Sitting of 12 July 1922

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Padiham Urban District Council Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill [Lords,]
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock (Consolidation and Amendment) Bill [Lords,]
Read a Second time, and committed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,
Bead the Third time, and passed.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords,]
Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.
Greenock Port and Harbours Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

SUPREME COURT (PRIZE, ETC., DEPOSIT ACCOUNT, 1920–21).
Copy ordered "of Account of the Receipts and Payments of the Assistant Paymaster-General for Supreme Court business on behalf of the Admiralty Division in Prize for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1921, and for the period 4th day of August, 1914, to 31st day of March, 1921, together with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."— [Sir John Baird.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  MRS. STAN HARDING.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the claim put forward by the Secretary of State in respect of Mrs. Stan Harding in respect of her imprisonment for five months by the Russian, Soviet Government on a false charge has yet been dealt with at The Hague; whether any other British citizen except Mrs. Stan Harding went to Russia on a safe-conduct from the Soviet Government and was then cast into prison; whether he is aware that M. Litvinoff, the chief Russian delegate at The Hague, was the person who signed Mrs. Stan Harding's safe-conduct; and whether, under these circumstances, special representations will be made to M. Litvinoff for the prompt settlement of Mrs. Stan Harding's claim?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative. As regards the third and fourth parts, the information in possession of His Majesty's Government is to the effect that M. Litvinoff gave Mrs. Stan Harding a letter to Monsieur Gukovsky, head of the Soviet Government Mission at Reval. M. Litvinoff, however, avers that he attempted to dissuade her from proceeding to Russia. There would, therefore, hardly appear to be anything in M. Litvinoff's presence at The Hague, apart from other considerations, to enhance the probability of a successful and early settlement by the means of special representations to him on the subject. The British delegation at The Hague consists of business experts at a business conference, and it seems unlikely that the negotiations can properly develop on lines which would render possible the discussion of political as distinct from commercial claims. Should such a contingency, however, arise, the case would, as already stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 28th June, be put forward with the claims of other British subjects. In the meanwhile, therefore, much as His Majesty's Government deplore the circumstances of the

  1197
  case and much as they sympathise with Mrs. Stan Harding, their only recourse remains such channel of diplomatic communications as is open to them under the Trade Agreement.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this has been delayed for one reason and another at Genoa and then recently at. The Hague, and this poor lady is getting no satisfaction? Has not the time arrived to inform the Soviet representatives that the British Government will not go into trade matters with them until they have settled these personal claims?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am, perhaps, better aware than other Members of the delay, and deplore it as much as anyone. Everything has been done that can be done.
  Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is there anyone in Russia to whom these claims can be referred?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Months ago the Foreign Office promised to do all they could, but nothing has been done.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Everything possible has been done.

  TANGIER.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that tenders have been called for by the French Protectorate Government, on behalf of the Sultan of Morocco, for the construction of the port of Tangier, notwithstanding the fact that the constitution of the company, to which the concession to operate the port has been granted, is not in accordance with the provisions of the existing Treaties in respect of Tangier, and that it has not received the approval of His Majesty's Government; and whether he can state what steps His Majesty's Government; propose to take in the matter?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have made a formal protest to the French Government against the proposed adjudication of tenders for the construction of harbour works at Tan-
  1198
  gier. They hope that this question, among others, will be settled at the conference which is to take place within the next few weeks.
  Viscount WOLMER: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that British trade interests will not be lost sight of at that conference?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, I can give that assurance.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Is not the hon. Gentleman going to do anything else besides making a formal protest? Will he not say they will not recognise this concession unless it is agreed to formally by the Government?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not like to add to the answer, but if my hon. Friend will look at the answer he will see that the point is covered.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Does my hon Friend say he will protest and do nothing else? Is that sufficient?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: This very question will be discussed at the forthcoming conference.

