirade. I am making no unfair paraphrase of it if I say that the burden of such parts of it as I have been able to

  143
  find reported in newspapers sent over from East Africa was that they were entitled —they, the people who were entertaining Sir Edward Northey—to know whether Sir Edward was going to be merely a telephone exchange for Downing Street, whether the Governor was going to govern—that is, I presume, govern according to Major Grogan's ideas—or be governed by the Secretariat in Downing-street, and whether he was going to impose discipline on Colonel Ainsworth and his pro-native tendencies or not. Colonel Ainsworth, the author of one of these Circulars, has always, I admit, had the reputation of being a pronative. That was the new Governor's reception.
  To his credit be it said, he did not dismiss Colonel Ainsworth at the request of Major Grogan, but on or about October 27, 1919, the Circular of which we have heard, with the covering letter from the Governor, was published. I will not quote any further extracts, but I must again remind your Lordships that when Government officials are told that they must exercise every possible lawful influence to induce able-bodied male natives to go into the labour field, and when native chiefs and elders are told that they must at all times "render all possible lawful assistance on the foregoing lines," and when in Section 5 of this Circular the Native Commissioner is charged by the Governor to state that endeavours will be made to obtain native labour from the adjacent conquered territory, we are making a new departure. I want to know what right Sir Edward Northey had to deal with the neighbouring territory. What right had he to make this promise? Had he communicated with the home Government? Had he communicated with anybody in authority in the conquered territory? And, if not, what right had he to make any such promise as this?
  I do not know what the noble Viscount is going to say, but we may hear something of what the missionaries said on this point. In regard to that matter, may I say how greatly I rejoice to have heard the speech that the most rev. Primate has made this afternoon in relation to this question? The Bishops of Uganda and Mombasa, in a letter they wrote, said, I believe, that when native chiefs are charged with the business of recruiting labour the door is flung wide open to almost any abuse. But whatever the missionaries out there have said, the
  144
  Missionary Societies here, in solemn conclave, sent a grave warning to the Colonial Office with regard to this matter.
  I am interested in the question, from the mere point of view of method, and I must draw attention to the fact that the Colonial Office were not consulted on this matter. My noble friend asked if they were. Clearly, I think, they were not. The Secretary of State was away, I suppose, during part of the time when this matter was in controversy. I do not blame him for going away in the least, but I say that the Prime Minister cannot quite appreciate the importance of Colonial questions, particularly at this present moment, if the Secretary of State can be sent away into distant parts of the Empire, and taken right away from his office at a time like this. The Colonial Office was not consulted, because Colonel Amery, on April 26, said that at that time he had only received an unofficial copy of the Circular. Why was not that Circular sent home? Why was a new departure of this magnitude allowed without the Colonial Office being consulted? From my knowledge of the Office I cannot conceive that such a thing could ever have been done when my noble friend Lord Harcourt was at its head and I had the honour of serving under him. If such a thing had been done then an immediate order would have been given that the Circular should be withdrawn until he had had time to consider it.
  As far as I know there is no precedent for compulsion of labour for the purposes of white settlers in the British Empire since slavery was abolished. There are, of course, Prussian models for that kind of thing, but I had imagined that our methods were better than the Prussian methods, and were to remain better. It is directly against the principles laid down by our great Colonial administrators. Colonel Amery in another place said that both he and the Secretary of State had heard of this Circular with anxiety, but apparently their fears had been allayed by an interview with Sir Edward Northey, who told them that compulsion is not intended out there, and that no pressure would be put on the industrious, but only on the idle. If you are going to give promotion to officials and chiefs who, in actual practice, are successful in obtaining labour, what guarantee will there be that only the idle are chosen, and what guarantee will there be if the idle are chosen that they are going-to be of any use in the work to which they are sent?

  145
  If a black mark is to be put against administrators who use less pressure than others, then in effect it does mean, "find labour honestly if you can, but anyway find it." It is no use saying compulsion is not intended. This Circular, in effect, means compulsion. It is the scheme of a new Governor who began his rule under the threats of which I have told your Lordships, and he evolved, apparently without the knowledge or consent of the Secretary of State, this new scheme which has made the Secretary of State most anxious. I shall be very interested indeed to know what the Secretary of State has to say about it. This is a most deplorable development. I should be less anxious were it not for other indications affecting time question, about which my noble friend Lord Bryce spoke.
  It seems to me that a good deal that is being done by the Colonial Office at the present time is queering the pitch of the League of Nations so far as concerns Clause 22 of the Covenant. The Colonial Office appears to be using every opportunity to suggest or force the imposition of differential export duties on the Colonies, as in the case of palm kernels. There is also the case of Nauru, in regard to which I suppose a Bill will shortly be coming before your Lordships' House. There is in that matter to be preferential treatment of purchasers, and preferential treatment not only as between the Empire and foreign countries, but as between different parts of the Empire. For the great delay in dealing with these Mandates I am quite sure the Colonial Office is not responsible, but I think it is most regrettable that the pitch should be queered by any action that they take in the meantime. I agree with my noble friend Lord Bryce that to all appearances we are setting up a new policy at a time when the old high standards of which we were so proud ought to be rigorously maintained.
  The intention of the writers of this Circular may be excellent, but they have to be carried out on the spot by a great variety of men. Many of them, I think, will be humane and tactful, but some may be neither humane nor tactful, and will be only too glad of an excuse to use force to "get the lazy riggers to work." These short cuts to efficiency in training natives were tried in the old days of slavery, and they were not conspicuously successful. The instruments to carry out this policy are, as I have said, men living far from home, with the pride of a superior race dealing with an
  146
  inferior; and I fear that mistakes will be made. I have always taken a very keen pride in the clean record of this country in dealing with natives in the past. I rejoice in the financial success that those methods have obtained; but I look with grave suspicion on what has, to my mind, the appearance of a hark-back to Prussian ideals and Prussian methods of administration.
  I ask the Secretary of State to pause before he throws over the old English methods. If it is too late to ask hint to withdraw this Circular I beg to him of give the most favourable consideration to the interesting suggestion my noble friend Lord Islington has made. It is really dangerous to the future of our Empire that new and inconsistent policies on acute racial questions should be operating in different parts of the Empire. It is intolerable that new Governors, who know very little of the problems of the other portions of the Empire, should set up new policies, affecting vital imperial problems, by Circulars which cause anxiety to the Secretary of State at home. Genuine and widespread anxiety exists about this matter, and I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the reasonable proposals of my noble friend Lord Islington. Those proposals ask for a well-thought-out and co-ordinated policy as regards natives. The circumstances of our Empire to-day, with difficult new problems on every hand, seem to render such a policy urgently necessary if we are to avoid serious mistakes.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I wish to detain your Lordships for a short time only. I do not desire in any way to deal with the status of the natives in India and British South Africa, because amongst them are rich traders, merchants and shopkeepers, educated men, who I consider are very well able to look after their own interests, especially with an advocate such as Lord Islington, as is instanced by the excellent speech he has made on the subject. But when it comes to native labour, that is another question altogether. It has become a very serious question in East Africa, and I agree with Lord Emmott when he says that the policy should be festina lente. You must not be in a hurry to introduce new policies amongst those natives, especially at present.
  One thing has not been mentioned during this debate—namely, the labour procured

  147
  during the war. In East Africa during the war native chiefs were given five rupees a head for each man they produced, and the carriers and labourers received food and a cloak—or, I suppose, a blanket—and nothing else. The most rev. Primate said that the Colonists were most likely encouraged by this form of forced labour to think that this sort of thing, though perhaps modified, should be continued. I think it is perfectly clear that for peace in that country it is impossible that such a state of forced labour should ever be attempted on the same lines as during wartime. It was absolutely necessary, of course, during the war. May I say that those native carriers suffered tremendously? Many of the natives fought well for us, and that should be taken into consideration. I have had this information from an officer who was three years in the country in that campaign, and I believe what he told me to be perfectly true.
  I have read the Circulars on forced labour of the Governor of these Provinces, and my own impression of them is that they are rather vague. But there is this about them, that a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse; and there are some very broad hints with regard to labour in those Circulars. No doubt they will be followed by Ordinances. If we had the Ordinances to deal with I could understand a great deal of the very strong observations made by noble Lords who spoke before me; but the Ordinances are not before us, and there is plenty of time to prevent their being promulgated. Although the paragraph of Sir Edward Northey's Circular of October 21, 1919, has been read out, I really must again read the end of it—
  "Work on large Government enterprises such as railways and roads is less popular; for this the Government, should, I believe, have the power to call out the idlers. I believe there should be an increased rate of tax on young able-bodied men."
  I may read that wrongly, but it may mean. "If you do not work you are going to be taxed a little more." There is some force in that, and I think it is one of the strongest points in the Circular. I should now like to ask the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the labourers who are going to be employed by the Government will be paid individually or whether the chiefs are to get the money for providing them?
  VISCOUNT MILNER: Individually.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: That is something. I am very glad to hear that. It quite does away with what took place during the war.
  VISCOUNT MILNER: Hear, hear.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: With these circulars before one it is well to ask, What will be the length of the contracts; what will be the terms of the contracts; and what wages will the labourers earn? I am not talking of private labour for the Colonists but of the public works and the railways which are hinted at in Sir Edward Northey's Circular. That is very important, and I wish to say something more about it. If the Government are going to bring over from distant parts of Africa natives to work on these railways and public works, which I admit are necessary, they must allow them to bring their wives and families. If there is one thing that a native wants more than anything it is his wife and his children around him— his wife to cook his food and to live with him. You would thus do away with chances of all sorts of disease which are palpable to anyone speaking on this subject. Further, you make the native notch happier. A negro, if he is well treated, is a jolly sort of fellow. I have employed many on the other coast and, I hope, treated them well; and they have always treated me well.
  Another point is in regard to the amount of wages paid by the Government for public works. Those wages should certainly not be less than those paid by our Colonists to their labourers. That I should say would be a correct sort of policy. The amount should not be more, because the Colonists want labour very badly indeed. You have to develop, both on public grounds and on private grounds. As time goes on more land is taken into cultivation, more public works are begun, and more labour is required; and it is essential for everyone to know—I hope the noble Viscount will tell us this broadly and distinctly—what the policy of the Government is going to be with regard to labour in East Africa. These Circulars have made people rather suspicious and nervous. I do not suppose that the natives know anything about them; but if our policy is not known front here at headquarters there will be a great deal of trouble and unrest in that country. If there are to be recruiting agents, it is most important that they should be licensed; because if

  149
  you give a native power he is able to commit great abuses, and the recruiting agents, as we all know, can get a pull and can bully. It is important that recruiting agents should be licensed by the Government of the country for which they are trying to get recruits.
  A word as to the Circular of the Chief Native Commissioner, issued at the instruction of the Government in East Africa. Paragraph 5, which has already been alluded to, says:
  "His Excellency instructs me to state that constant endeavours will be made by this Government to obtain native labour from the adjacent conquered territory."
  That is quite definite. It says they are going to get the labour from the adjacent conquered territory. I should like to ask the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State, whether that is a violation of the Mandatory system of the League of Nations.
  It seems to me that in getting labour "from the adjacent conquered territory" we are rather encroaching on Tom Tiddler's ground, picking up gold and silver, because it is hinted, and even clearly stated, to the chiefs in our own territory that, if more labour comes in from the conquered territory, then there will be less money for them. That is coming very near to forcing them into a very disagreeable position, because if they do not provide the labour it will be brought over from the other side, and they will suffer. If there is to be forced labour of any sort, which should only be exacted when absolutely necessary, and with the greatest reluctance, it should be administered under the strictest safeguards, which means that the natives should be made as comfortable as possible when you have got them there to work on your public works. They should not continue to be administered by the Government in South Africa, but the policy should be the total supersession, by degrees, of forced labour. It might last for a certain time under certain conditions, but it ought to end, and I hope the noble Viscount will tell us that there is not the smallest chance of labour being forced, as is hinted by the Circular.
  LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I wish to emphasise the first point brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Islington—namely the position and treatment of Indians in East Africa. I feel sure there can be no doubt in the mind of anybody present as to the importance of this question. It is
  150
  urgently necessary at such a time as this, when public opinion and feeling in India is what it is to-day, that satisfactory assurances should be given in reference to the treatment of Indian residents in places outside India. It is a commonplace that the war has added immensely to our Imperial responsibilities, and we are face to face to-day with an acute and urgent Indian question at many points. We have, this afternoon, to deal particularly with the problem of Indians outside their own country.
  There is one point to which I should like to call special attention. It is an expression of my own opinion merely, but I think it is historically correct. There is no danger of a rush of the Indian population out of India at any time to other regions under the British flag, and, in that way, of the other British interests in those regions being dominated by the Indian population, The Indian does not like to leave his own shores. It will be found, historically, that the existence of a large number of Indians at many points of the Empire is due in the main to indentured labour. I will not attempt to reiterate the Points of grievance to which Lord Islington called attention—the questions of the franchise, of the land, of currency, and other very important questions. But I hope that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be able in his reply at all events to set at rest many doubts which are agitating our minds at the present time upon these points and—what is quite as important, if not more important—that what he may say may have the effect also of easing the situation in India and of showing that many of the fears entertained in regard to these matters in East Africa, affecting the Indian population there, have no substance in fact.
  I should like to emphasise the Indian standpoint. I have before me a copy of certain resolutions which were passed on June 20 in India by the Council of the Indian National Liberal Federation, which is a body that voices what I may term moderate Indian opinion. There are one or two words in these resolutions which, I think, set out the case very clearly from the Indian standpoint. The Council strongly protests against the anti-Indian agitation of the European residents in the Protectorate of East Africa, and against the political and economic disabilities imposed upon Indians by the Government of the Protectorate. They urge that there is no