  SAMSUN (BOMBARDMENT).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received details of the damage caused to the persons and property of non-combatants in the recent bombardments of Samsun by Greek warships; whether any neutral persons were killed or injured or their property damaged; and what were the total casualties?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: According to a report which has just been received from the Acting British High Commissioner at Constantinople, it appears that as a result of the bombardment of Samsun on 7th June four persons were killed and three wounded. No information is available as to their nationality. The material damage is variously estimated, but appears to have included an oil depot containing considerable quantities of benzine and kerosine (partly American), part of the Konak or Government House, and a portion of the Customs House. According to the Turkish Press

  1199
  20 Moslem, 15 Greek, and 13 Armenian houses were destroyed.
  Mr. L. MALONE: Do we still allow Constantinople to be used as a base?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is a large question, which does not arise.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    CILICIA (HADJI ADIL).
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Hadji Adil Bey, formerly President of the Turkish Chamber, has been appointed Governor of Cilicia; whether he is a young Turkish leader, belonging to the ultra-Chauvinist group of the Committee of Union and Progress, and one of the persons implicated in the great massacres during the War; whether his name headed one of the lists of War criminals presented to the Peace Congress in Paris in 1919; and whether, in view of the terms under which Cilicia was handed over to the French, he will inquire into the matter?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: In regard to the first part of the question I have no information. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. Hadji Adil's name appeared in one of the lists in question, and his arrest was demanded and obtained from the Turkish Government shortly after the Armistice. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries whether this man has been appointed Governor of Cilicia in view of the promise we made to these people when we brought them back to that country and handed them over to the French?
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is it not well known to the whole world that several of the worst of these wholesale assassins who were detained for a long time by us have been appointed to high civil and military commands by the Angora Government?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: There have been statements to that effect. As regards the supplementary question of my hon. Friend, I will see if inquiry can be made, but it is very difficult to make inquiries.

    GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Attorney-General how many of the Germans indicted for criminal offences in the War have been convicted; how many are awaiting trial; and how many have escaped?
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): Seven names appeared upon the British list of cases selected for trial at Leipzig. The whereabouts of two of the accused persons could not be traced, whilst a third was resident in Danzig. Of the four remaining cases, three were convicted and one acquitted. In addition, two other persons were convicted of offences arising out of the sinking of the "Llandovery Castle" in prosecutions initiated by the German authorities. The hon. Member will find full details of the cases in a Report presented to Parliament, and dated 8th August last.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Before any suggestion of a loan to Germany is agreed to, would it not be an equitable request that all these criminals should be dealt with?
    Sir E. POLLOCK: That does not fall within the department of the Law Officers.
    Mr. THOMAS: Is the list which the right hon. Gentleman has read out a discharge by the Government of their election promises?
    Sir E. POLLOCK: The whole question of the position of war criminals has been stated over and over again. It is a matter for consideration by the Supreme Council, and it is under the consideration of the Allies.
    Vice-Admiral Sir R. HALL: Is the House to understand that the Government is satisfied that four years' imprisonment in a fortress is sufficient punishment for murder on the high seas?
    Sir E. POLLOCK: The hon. and gallant Member is not so to understand. Those were the sentences imposed by the German Court to whose jurisdiction the cases were remitted. Two prisoners were sentenced to four years' imprisonment, and the one who was an officer was ordered to be dismissed the Service, and the other who was an officer in the Reserve was deprived of the right to wear

    1201
    an officer's uniform. The whole matter was under the jurisdiction of the German Court.
    Sir W. DAVISON: What is the Government going to do on the general question? Were not these simply test cases to see whether the Germans were going to do justice or not?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members had better put down further questions.

    AUSTRIA (FINANCIAL AID).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the Succession States have given, or are giving, financial help to Austria during the crisis from which she is now suffering?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Italian Government have accorded a credit of 70,000,000 lire, and the Czecho-Slovak Government a credit of 500,000,000 Czech crowns, of which I understand that 100,000,000 crowns have already been made available.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is Czecho-Slovakia the only one of the Succession States which has helped Austria?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I said that Italy and Czecho-Slovakia are the only two.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    FLEET EXERCISES (AIRCRAFT).
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give any in formation to illustrate the work carried out by the wing of the Royal Air Force operating with the Royal Navy since 1st January, 1922?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): Aircraft have taken part in various exercises carried out by the Fleet this year, whenever the weather has permitted of them doing so. Their work has consisted mainly of reconnaissance, the exercise of torpedo plane attacks and spotting. In addition a certain amount of experimental work has been carried out.
    Viscount CURZON: Are the Admiralty satisfied with the amount of work performed?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes, in view of the financial limitations to which all our work is subject.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many aeroplanes, pilots, and observers are now available for working with the Royal Navy for reconnaissance, fighting, torpedo carrying, bomb dropping, and observation, respectively; and how many are actually required to bring all aircraft carriers and ships fitted with flying platforms up to full establishment?
    Mr. AMERY: The aircraft (apart from reserves) allotted for working with the Fleet from ships and carriers are as follow:

    18 reconnaissance planes.