  151
  justification for the policy of racial discrimination as against the Indian subjects of His Majesty in a part of the British Empire the internal administration of which is under the control of the Government. They demand, in particular, that restrictions on the allotment of land to Indians should be abolished, and that the political and municipal franchise should be extended to them. The Council earnestly request the Government of India to press with all their power the Indian claims for justice and equality. That, I think, sets out very distinctly what is in the mind of the great majority of the people of India with reference to the particular points that occupy our attention this afternoon.
  I have for some time been convinced that something beyond the existing machinery is required for dealing adequately and efficiently with the responsibilities of our Imperial administration. I have the greatest regard and admiration for all our great State Departments. As we all know the Colonial Office is manned by able, honourable, and devoted public servants, but with all the changes which have been brought about by the war and the added responsibilities of the present time, I believe that something beyond the existing system of administration from Whitehall is required, in the interests of the Empire and of the nation. We all hope, my Lords, that at no distant date certain changes may be brought about in our Parliamentary constitution, which will enable Parliament to give a much greater and closer attention to foreign and Imperial affairs than has been the case in the past.
  There is only one observation which I should like to make in connection with the suggestion put forward by my noble friend, Lord Islington, as to a Standing Committee. I hope it may be found possible to carry that suggestion into effect; but, in my judgment, something more is required as a permanent solution in view of present conditions; some procedure by which it may be found possible for the mind of both Houses of Parliament to be given to Imperial affairs; something, perhaps, in the shape of a Joint Parliamentary Committee, charged with the responsibility of watching the interests of our Imperial administration. However that may be, I feel very glad that my noble friend, Lord Islington, has had this opportunity of bringing forward this Question and, being specially interested in the Indian side of the problem, I do
  152
  earnestly trust that the noble Viscount, in his reply, will be able to give your Lordships a satisfactory assurance upon these points.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT MILNER): My Lords, I am afraid it will be impossible for me, with any regard to your Lordships' time and patience, to deal with all the points which have been raised during the course of this long and very interesting debate, but I trust I shall be able to say enough to reassure your Lordships on some of the matters which, as the last speaker said, are causing disquiet in the minds of many members of this House. It was not, of course, possible to foresee the particular matters on which my noble friend who asked the Question, and other speakers, might touch. I have come down here armed with a very large number of official documents, rather more than I may be able to find my way through, and yet it so happens that I have not got all the documents bearing on all the points which have been raised in the course of the debate. Nevertheless, I think I may be able to deal with the main points.
  I was not able to foresee quite the line which my noble friend was going to take, although I am bound to say that I had some indication of it from the fact that he wrote me a letter some days ago (for which I thank him), giving particulars of the proposal to which he intended his remarks to lead—the proposal, that is to say, of a Committee composed of representatives of the Colonial Office, the Foreign Office, the India Office, an Indian member of the Indian Council, and of some representative of native interests nominated by the Colonial Office, to which should be submitted all questions of importance affecting the administration of our East African possessions, and which should report to Parliament. If I have time before I finish I shall have a word to say regarding this proposal, but, at the present moment, I will only make one observation upon it, because it touches the very heart of the matter under discussion. I observe that though native interests and Indian interests are to be specially represented in this Committee, there is to be no representative of the European settlers. That, no doubt, is because it is supposed that the Colonial Office takes sufficient account of the interests of the European settlers, while the

  153
  Indians and the natives are in need of special protection.
  I am afraid I must demur to the point of view, which seems to underline the whole of my noble friend's arguments and some of the speeches which have been delivered in the course of this debate. I mean, the view that the interests of the Indian and the native communities of East Africa do not receive sufficient consideration under existing conditions. Let me say at once that if this were indeed the case, it would be evidence of failure on the part of those who are responsible for the administration of these territories. In East Africa, as in other countries under the administration of the Colonial Office, it has been the avowed principle, and it is the definite intention, of the British authorities to mete out even-handed justice between the different races inhabiting those territories. They regard themselves as equally responsible for the interests of all sections of the population, of whatever race or colour. And I, for one, do not admit that in East Africa or elsewhere, difficult as it may often be, and undoubtedly is, to reconcile divergent and sometimes conflicting interests of the different sections of the population, the principle has ever been deliberately departed from.
  Now let me say a few words on the question of the natives. The natives form the overwhelming majority of the population of our East African possessions. They are, moreover, the most backward and the most helpless part of the population, and any policy which was not deliberately directed to their protection and advancement would undoubtedly be unhesitatingly condemned by British opinion and would find few or no supporters in your Lordships' House. I will not make the obvious remark that, whatever may be the defects of their present condition, it is a condition as widely different as light from darkness compared with that in which we found them —a condition of barbarism, constant slaveraiding, of desperate and devastating internecine conflict. Let this never be forgotten when the shortcomings, which I do not attempt to deny, of past or present administrations are dwelt upon and perhaps somewhat exaggerated. This is a great deal to be able to say, but I fully admit that it is not enough to say if it can still be contended with any show of reason that the natives are to-day being exploited in the interests of European
  154
  settlers. That is the gravamen of the charge which is brought against us, openly expressed by some speakers, and hinted at by almost all.
  The one idea which seems to haunt the mind of certain noble Lords is the fear that we are introducing, or are about to introduce, a system of compulsory labour. Attention has been called to this subject latterly by the Circular of October 23, 1919, of the Chief Native Commissioner, to which such constant reference has been made in the course of this debate. Mention has also been made of the protest, a very temperate and well-balanced protest, against that circular by a number of High Church authorities, several bishops of the English Church. and I think, the head of the Scottish Mission in East Africa, and others. I need not say that both the Circular and the criticism of it have received very careful and repeated consideration on the part of the Office over which I have the honour to preside. I cannot admit that the Circular deserves the severe criticisms which have been passed upon it or that it justly bears the interpretation which has been put upon it here to-day —an interpretation which certainly was not the intention of its writer.
  I could not help being rather amused by the reference which one of the speakers made to the view which is taken of the supposed oppressor of natives—the author of this Circular—by the representatives of the settlers community. Noble Lords may think that Mr. Ainsworth has not been sufficiently careful of the interests of the natives, but the view which is taken of him by a portion of the European community in South Africa is that he is an extreme upholder of native rights. I am quite certain that anything like what may be called Prussian methods of native administration, anything like the employment of force or ill-treatment, in order to obtain native labour for public works, or for any other purpose, would have no stronger opponent than he. In view of the great amount of attention which has been directed to this Circular, and to the protest against it, I had several discussions with Sir Edward Northey, the Governor of the East African Protectorate, or, as we must now learn to call it, the Kenya Colony, when he was over here a little while ago, and as a result of these discussions I came to the conclusion that the Circular had led to misunderstanding and was capable of

  155
  misinterpretation. Therefore, with my full concurrence, Sir Edward Northey proposes on his return to his colony to issue an explanatory Circular which, I think, will put at rest all doubts as to the meaning of the original documents.
  LORD SHEFFIELD: Will these be withdrawn?
  VISCOUNT MILNER: There is only one Circular and that is the one to which I have referred. It is not withdrawn, but another Circular is to be issued which will deal particularly with the points in which, as I think, the original Circular has been misinterpreted. I hope, at no very distant time, that all the correspondence on the subject, which is not yet entirely completed, may be laid on the Table of the House. The difficulty in this question of native labour is to steer a middle course between allowing the natives to live in idleness and vice and using improper means to get them to work and permitting them to be engaged on unfair terms or to be improperly cared for when they are in the employment of their white masters. It is not an easy course to steer and I should be the last to say that we always find the true via media. But this I will say—that the efforts of the authorities are constantly directed to finding that middle course, and that both legislatively and administratively immense pains have been, and are being, taken to secure the end.
  As to the importance—not primarily in the interests of the white settlers, but in the interests of the natives themselves—of encouraging them in the habits of steady industry, there is, I venture to say, absolutely no difference of opinion between any persons who have practical acquaintance with native conditions and native life in South Africa. There is no difference really between the administrators and those who have lived long in the country, and above all the missionaries, who may be regarded as the chief advocates and defenders of native rights. I say there is absolutely no difference of opinion between all these classes as to the vital importance to the natives themselves of encouraging them to more steady and continuous industry.
  On this subject I should like to read the words of Sir Edward Northey, and with what he says here I desire entirely, speaking from my own long experience as an African
  156
  Administrator, to associate myself. I was sorry to hear some of the criticisms which were directed against Sir Edward Northey to-day. It may be true that he has had no special experience as a Colonial administrator, but he has had long and very varied experience of South Africa and of South African native conditions, and with what he says on the subject of native labour—and I may say that he is a man of extreme sincerity—I entirely agree. These are his words—
  "The Imperial Government has encouraged white settlement and the production of raw materials East Africa can provide; but the idea of increased production is futile, unless we are to do all in our power to bring the native to the labour market and teach him to work. His work, under good European supervision—"
  I call your Lordships' attention to the reservation—
  "and with proper training is many times more productive than it is when left to his own methods, and he improves, physically and mentally, more quickly with regular work and healthy exercise. Left to his own resources he does little work. He makes his women and children do it for him. Very little effort in turning up the rich soil provides him with sufficient fond. Left alone, the majority of the adult men in the native reserves live a miserable life of idleness, drunkenness and vice. Encouraged and taught to work, he soon sees the advantage of earning money, lives better, becomes more intelligent, and dresses himself more decently. For the good of the Empire, which requires our raw materials—for the good of the Protectorate, which must advance along progressive lines, and for the good of the native whom we protect, I am convinced that we must do all that is justly and legally possible to encourage and induce the native to come out and work."
  This view as to the supreme importance, in the natives' own interests, of encouraging native industry, is confirmed in the strongest terms by the bishops and other clergymen who have signed that protest to which I have already referred.
  Speaking of this Circular which is being so much attacked they say this—
  "With the main purpose, the prevention of idleness and the meeting by all legitimate means of the demand for necessary labour, we are in entire accord."
  Labour must be forthcoming if the country is to be developed as it should, be. The country needs it, and the native is better for it, and, therefore, it is common ground with everybody who is familiar with the circumstances, that by all legitimate and proper means the natives should be induced to come forward and work. The high authorities to whom I have just referred, all of them clergymen, all of them

  157
  speaking exclusively in the interests of the natives, go so far as to advocate compulsory labour under carefully restricted conditions; that is to say, labour exacted by the Government for services under Government control, and preferably for public purposes and not for private employers.
  LORD ISLINGTON: Is it not "entirely" for public purposes?
  VISCOUNT MILNER: No, not "entirely" for public purposes. They go further than that, and say "preferably" for public services.
  LORD ISLINGTON: Can the noble Viscount tell us who these authorities are?
  VISCOUNT MILNER: They are the Bishops of Mombasa and of Uganda, the chief authority of the Scottish Church in East Africa, and a number of other clergymen, all speaking from the moral and religious point of view. How far has this compulsion actually gone? To very limited extent compulsory labour is permitted in East Africa and Uganda. Let me read the conditions of the Ordinance under which it has been permitted as an exceptional measure. This is the only Ordinance, of which I am aware, which permits anything like compulsory labour at all, and these are the conditions:
  "The provision of paid porters for Government servants on tour, and for the Government Transport Department, and of paid labour for work on the construction or maintenance of railways end wherever situated in the Protectorate, and for other work of a public nature, whether of a like kind to the foregoing or not. Provided always that no person shall be required to work under the provisions of this clause (a) for a longer period than sixty days in any one year; (b) if he be fully employed in any other occupation or has been so employed during the preceding twelve months for a period of three months."
  That is the limit to which compulsory labour has gone.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: What is the date of that?
  VISCOUNT MILNER: It is a fairly recent Ordinance, beginning early this year. That comes within, and observes strictly, all the conditions laid down in the document to which I have referred, which proceeds from supporters and defenders of the native cause and representatives of all the great religious bodies in East Africa. The degree to which compulsory labour has
  158
  actually been allowed does not go outside the limits which they themselves recommend. But personally I am opposed to any further extension of compulsion, even for public works, and I cannot say too clearly that, except to the extent to which the position is modified by the Ordinance front which I have just quoted, it is illegal to use force to procure labour in our East African possession for any purpose whatever, even public purposes, much less for private employers, and, so far as I am concerned, it always will be illegal. That is now, as always, the policy of His Majesty's Government. Anxious as we are to induce the natives to work, important as we consider it both for the development of the country and for their own advancement that they should work, we are not prepared to go beyond influence, advice and encouragement in order to get them to do so.
  Then it is said—it was said over and over again in the discussion to-day—"It is all very well to talk about influence, advice and so forth coming from persons in authority; with ignorant and helpless natives that does practically amount to compulsion." Those who say that must, I think, be ignorant of the great number of safeguards which we have taken, and are taking, for the protection of the natives against the abuse of authority, either by native chiefs or officials, to bring undue pressure to bear upon the natives to go to work or for any other purpose. Let me call your Lordships' attention to some of these safeguards. Tht greatest in my opinion is one which we have lately adopted—that is that the native districts are now being placed under specially selected British officers, whose concern it will be to look after the interests of the natives, and to see that the humane policy and intentions of the Government with regard to them are carried out. These people will not be in any way under the influence of the white planters. They have nothing to do with the administration of parts of the country other than the native districts, and they have no other official duties titan those of looking after the interests of the natives and seeing that the laws for the protection of the natives are enforced. I have no doubt having regard to the character of the men so employed—carefully selected and well-trained and experienced officers—that they will be able, as they know it is the desire and intention of the Government that they should be able, to prevent irregularities in the matter of recruiting.

  159
  Let me say at once that there is no question hear of pressure being brought upon the natives to serve any particular employer. We want them to work, and they know that we want them to work, but they are free to refuse, and they are free, above all, to choose their masters. What the noble Lord said is perfectly true, that the greatest, the most effective way to obtain native labour in East Africa or anywhere else is to treat the labourer well; and the influence of good treatment is allowed full play in this case. There is undoubtedly a scarcity of labour, and there is competition among employers for labour. The native is free to go and labour where he pleases, and he will naturally go where he knows that his treatment is likely to be best. When the native leaves his own district in order to go and serve under a white master, provisions are there for his protection, and for seeing that the contract which he has made with his master is fairly observed, and that he lives under decent conditions and receives good treatment.
  I would invite any one who is interested in this subject to study the Masters' and Servants' Ordinance of the Kenia Colony of the East African Protectorate. It was made in the time of the Protectorate, but it and the amending Ordinances apply in the case of the Colony. I do not see what more could be done by law than is done in these Ordinances to ensure that the natives should be engaged on fair terms, and that whilst employed proper provision should be made for their food, their housing, their health and their welfare generally. In order that these laws may not remain a dead letter, there are special Government officers—the Inspectors of Labour—who have very wide powers indeed to enable them to examine the contracts under which the native labourers are employed, and to supervise the conditions under which they live. And more than that. It is not only their duty to report any infringements of the Laws and Regulations for the protection of natives, or any infringement of the Masters' and Servants' Ordinance, but themselves to take action on behalf of the natives in any civil proceedings whether instituted by the natives themselves, or by a magistrate on their behalf, or called for by a magistrate—for the proper enforcement of the terms of their contracts.
  Further, very extensive powers are given to the medical officers of the Government to ensure the health of the natives in private
  160
  employ. In the first place, a native cannot even be engaged by a private employer until he has been examined and certified fit to work by a medical officer of the Government. When he is in private employment a medical officer has power of inspection of his dwelling and of his food. He has power to condemn the food and the dwelling if they do not come up to a proper standard; and he can discharge and send back to his home—or, if he cannot be sent back home, send to a native hospital—any native who, though he may have been fit at the time of his employment, is found unfit and no longer able to work. When I look at the provisions of these Ordinances and the arrangements which have been made for carrying them out, I really do not know what more we could do to ensure that the natives— whom, as I have said, it is our policy to induce to work and not to force to work—when they do go to work should receive fair treatment and live under good conditions calculated to advance them in civilisation and not to retard their progress.
  I am always anxious not to overstate a case. I do not for a moment pretend—indeed, how can I know?—that the provisions of a just law or the humane intentions of the Government are always and everywhere effected. All I can say is that this is our policy. We take all the care we can in the selection of the men to carry out that policy. They are men of good education; men with good public school and university records; very often men who have rendered distinguished service in the war. Every effort, I can honestly say, is taken to ensure that the execution of laws —which I hope I have convinced your Lordships are in themselves just and humane—should be entrusted to men who are of such a character that they are likely to be willing and efficient executors of laws of that nature. We do everything we can to select them well.
  At the same time we shall not cease to keep a careful watch over the matter, to investigate complaints, if need be to strengthen Regulations, and to increase staffs. Let it always be remembered that the natives have in their own territories many friends, and an increasing number of friends—the missionaries and others—who arc not slow to call attention to abuses, and who, when they do call attention to abuses, will find in the supreme authorities men ready and eager to put a stop to