    6 fighters.

    12 torpedo planes.

    18 spotting planes.

    The personnel available is sufficient to man these aircraft. It is not in the public interest to give the information asked for in the second part of the question.
    Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the Navy is sufficiently prepared for war in the air with only 12 torpedo planes allotted to it?
    Sir R. HALL: Are the personnel of the naval wing trained at sea or on shore?
    Mr. AMERY: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the practice of fitting every light cruiser with one fighter been departed from, or are they still able to carry them and the machines are available?
    Mr. AMERY: I gave information the other day of the number of ships which are fitted to carry aeroplanes.
    Viscount CURZON: Do the Admiralty really consider that these six fighting planes arc sufficient for the requirements of the Fleet?

    Loss OF "BLUE SKY" (WIDOWS' PENSIONS).
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it has been decided to give

    1203
    pensions to the widows of the officers and men who lost their lives on the naval drifter "Blue Sky"; and, if so, whether the pensions will equal in value pensions granted under similar circumstances during War time?
    Mr. AMERY: So far as the widows of the men are concerned, the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. None of the officers lost in the "Blue Sky" was married. With regard to the second part of the question, the widows will be granted pensions based on the post-War scales, which are the same in all cases where death is directly attributable to the conditions of service.

    WAR COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
    Colonel ROUNDELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that large quantities of goods, namely, rum, requisitioned by the Admiralty for the use of the Fleet in the years 1917 and 1918, have not yet been fully paid for, the amount offered by the Admiralty having been decided, first by the High Court, and secondly by the War Compensation Court, to be insufficient; whether, although the principles on which payment for these goods ought to be made were laid down by the War Compensation Court in a case brought for the purpose of determining this question, in which judgment was given on 7th November, 1921, the Admiralty have stated to the representatives of other claimants, exceeding 100 in number, whose cases depend on the same principles, that they do not intend to be bound by the principles so laid down; whether he is aware that the Admiralty have stated that they do not intend to pay interest on these sums due for goods taken over four years ago; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. AMERY: Full payment of the amount awarded by the War Compensation Court has been made in the only case in which it has yet been decided by that Court that the amounts previously paid or offered by the Admiralty were insufficient. The Admiralty, after careful inquiry into the facts of the various outstanding claims, have been forced to the conclusion that it is not possible to treat as of general application the conclusions arrived at by the War Compensation Court on the facts given in evidence in that case. The proper course, which
    1204
    has throughout been open to all the claimants, and has been already adopted by some of them, is to apply to the War Compensation Court if they consider themselves entitled to any further payment beyond that which has already been made or offered by the Admiralty. Any claim for interest on such further payment would be a matter for the Court.

    FISHING GEAR DAMAGED, CAWSAND.
    Mr. FOOTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has now caused inquiries to be made as to the losses sustained by the hook-and-line fishermen of Cawsand, near Plymouth, consequent on the unrecovered hydrophone wire fouling their gear; and whether he will grant compensation in respect of these losses?
    Mr. AMERY: Inquiries have been made and orders have been given for the hydrophone cables to be recovered. Any question of compensation would fall to be dealt with by the War Compensation Court, to whom any claims should be presented.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BUILDING TRADES.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour the total number of men in the building trades who are at present out of work; the number unemployed in each branch of the industry; and the percentage so unemployed?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As the reply is somewhat lengthy, I will, with the consent of my hon. and gallant Friend, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I might mention that the highest percentage of unemployment is amongst the labourers (over 22·0) and the lowest is amongst the plasterers (3·9).
    Mr. THOMSON: In view of the large percentage of 22, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the position so as to allow the Committee to make grants from the unemployed fund for building houses, so that these men could be employed?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The 22 per cent. are labourers. Can they build houses?
    Following is the promised statement:
    On 22nd May, 1922, the latest date for which figures are available, the numbers

    1205
    and percentages unemployed in the building trades of Great Britain were as
    follows:

    Number Unemployed.