  161
  them. In that connection I would once more quote some words of Sir Edward Northey, and they shall be my last on this branch of the subject. He says—
  "Natives throughout the Protectorate now know the power of the Courts of British justice, and they would not hesitate to appeal to them, if aggrieved, with the ready assistance of firms of British solicitors. Abuse of authority will thus quickly be brought to light."
  I turn now to another point, the position of the Indians in East Africa. There is no subject the reasonable consideration of which has bees rendered more difficult by exaggerations on both sides. On the one hand we have the Report of the Economic Commission—to which my noble friend Lord Islington referred—going, as it seems to me, quite outside the terms of reference; abusing the Indians: talking about their moral depravity; calling them carriers of disease and inciters to crime and vice; and pronouncing against all Indian immigration into any part of Africa. Such an attitude is, as Lord Islington said, purely deplorable; and it is not necessary for me once more to repudiate it in your Lordships' House.
  On the other hand, I must say that I read with something like indignation a letter addressed to me by one of the members of the East African Indian deputation —a man of position, and one who could not be regarded as wholly unrepresentative—in which he said, among other things and accompanying a threat, that the Indians would defy the law if it were not made in all respects to accord with their demands. He added that since the administration had been taken over by the Colonial Office, Indian rights had been ignored and trampled upon, and a deliberate policy to drive out Indians had been relentlessly pursued. it would appear that British statesmen of all Parties—the late Lord Elgin, the noble Marquess who sits opposite, my noble friend Lord Harcourt, not to mention Mr. Walter Long, Mr. Bonar Law, and myself—
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And Lord Emmott.
  VISCOUNT MILNER: Yes, and my noble friend Lord Emmott—have all been concerned for fifteen years in a conspiracy to trample upon the rights of the Indians in East Africa. Such sentiments are not likely to meet with approval in your Lordships' House, and I refer to them only as a warning
  162
  against the spirit of exaggeration by which this unfortunate controversy has been so much embittered. Needless to say, it is the earnest desire and determination of His Majesty's Government, disregarding these onslaughts on the one hand and, on the other, not letting themselves be deterred from pursuing a policy which they regard as equitable and as fair alike to the white settlers and to the Indians, to see that there is room for both races in the development of East Africa. There is room for both of them, I may say, without interfering with the welfare or the advancement of the natives. The great thing is to bear the cardinal fact always in mind, that there is no reason why the proper development of any of the races interested in that country should interfere with that of another.
  I cannot deal with all the Indian complaints which have been brought forward in this discussion, but I should like to touch upon what I believe to be the principal complaints. One of these refers to the representation of Indians on municipal councils and on the newly-created Legislative Council. I must ask your Lordships to bear in mind that representative institutions in East Africa are only in their earliest infancy. In Uganda, and necessarily in Tanganyika—where we are as yet hardly in physical possession, and not strictly in legal possession at all, though we have to carry on in the interval as best we can—there are no representative institutions, while in the late East African Protectorate, now known as Kenya Colony, it was only last year that ally elected members at all were introduced into the Legislative Council. The majority remains official. In other words the final decision in all important matters of legislation really rests with the Imperial authorities at home. And I may say at once that, having regard to the very embryonic condition of the institutions of the country, and to its very early stage of development, I think that that position will have to be maintained for a considerable time—the position, that is to say, of an official majority in the Legislative Council, leaving with the Imperial authorities at home the responsibility for the main measures of legislation adopted.
  In these circumstances it seems to me that the question of the number of elected representatives—seeing that they are in a minority in any case—and the method of

  163
  their election, is not of the first importance. What is of vital importance is that the view of every section of the community should be adequately voiced in that Assembly. In the Legislative Council of Kenya the Indians have two nominated, not elected, representatives. That plan, I may say, was adopted because, in our belief, the interests of the Indians could be really better represented under present conditions by nominees than by elected members, and, as a matter of fact, the Indian nominated representatives in the Council are men of high standing, who do, I believe, very worthily and adequately defend the interests of the people of their race.
  But it appears that the fact that the Indian members of the Council are nominated, while the European members are elected, is regarded as a slight, certainly by a section of the Indian community at any rate, and that, as a question of amour propre, the Indians desire that their representatives on the Council should be elected, as the European unofficials are, and not nominated. I am bound to say that this s a point on which I do not feel very strongly, and I am perfectly open to conviction. I rather deprecate altering the composition of the Legislative Council, which is in the nature of an experiment, and which is only just set up. But if I was convinced that this was a matter on which the Indian community felt strongly and was unanimous, I should see no reason why, at the next election of the Legislative Council, the Indian members should not be elected, just as the European members are though the nature of the franchise to be conferred upon the Indians would have to be a matter of very careful consideration.
  And I say the same about the municipal councils. There also I think that if the Indians attach great importance to the election of their representatives, as against the system of nomination, it is not a matter about which the Imperial authorities ought to take an obstructive attitude.
  LORD ISLINGTON: Would the noble Viscount say whether the representation would be increased also in accordance with the Indian population?
  VISCOUNT MILNER: I am not prepared to commit myself on that particular point at this moment. The particular point with which I am dealing is the question of election, as against nomination. I know the numbers of the Legislative Council,
  164
  but I am really not aware at this moment what the proportions are in the municipal councils; therefore, I am not in a position to say whether they are fair or not. But I think that the question of proportions is more important probably in the municipal councils than it is in the Legislative Council.
  The other main point to which I should like to refer is what is known as race segregation. There is no question on earth about which there has been a greater amount of exaggeration and misunderstanding. One would think, from a great deal that has been said on this subject by the Indians or their advocates, that the Indians in East Africa were all compelled to live in a sort of ghettos. As a matter of fact there is no general restriction at all upon the residence of Indians. There is no law compelling them to dwell in any particular locality, or forbidding them to dwell in any other. I am speaking now of the Kenya and Uganda. With regard to Tanganyika, I really cannot speak positively at the present time. It is conceivable, though I do not think it is likely—I do not know as a matter of fact that it is so—that, for purely administrative and temporary purposes, there are restrictions upon the places of residence of Indians or of any people at the present moment in that territory. But I do not think the conditions existing in Tanganyika—a territory of which, as I say, we only recently became partly in possession—can be taken as any indication of the system to be introduced hereafter, when our authority there is fully recognised and established. I am speaking with regard to The Kenya and Uganda, because the principles that we lay down there are principles which we should seek hereafter to extend to Tanganyika, so far as it may be possible to do so under the provisions of the Mandate.
  The whole controversy which has arisen on this question of race segregation is due to the fact that in the disposal of Government lands we have reserved certain areas —quite limited areas, in which alone whites can live and work in health in East Africa—for white settlers, and that in the lay-out of townships, we are dividing them into European, Indian, and native quarters. Those are principles which I am prepared to defend on two conditions. One is that as we have reserved certain areas for European settlers, we should also offer other areas to Indian settlers. There is, I am assured, vacant land available of a suitable character,

  165
  and I may say that I should welcome the fact if the Indian Government were willing to send out representatives to assure itself that the land offered to Indian settlers was suitable and adequate. The other condition, which, I think, ought to be observed if the policy which I have indicated is to be carried out as regards townships, is that there should be fair treatment of both races in the matter of sites. I mean to say, that you should not give all the best sites to Europeans and cram the Indians into inferior localities. If that principle is observed I cannot, for the life of me, see where the injustice or the indignity to the Indians comes in.
  It is very easy to create prejudice by talking about Indian locations. You might just as well talk about European locations. I think the noble Lord who asked the Question to-night is under some misapprehension with regard to the rights of Indians to acquire land. He seemed to think that the acquisition of Government land was limited to Europeans. That is not the case. It is true that in certain areas only Europeans are allowed to acquire land, but it is equally true that in other areas only Indians are allowed to acquire land. That principle may be right or wrong. but it is not a principle of inequality as between the two races. The object, of course, is to maintain a system under which the Indians, the natives, and the Europeans in the same areas—that is, the crowded and populous districts—reside in different parts of a township. You may ask, "Why make this separation? Why not let them all mix up together?" I can only say that the principle of the separation of townships into European, native, and Indian areas was adopted on sanitary grounds, and on the recommendation of a man who is, perhaps, the highest living authority on tropical sanitation, Professor W. J. Simpson.
  He was sent out there not with any reference to this question of Indian or European ownership or residence at all, but with the general, open commission to report on the sanitary measures necessary for the welfare of the community out there. It was from him that the suggestion proceeded that this separation should be made, which, I say, has been made, without necessarily implying inequality between the different races or indignity to any one race. The reason which he gave for it he has lately repeated in the strongest terms, and I should like
  166
  to read to your Lordships what that reason was:—
  "In considering the question of residence of Indians in the residential area set aside for Europeans, it is necessary to point out that in East Africa the Indians have been the chief carriers of plague, and it is due to them mainly that this disease has spread over the country. It is due to them also that the very insanitary conditions of the commercial quarter, and especially in that of the Indian bazaar in Nairobi, has arisen, which has rendered Nairobi an endemic area of plague and a menace to the general population. It is the same in all the bazaars of East Africa in which the Indians settle. When plague occurs among the Indians it is concealed as long as possible."
  It is said, on the other hand, Why cannot you deal with this matter by sanitary regulations? Is it necessary to separate the people? Cannot you have a general inspection? Let them live mixed up anyhow, but have an inspection of all their houses, and put a stop to insanitary practices in any one of them.
  I should like once more to quote what the same high authority says on that point:—
  "Even granted that the house of the Indian built in the residential quarter of the European area would conform to the building laws relating to the area, a requirement not easily secured permanently in Indian houses, there is no guarantee that the Indian household will observe the necessary personal sanitary requirements which are essential for the safety of the European neighbours, and on which the demand for segregation rests. Such observance would involve a belief in modern etiology of diseases and willingness to act thereon in the privacy of the dwelling, neither of which can be said to exist in the Indian household. For however highly educated mid advanced the Indian owner may be, his family and dependents are swayed, and naturally so, by the customs and beliefs of their religion, and will not alter."
  Therefore, the origin of this policy, which is described as one of race segregation—I do not like the word—the policy of the division of townships into several areas inhabited by different races, was originated on sanitary grounds; but, speaking for myself, I am not prepared to defend it on sanitary grounds alone. My own conviction is that in the interests of social comfort, social convenience, and social peace, the residence of different races in different areas—I am speaking now of the populous city areas—is desirable, and so far from stimulating it is calculated to mitigate hostility and ill-feeling. Having said that I repeat once more that while I believe in the principle of separate localities, I also believe in the principle of a fair selection of localities

  167
  which will not prejudice one race to the benefit of another.
  In conclusion—and I really must apologise for the enormous length at which I have trespassed on your Lordships' time —I should like to say one word about the proposal with which Lord Islington ended his speech—namely, the establishment of a Committee to advise the Colonial Office in all these difficult matters. I should be grateful, for I realise their complexity and difficulty, for all the advice I could get. As a sworn foe of departmentalism, which I regard as the greatest curse of our Governmental system, I am not at all opposed in principle to constant and close communication between related offices of State. Of course, the Cabinet is the ultimate co-ordinating authority, but I am convinced that we shall be obliged to depend in an increasing degree on Cabinet Committees bringing together the heads of what I may call related Departments and enabling them to settle their differences amongst themselves, rather than adding to that fearful congestion of Cabinet work which at present threatens to bring the whole machinery to a standstill.
  Having said that I hope my noble friend will admit that I do not approach his proposal in an unfriendly or negative spirit; but let me add at once that I do not think I should be prepared to subscribe to the proposal exactly as it stands for a great variety of reasons. Nor do I imagine that he himself would not agree that it may be capable of improvement. For one thing it is very necessary that care should be taken, however much you multiply the opportunities for consultation and advice, that you should ultimately not have a divided responsibility. There must be in the long run some one Minister who is answerable to Parliament for the administration of these territories, and I should contemplate with something like alarm the position of a Secretary of State who had to defend himself not only against his Parliamentary critics but also against the advice of a Governmental body with which he happened to differ. If the Secretary of State, who is ultimately responsible, does not see his way to accept the advice of such a Committee, he would then have to come before Parliament and the two Government authorities—the Secretary of State and the Government Committee—would have to fight out their difference either in the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
  168
  I cannot imagine that this is intended by my noble friend.
  LORD ISLINGTON: Neither did I suggest it.
  VISCOUNT MILNER: I do not see how, under his proposal, that contingency could be altogether avoided. Still, I do not wish to go into anything like detail on the proposal. The matter is one which is well worthy of consideration. I must again apologise for the length of time I have occupied. I hope that while I have not been able to deal absolutely with all the points which have been raised in the discussion, you will at any rate acquit me of any attempt to evade a full discussion of the main principles which have been raised.
  LORD SHEFFIELD: Before the Question is put may I ask the noble Viscount, as he has told us he is preparing Papers to lay before Parliament, whether they will include the amended Circular which is going to be issued, and the other document to which he referred.
  VISCOUNT MILNER: Yes, I think both are to be included.
  LORD ISLINGTON: In rising to withdraw my Motion I should like to express my gratitude for the ample manner in which the noble Viscount has answered the many questions put to him, and for what was, in many respects, the satisfactory answer he has given.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE RENTCHARGE (RATES) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): My Lords, in the Committee stage I undertook to consider an Amendment by Lord Parmoor in Clause 1 at the end of subsection (1) to the effect that in estimating the net annual value of the tithe rentcharge or any payment in lieu of tithe for such assessment the deduction in respect of rates to be allowed from the value of the rentcharge shall still be the full amount of the rates