    Percentage Unemployed.

    Carpenters

    11,562

    8·7

    Bricklayers

    6,334

    10·2

    Masons

    2,421

    10·2

    Slaters

    546

    10·1

    Plasterers

    676

    3·9

    Painters

    10,648

    9·2

    Plumbers

    3,539

    9·9

    Other skilled workers

    5,824

    21·9

    Labourers

    74,462

    Total building trades

    116,012

    15·3

    MARRIED WOMEN.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the number of married women who are in receipt of unemployment pay and whose husbands are employed; what amount has been disbursed to such women during the period from the 1st January to the 24th June, 1922: and the proportion of such women who have no children?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I regret that this information is not available. I should mention that I have directed local employment committees to disallow uncovenanted benefit in general to any married woman living with her husband who is in employment and whose earnings give, in the committee's opinion, an income for the household which justifies the withholding of uncovenanted benefit from the wife.
    Mr. HANNON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think information of that kind ought to be given?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is circulated to the local offices and committees. I will send by hon. Friend a copy.
    Mr. HURD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that the present arrangement allows many lapses by which women who are not entitled get unemployment benefit, and would it not be better to cut it all out and leave the exceptions to be made for those who have charge of children or for any other reason?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think I can do that. But if my hon. Friend will give me the names of any persons abusing the Act, I will make inquiries.

    KIRKCALDY SEA WALL.
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Labour the percentage of local men employed by the contractor in the carrying out of the work on the new sea wall and esplanade at Kirkcaldy; what number of unskilled workers from Ireland and other districts have been engaged on the work in question; and how many men are now in receipt of unemployment benefit within the districts of the Kirkcaldy rating authority?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am having inquiry made and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

    BOILERMAKERS AND SHIPBUILDERS.
    Mr. A. T. DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that on 19th July instant a large number of workers, and in particular members of the Boilermakers, Iron and Steel Shipbuilders' Society, will have exhausted their State unemployment benefit, namely, 90 days since 6th April last; whether he is aware that these workers will not be entitled to any further benefit until November next; that many of them will also be without trade union benefit and will thus be thrown upon Poor Law benefit and cause an increased poor rate in the districts affected by unemployment: whether the matter has been under consideration; and what arrangements to meet the position of these workers are contemplated?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, circulated to-day. Perhaps he will be so good as to follow my endeavour to explain it later in the sitting.

    MENTAL INSTITUTIONS.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes in his new Mental Bill to introduce into England the Section of the Scotch Lunacy Act which authorises without certification the compulsory detention of an individual for six months in a mental institution on the word of one doctor without any provision for inquiry or appeal?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): No such provision is in contemplation. I must not, however, be taken as accepting the hon. Member's interpretation of the Scottish Act in question, the proper construction of which is, I understand, a matter of considerable doubt.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health the number of voluntary boarders in licensed houses and registered mental hospitals, respectively, in England at the present time and the same for Scotland; how many have been certified during the past year; what was the longest, shortest, and average length of their residence in a private asylum; and how many of the whole number of boarders have left of their own accord during last year?
    Sir A. MOND: On the 1st January, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 127 voluntary boarders in licensed houses and 165 in registered hospitals in England and Wales. One hundred and sixty-nine voluntary boarders were certified during 1921 and 421 left of their own accord. The period of residence varies from a few days to several years, and the average is probably under six months. As regards the Scottish figures I would refer the hon. Member to the Secretary for Scotland.

  HOUSING.

    OVERCROWDING (ENGLAND AND WALES).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health if he will give the latest available returns of overcrowding, so far as house accommodation is concerned, in England and Wales?
    Sir A. MOND: The final figures of the Census of 1921 are not yet available, but the provisional total figures derived from that Census are as follows:

    1921.

    No. of "Census" families (i.e., separate units for which a schedule is filled up) per separate dwelling (whether occupied or unoccupied)

    1·099

    Size of "Census" families

    4·25

    No. of persons per separate dwelling (whether occupied or unoccupied)

    4·67

    Average number of persons per room

    0·93

    MIDDLESBROUGH SCHEME.
    Mr. PENRY WILLIAMS(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that out of 504 houses built and occupied under the Middlesbrough Housing Scheme. 26V have not paid their rates; whether he is aware that proceedings are being taken this week against these tenants; if he could arrange with the local authority to collect the rates weekly with the rents of the houses, so that no large lump sums are payable at one time; and whether he will request the local authority to extend every consideration to those who are suffering from falling wages and unemployment?
    Sir A. MOND: I was not aware of the position to which the hon. Member refers. There is no objection, so far as my Department is concerned, to arrangements being made for a weekly collection of rates from occupiers of houses built under the assisted scheme.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the rates should be included in the rent, and will he see that there is no further accumulation of arrears which the tenants are quite unable to pay?
    Sir A. MOND: Surely that is a question for the local authorities.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the Minister of Health make representations to them on this point?
    Sir A. MOND: I do not see that I am called upon to make representations. Surely these are matters for the local authorities themselves to deal with.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he fixes the rates by fixing the rent?
    Sir A. MOND: These are all matters of arrangement with the local authorities.

    REFUSE DUMP, LITTLE BRITAIN.
    Colonel DUPREasked the Minister of Health whether he has received a petition from the inhabitants of Iver and Yiewsley protesting against the continuance of an insanitary refuse dump at Little Britain; whether it has been condemned by the local medical officers of health; and whether he will take steps to abate this public nuisance?
    Sir A. MOND: Petitions have been received from residents in the places mentioned. The whole question of refuse dumps in the neighbourhood of London is now under special consideration and negotiations are pending which, I hope, will lead to substantial improvements.

    OUTDOOR RELIEF.
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that if a person works three days and earns not more than 29s. and has a family to maintain, the guardians can make the amount up to 51s. 6d. per week, or an approximate amount according to circumstances, but if a person under similar circumstances earns the same amount in five days the guardians are precluded from giving assistance; and will he consider taking steps to obviate distress in these cases?
    Sir A. MOND: I am not aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. The legality of relief does not depend upon the number of days worked, but upon the destitution of the applicant.
    Mr. YOUNG: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the statement made by the local representative when the matter was investigated?
    Sir A. MOND: The local representative of whom?
    Mr. YOUNG: The local authority.
    Sir A. MOND: I do not know to what statement the hon. Gentleman refers.

  IRELAND.

    KIDNAPPING (MONAGHAN).
    Mr. ARMSTRONGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any information as to the fate of George Dawson, a B special constable, who, while acting as temporary fireman, was taken off a Great Northern Railway engine at Monaghan on the 17th June last by men belonging to the Irish Republican Army and conveyed to an unknown destination; whether he is aware that when the train from Armagh to Castleblaney reached Creighan Row, in the Free State, on Monday last another fireman, named Thomas Baxter, was similarly kidnapped: and that, in con-
    1210
    sequence, trains on this line cannot cross the border; and whether he will urge the Provisional Government to procure the immediate release of these men?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I am at present in communication with the Provisional Government with regard to these and other cases of kidnapping in the border counties and am assured that every effort is being made to trace and secure the immediate release of all persons held in illegal custody.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman still holding the Pettigo prisoners as hostages for the safe release of these various men who have been kidnapped by the Free State?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have never admitted that they were being held as hostages. They are being held.
    Colonel ASHLEY: If they are not being held as hostages, why is the right hon. Gentleman keeping them?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am keeping them because I hope that their release will synchronise with the release of other persons.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Have any of the Ulster specials who were kidnapped at Belcoo been released yet?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that some of the Belcoo people have been released.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Not the specials?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No. There are 18 or 19 cases about which I am inquiring.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Has any time limit been fixed for the definite cessation of these outrages, because so far we have had nothing but inquiries being made from the Provisional Government and nothing has been done?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend should say
    That "nothing has been done." As far as I am informed the Irish national troops are taking one town after another, and chasing away the irregulars, and endeavouring to re-establish order.

    CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the

    1211
    High Commissioner of Canada, as representing the Dominion, has been consulted with reference to the lifting of the Canadian cattle embargo?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The High Commissioner for Canada has on several occasions represented to the Minister of Agriculture and myself the views of the Canadian Government.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask what are those views?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I was not aware that there was any doubt as to the views of the Canadian Government.
    Mr. MALONE: In view of the very-different statements made on this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman compile a Black Book?
    Mr. STURROCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman take an opportunity in Debate of expressing those views?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should certainly contribute my views as representing the. Colonial Office. To-day the House is in possession of the Canadian aspect.