  169
  assessable upon the owner of the tithe rentcharge or payment in lieu of tithe. Since then I have considered the matter carefully and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that it does not properly come within the scope of this temporary measure. In the circumstances I am unable to accept it.
  LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I desire to ask a question of immense agricultural importance with regard to the effect which tins Bill will have upon the redemption of tithe. I, and others, have been going into the question, and it seems to us that the result of this Bill will be seriously to increase the number of years purchase for the redemption of tithe. The object of the Act of 1918 was to facilitate and increase the redemption of tithe as far as possible, and I understand from what my noble friend said the other day that a great number of applications have already come an for the redemption of tithe, and that he redemption is going on satisfactorily.
  I think I am right in saying that under the present conditions it was estimated that in the majority of cases the cost of redemption would be from 16½ to l8½ years purchase. Under the Redemption Act in estimating the amount of the purchase money, the amount of rates that had been paid by the incumbent for tie past three years was to be deducted, and I take it that the effect of this Bill will be to say that the incumbent is to pay no rates at all, and so any one redeeming this year will have an average of three years. Say, for instance, the first year of the average the rates are 7s. in the £, and the previous year 8s. in the £, and this year nothing in the £, the effect will be that you will only have to add 7s. and 8s. in the £ and to divide the total by three, and the result will be a reduction for the present year of only 5s. instead of 6s. or 7s. in the £. Then, after this year, there will be no rates at all to be deducted in the case of redemption.
  I do not want to go into the question at this late hour, but I would like to remind your Lordships that when tithe was commuted a very liberal allowance was made in regard to rates, and I noticed in a Parliamentary return made to the House of Commons in 1839, under the heading of my own county of Somerset, in the parish of Wells, the net amount of the tithes was put at £431, while the rates paid by the landowners in the parish were £112, which
  170
  together works out at £543. When, however, the tithes were commuted, the commissioner was even more liberal, because he added another sum of money, and the whole computation came out at £600. Therefore, the rector for the time being, instead of receiving £131, received £600 a year. It is true that he had to pay the rates of £112.
  It seems to me that now that the tithe is being redeemed, in the same way as the Rector got the benefit before when the commutation was made, the landowner should get the benefit of the rates when the tithe is being redeemed. If the number of years' purchase is increased in this way from 18½ to 20 years it will, I think, considerably prevent the redemption of tithe. There will be no very great temptation to the landowner to redeem. I understand that the object of the Bill is to promote temptation, and that the Church thinks it very desirable to get tithe redeemed. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend has thoroughly considered this question.
  LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: My Lords, it will, of course, be one result of this Bill that the deduction for rates in arriving at the compensation for redemption will eventually be considerably less than otherwise would be the case, and that, consequently, the redemption money to that extent will be increased. This may possibly induce landowners to apply at once, before the full effect of the alteration is felt, and thus increase the present rate of redemption. But I do not expect any very large increase from this cause, in the immediate future. In the long run I see no reason to expect that the Bill will affect the progress of redemption, which is already proceeding very rapidly, out of all proportion to anything known in the part. For example, taking the first six months of this year, the number of applications received was 1,789 as compared with 230 in 1913, and the amount of rent charge involved is £36,000 as compared with £885. That shows the great progress which has been made. With regard to the noble Lord's request that the matter should be fully considered, in view of the circumstances to which he has referred, I can tell him that certainly the point will be carefully taken into account when the whole matter comes to be automatically considered at the end of the present year. His arguments will be very carefully considered by me at that time.
  LORD STRACHIE: Can the noble Lord say what will be the difference in the number of years purchase?
  LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: That is a matter which has to be considered. I cannot give the figures now.

  LAW OF PROPERTY BILL. [H.L.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At this late hour of the evening, having regard to the unexpected length of the debate which has taken place, I do not think it reasonable to ask your Lordships to take the Committee stage of this Bill, and I will, therefore, put it down for an early date.

  THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER had the following Question on the Paper—
  To ask His Majesty's Government—

  1. Does the figure of £345,000,000 appearing as the total of the National Debt Services for the current year in Table XII., Final Balance Sheet, Financial Statement, 1920–1921, include any, and, if so, what provision for payment of interest on the debt due to the United States.

  2. In view of the figure, £98,172,000, shown in the footnote at page 2 of the Memorandum C.M.D. 802, is not the real deficit for the current financial year, i.e., the difference between the total expenditure and revenue from sources other than the realisation of capital assets, £165,974,000 and not £67,802,000 as shown in the said financial statement.

  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, if he is prepared to answer my Question, will not think I am unduly persistent in repeating, in the form of two Questions placed seriatim on the Paper, certain observations which I made in the course of a recent debate upon public expenditure. The first part of my Question relates to a matter to which the noble and learned Lord gave me an answer which I think will be sufficient, and I introduce it again here in order that I may bring together the two sets of Questions in the first and second part of my Question.
  The answer given to the first Question was, as I understand, that there is no part of the payment of interest provided in the annual Expenditure. Of course, the result necessarily must be that, regarded simply from the point of view of Revenue and Expense, we are to that extent to the bad, because there is no difference between postponing payment of interest and borrowing money for the purpose of paying.
  The second is by far the more difficult and important part of the Question. A number of Estimates appear in the Financial Statement upon which the Balance Sheet was based, and in a Memorandum which was subsequently circulated, and they differ materially. For example, if one takes the Ministry of Munitions the figure is £27,000,000 in the Financial Statement and £65,000,000 in the subsequent Memorandum. Indeed, the Memorandum itself recognises that there is this marked distinction, and points out that as between the gross figures that appeared in the Memorandum as the actual gross Expenditure of the different Departments and the net provisions, there is a difference of £98,000,000. I do not understand where that money comes from. It is said to be got from receipts appropriated in aid, and certain Votes are mentioned out of which it has been obtained, but it seems to me that it cannot come out of the Revenue for the year, and therefore it must come from some capital sources. It may be that my unfamiliarity with this form of accounts prevents me from being able to gather from it what is the actual source from which the payment is made. If, in fact, it comes out of capital, it is obvious that the deficit on the year is not £67,000,000, but £165,000,000. If, on the other hand, it is provided by the use of other monies that are included in the Financial Statement, or from sources other than capital sources, then the deficit will only be £67,000,000. But I should be glad to know what is the position. I confess that I am quite unable to understand it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I understand from my noble and learned friend that he is now satisfied with the answer that I gave in the course of the debate a few nights ago in relation to the inclusion in the Estimates of interest on Debt for 1920 and 1921, and the provision for the payment of Debt to the United States Government. I understand that no provision was made for the