    LONDON TO INDIA AIR SERVICE.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Air (1) whether the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee has yet considered the question of a London to India service with heavier-than-air craft; when this Report will be published; whether he will take steps to see that this Report is available to Members of this House before the Burney airship scheme to India is approved or submitted to this House;
    (2) whether his Department has considered the Burney airship scheme; what recommendations have they made thereon; whether the Air Ministry is aware that a London to India service with aeroplanes could be put into operation with more certainty, in a shorter time, with less capital expenditure, and smaller Government guarantees; whether any air transport firms have submitted projects of this nature; and whether he can give an assurance that schemes of this nature operating with heavier-than-air craft will receive as favourable consideration as the Burney airship scheme?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): With regard to the first question, the question of the practicability of an Imperial Mail Service to India, operated by heavier-than-air craft, has been, and still is, under consideration by the Civil Aviation Advisory Board, and I am expecting to receive their report at an early date. I intend to publish the report as a White Paper, and I hope to be able to issue it before the House rises. As regards the second question, the Burney Airship Scheme has received the full consideration of the Air Ministry. As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member on the 18th May, the Ministry considered that from a technical point of. view the scheme was a notable advance on previous proposals of this kind, and that it offered a reasonable prospect of satisfactory operation between India and this country. Commander Burney's proposals were then referred to the Committee of Imperial Defence for consideration. As the Committee have not yet given their decision, I do not think it would be proper for me to make any further statement on the matter at present. In answer to the third part of the question, I would prefer to await the publication of the Report of the Civil Aviation Advisory Board before attempting to compare the relative advantages of these two aerial transport schemes. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative; to the fifth, in the affirmative.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (AIRCRAFT AND ENGINES).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for Air how many firms are at present engaged, either wholly or partly, in the construction of aircraft and engines; how many of these have intimated that they will have to close down unless some work can be given to them; and whether he can state what limitations or conditions, if any, are imposed by his Department upon firms engaged upon the construction of aircraft and engines for the Royal Air Force when tested, accepted, or rejected, respectively?
    Captain GUEST: The answer to the first question is that 18 firms are engaged in the construction of aircraft; as regards engines, four major firms are engaged in the construction of engines,

    1213
    whilst four other firms are engaged to a lesser degree; to the second, that, for the reasons stated in my reply to my Noble and gallant Friend on the 6th instant, general representations have been made that the firms referred to may have to close down the departments devoted to such construction unless they receive orders sufficient to keep their staffs employed. In reply to the last part of the question, I am not clear what limitations or conditions my Noble and gallant Friend has in mind, but I shall be pleased to send him copies of the conditions of contract applicable to aircraft and engines ordered by the Air Ministry, if he so desires.
    Viscount CURZON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that general representations have been made? Docs that mean from the entire industry, practically?
    Captain GUEST: From deputations representing the industry.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What action is the Air Ministry or the Government taking on those representations? Do they realise the seriousness of this question? Is anything being done?
    Captain GUEST: The Ministry is fully aware of the seriousness of the position-If they have not the money they cannot give the orders.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this being represented to the Cabinet? If not, my right hon. Friend (Captain Guest) ought to be in the Cabinet.

    MILK AND EGGS (PRICES).
    Sir R. CLOUGHasked the Minister of Agriculture if the attention of his Department has been called to the increases in the retail prices of milk and eggs; to what cause, or causes, such increases are attributable; whether they are general; and whether, seeing that normally both these commodities are cheaper in summer than in winter, he can inquire into the matter?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I am aware that retail prices of milk and eggs have recently increased. In the case of milk, the general increase is, I understand, a penny a quart, and is due to the increased
    1214
    prices recently agreed to be paid to producers in order to cover the cost of production. I would remind the hon. Member that the price of this commodity fell very heavily in April. The price of eggs normally falls in the spring, when supplies become more abundant, and commences to rise again in May or June, when supplies begin to fall off. Prices both of milk and eggs are at present much below what they were last summer.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in the price of milk is partly due to the increase in the cost of production, which, in turn, is due to the operation of summer time?
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain districts the price of milk has never fallen below eightpence a quart to the consumer?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am not aware of that. The average price was fivepence from April. It is now up to sixpence.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: I have never paid less than eightpence a quart.

    KENSINGTON PALACE
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when it is proposed that the State apartments at Kensington shall be reopened to the public?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): There is no proposal at present to reopen the State apartments at Kensington Palace.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why these apartments, which were so long open, and are of great interest to the public, are still kept closed?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think the demand for opening them would justify the expenditure.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, especially on Saturdays and Sundays, when they were open, they were crowded by the public? Why are they kept closed?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The cost of maintenance and cleaning would not be covered by the cost of admission.

    NOTTING HILL ELECTRIC LIGHTING COMPANY.
    Sir W. SEAGERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if he is aware that part of the issued capital of the Notting Hill Electric Lighting Company, Limited, consists of 27,050 ordinary (recently renamed deferred) shares, fully paid, of one shilling each; that for the year 1921 the wages of the employés were reduced, the charges for current supplied to consumers were maintained at the maximum permitted, and the dividends on the ordinary shares were the highest ever paid, being at the rate of more than 1,150 per cent., less tax; and, seeing that the company is a public utility company with a monopoly, will he cause representations to be made to the company that, in the public interest, the payment of such dividends is to be strongly deprecated and that the question of the reduction of charges should be seriously considered?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have looked carefully into the financial arrangements of the company mentioned in the question. The deferred shares represent less than half of 1 per cent. of the total share and loan capital, and are held in conjunction with the preferred shares, and the dividend paid on them taken alone is no true index of the return to the investor. The company has, however, had a successful year's trading, and, I am informed, made a reduction in their charges as from 30th June last of 6½ per cent. for lighting and 12 per cent. for power. They propose to consider the question of a further reduction as soon as the results for the current year are known. The Minister has not made any Order in respect of the charging powers of this company, nor has any representation been received from persons or authorities on this subject.
    Sir W. SEAGER: Has the Ministry the power to vary the maximum price charged to the public?
    Mr. NEAL: On proper representations being made under Section 32 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, which, I think, will be amended by the Bill now before Parliament.

    ROAD RE-CONSTRUCTION.
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether his Department has compiled, or is compiling, a list of the main roads of the country which need entire re-construction to carry modern heavy motor traffic; whether the scheduling of such roads is left solely to the local authorities; and whether the Minister of Transport has any powers to expedite action in this direction?
    Mr. NEAL: Although no such lists as mentioned in my hon. Friend's question has been prepared, the Ministry through its divisional road engineers is kept fully informed as to the main roads calling for special treatment and by contributions from the road fund, local authorities are enabled to expedite the work.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Could not this information be equally well got from the various county surveyors and engineers?
    Mr. NEAL: No, certainly not. The position is that our road engineers are working in closest co-operation with the county engineers, and I am satisfied that very great public economies are effected.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Surely the county engineer is a very competent officer?
    Mr. NEAL: I have not in the least thrown any doubt upon the competency of the county engineers, but the Government is making grants, and in respect of those grants there are conferences being held which, I am satisfied, will lead to economies.
    Sir W. de FRECE: Has the Ministry of Transport any power to take action against local authorities which do not reconstruct the roads of their districts?
    Mr. NEAL: No; we have no legal powers.
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether, under the Circular of l5th June offering assistance to local authorities in connection with road work,

    1217
    complete reconstruction of existing roads to carry modern motor traffic is barred from participation; and whether, since the circumstances are particularly favourable for such work to be taken in hand and large scale operations of this nature would revive employment both for firms supplying the material and also for those actually carrying out the undertaking, this Circular can be reconsidered?
    Mr. NEAL: Schemes for the reconstruction of existing roads do not, generally speaking, lend themselves to the employment of large numbers of unskilled men, and, therefore, no particular mention is made of this class of work in the Circular of 15th June, in which highway authorities were invited to submit schemes which could be initiated with a view to relieving unemployment. The Minister is, however, rendering assistance towards the reconstruction of existing I and II Class roads under the terms of Circular No. 150, issued on 22nd May last, while roads not so classified will, within the limits of the funds available, be assisted under the terms of Circular No. 158, issued on 22nd June last.