  173
  payment of interest on Debt to the United States. Obviously, it would be impossible to provide in the Estimates for the year a charge that would not arise in that year. We have, of course, to face that charge at some time, but the point made by the noble and learned Lord as to whether or not it was included in the Estimates contained, I thought, a latent suggestion that it ought to have been so included. I feel sure that he will agree that it would be impossible to include anything in an Estimate unless it is a charge which arises in the year.
  As to the second point about which my noble friend asks, I do not think he is right in this matter. The figure of £98,172,000, mentioned in the footnote on page 2 of Command Paper 802, is the total of the amount authorised by Parliament to be appropriated in aid of the various Votes. These sums represent all kinds of Departmental receipts—in particular (in the case of munitions) payments to the factories from the Government Departments whom they supply. If the noble and learned lord wishes for details, I can give him the whole of those which have been supplied to me, but I imagine that the purpose of my noble friend is a broader one. The principle of appropriation in aid is of very long standing and is a fully recognised part of our financial system. It was sanctioned by Statute—the Public Accounts and Charges Act, 1891. The exact amounts appropriated in any given year, as my noble and learned friend knows, are authorised by the Appropriation Act of that year.
  In any case these appropriations are not relevant to the Budget surplus or deficit of the year, as that figure is reached by comparing the net Expenditure—that is to say, Expenditure less appropriations in aid —with the Revenue. If the sums appropriated in aid were paid straight into the Exchequer as Revenue and not appropriated the Expenditure side of the account would be correspondingly increased, and the balance of the year would remain the same as it is on the present system. Let me give an illustration. Take the year 1920–21. The Budget Revenue was £1,418,300,000, and the Budget Expenditure of that year was £1,184,102,000. The balance therefore would be £234,198,000. I suppose that if appropriations in aid were brought in as Exchequer Revenue, the effect would be that the Revenue would be £1,418,300,000 plus £98,172,000, giving a total of
  174
  £1,516,472,000—that is, the Expenditure would be the £1,184,102,000, plus £98,000,000, giving a total of £1,282,000,000 and the balance would be £234,000,000. have given round figures.
  LORD BUCKMASTER: I appreciate the difficulty and fully understand, but what I want to know is whether that £98,000,000 is derived from a realisation of assets, or whether it arises from revenues that are not brought into the Budget. The noble and learned Lord is perfectly right. It is a pure Revenue receipt, but I want to know whether it is derived from realisation of capital assets.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The real point of the noble and learned Lord is that it is wrong to count what we call assets as Revenue. It may or may not be arguable as to whether the £302,000,000 derived from the sale of surplus assets should be treated as general Revenue or earmarked for Debt. A few observations may reasonably be made upon that matter. My noble and learned friend will forgive me for saying that this is not an original discovery of his. It was pointed out in debate by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made a statement regarding his figures. He said that this was the method that was being pursued, and that there was justification for it. The noble and learned Lord wants the £302,000,000 earmarked as a capital asset for Debt redemption, but the Budget proposes to use £234,000,000 for Debt redemption. Therefore, the difference between the Government and Lord Buckmaster at best is only £68,000,000.
  This year's Estimates contain very heavy remanet war charges, at least as much as £302,000,000. Is it reasonable to expect the taxpayer to meet all this from taxed Revenue without using any of his assets? I do not suppose that my noble and learned friend would suggest extra taxation in order to enable that to be done. But had these war remanets been met last year they would then have been met from extra borrowing. This year's Revenue covers Expenditure, and my noble and learned friend will forgive me for reminding him that that is contrary to the prophecies which, I think, I recollect he made in the course of last year. While it is important to make a substantial start on Debt redemption, as His Majesty's Government is doing, I am certainly not convinced that it is common sense to carry this procedure to the extent of depriving the

  175
  taxpayer of some slight relief from his assets.
  I may, perhaps, add that all these matters were fully discussed in the House of Commons, and will be found reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT. That House, is, of course, more closely concerned with financial burdens than this House, and in the House of Commons, when the Second Reading of the Finance Bill was moved, the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was approved in principle. I have occupied some time in dealing with the point advanced by the noble and learned Lord, because I think that the substantial matter raised was not a mere question of bookkeeping but a suggestion that, in substance, these things ought to have been dealt with as being capital assets.
  LORD BUCKMASTER: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for such answer as he has given; but the real thing I asked has never been answered—namely, is the £98,172,000 taken out of capital or out of Revenue?

  INDIA.
  LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government—

  1. Was the substance of the Resolution or Despatch of the Government of India on the Report. of the Hunter Committee telegraphed to the Secretary of State, and was the original draft in any way altered to meet his wishes.

  2. Will the important evidence of Sir Michael O'Dwyer, Mr. Thompson, Chief Secretary to the Punjab Government, General Hudson, Adjutant-General in India, and Major Sir Umar Hayat Khan be made public, and does His Majesty's Government approve the quotation in the Minority Report of selected passages from Sir M. O'Dwyer's evidence when the context has not been made available for the information of Parliament.

  3. With reference to the Karachi troop train incident, what progress has been made with regard to the fresh Court of Inquiry offered to and accepted by Colonel Macnamara, A.D.M.S., Karachi Brigade, in September, 1919, and for the setting up of which the Secretary of State has promised his assistance.

  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD SINHA): My Lords, the answer to the first Question is this: Arising out of the consideration of the whole case by the Cabinet Committee there was telegraphic correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Government of India which resulted in certain modifications of the original drafts of the two Despatches issued.
  In reply to Question No. 2 I have to say that it is always desirable to treat as confidential evidence given in camera, and the Government of India are strongly opposed to the publication of the evidence of the witnesses mentioned, for reasons which the Secretary of State regards as conclusive. I have no doubt that the noble Lord has noticed that portions of the evidence of Sir Michael O'Dwyer were quoted in both the Majority and Minority Reports. The conduct of the Committee is obviously a matter for the Chairman, and I, therefore, do not propose to express any opinion.
  My answer to the third Question of the noble Lord is that Colonel Macnamara has asked for the attendance at the Court of Inquiry of certain officers who are now residing in England, and who have retired or been demobilised. Some of the main witnesses are on medical grounds unable to go out to India again; others are unwilling to go for various reasons. The Secretary of State has no power to compel their attendance. He is, however, advised that their evidence can be taken on commission in this country, should the Court of Inquiry think necessary. Colonel Macnamara has been informed of this, but he persists in demanding that the witnesses he requires should be actually present at the Inquiry, and declines to go out to India unless this can be arranged. This has caused delay, and if Colonel Macnamara maintains his present attitude the offer of a further Inquiry will lapse of itself.
  LORD SYDENHAM: I beg to thank the noble Lord.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, in moving the adjournment, I beg to state that it is obvious that a considerable number of Peers will desire to speak in the Amritsar debate which will

  177
  occupy two days. I suggest that it will probably be necessary—in fact it will be necessary—to sit after dinner on one night or the other, and I think it will be to the general convenience of the House that the longer sitting should take place on Monday, the first day of our discussion.
  Moved, That the House do now adjourn. —(The Earl of Crawford).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On this Motion, I think I ought to inform your Lordships that it has been made known to
  178
  me that some of those who were anxious to take part in the debate on the Law of Property Bill, and who expected that Bill to be reached to-night, cannot be here conveniently to-morrow. I therefore have to inform your Lordships, in order that it may be made known to other noble Lords by the Press, that it is proposed to take the Committee Stage of that Bill not tomorrow, but on Monday, July 26.
  House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.

  HOUSE OF LORDS.
  [From Minutes of July 14.]
  DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, section 7) deemed to have been read 2a (Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.
  FOLKESTONE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
  LAND DRAINAGE (OUSE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, from the Select Committee with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow.
  WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL.
  The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
  GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
  JUVENILE COURTS (METROPOLIS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Committee (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off to Thursday the 22nd instant.