    STEEL EXPORTS AND IMPORTS.
    Major KELLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the exports from Great Britain during the first half of the present calendar year of raw and partly manufactured steel, of special steels, and of

    STATEMENT.

    Commodity.

    Exports from the United Kingdom.

    Imports into the United Kingdom.

    Quantity.

    Declared Value.

    Quantity.

    Declared Value.

    Tons.

    £

    Tons.

    £

    Crude and partly manufactured steel (other than special steels):—

    255,711

    4,343,072

    165,130

    1,562,312

    (Including ingots, blooms, billets, slabs,bars, rods, angles, shapes and sections; cast- ings and forgings in the rough; girders, beams, joists and pillars; plates and sheets, not galvanised.)

    Special steels

    2,340

    306,987

    341

    23,685

    Steel rails, new

    150,181

    1,634,325

    8,511

    123,244

    Other manufactures of iron and steel

    842,609

    21,965,966

    101,750

    2,519,778

    finished steel products; and what were the imports of these during the same period?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): The answer involves a tabular statement, which, with the permission of the House, I will have printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    The following statement shows the quantities and values of the exports from and imports into the United Kingdom, registered during the first half of 1922, of the classes of goods specified in the question, so far as the particulars are available. Crude and partly manufactured iron is not included in the statement, but manufactured iron products cannot be distinguished from similar products of steel on the basis of the information required to be furnished to the Customs Authorities by exporters and importers. The exports shown in the statement arc those of products and manufactures of the United Kingdom. Re-exports of similar classes of goods of foreign or colonial origin amounted during the half-year to 2,323 tons, valued at £67,770.
    Details of the principal varieties of goods included in the aggregates shown in the statement may be found in the Accounts relating to the Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for the month of June, issued to-day.

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (PART II ORDERS).
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade when and in what form he will give the House the information relating to employment in the industries manufacturing the goods to which it is proposed to apply Orders under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As the hon. and gallant Member has previously been informed, all available information on this matter is contained in the published Reports of the Committees.
    Captain BENN: Do we understand that ex parte statements made before a Committee, without cross-examination and not on oath, are now to be regarded as the official figures relating to the industries?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No. I do not think that follows at all.
    Captain BENN: Did not the hon. Gentleman say that the only official figures are those contained in the Report, and are they not arrived at in the way described?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has already been told twice that all the information as to numbers employed in the industries concerned available at the Board of Trade was placed at the disposal of the Committee of Inquiry.
    Captain BENN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the Board of Trade promised to give us the information? Will he do so, and when?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No. If my hon. and gallant Friend will refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, he will see that my right hon. Friend said on 3rd July that he would be only too pleased to give the figures if he had them, but he had not got them.
    Captain BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, when he laid the Orders under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act before Parliament, he was satisfied that the goods referred to are being sold under the conditions defined in Section 2 of the Act, or merely that they had been sold under such conditions?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My right hon. Friend was satisfied that the necessary conditions precedent to an Order, as laid down in Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 2 of the Act, were fulfilled.
    Captain BENN: Is the President of the Board of Trade satisfied that the conditions exist to-day, or is ho only satisfied that they existed last year?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: What the Act requires is that the President of the Board of Trade should be satisfied that the conditions of the Act have been fulfilled.
    Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Is it not six months since the inquiry took place and have the conditions not changed materially in that time?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is a matter which might be usefully raised in Debate.
    Major WOOD: Has any inquiry been made to see if conditions have changed?

    "LUSITANIA" CLAIMS.
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that claims arising out of the sinking of the "Lusitania" seven years ago are still unsettled; whether a large: and expensive staff is kept at Cornwall House, Stamford Street, for dealing with such claims; and what is the total cost there of per annum?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The claims referred to in the question fall within the Reparation Part of the Treaty of Versailles and are being submitted with reparation claims generally by the Reparation Claims Department to the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action. It is not possible to separate the cost of this particular work from the other functions of the Reparation Claims Department. The total present cost of the whole Department is at the rate of £40,000 per annum.

    GERMAN MARK.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the

    1221
    attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to the recent heavy fall in the value of the German mark; whether he is aware of the difficulties caused by this fluctuation in exchange to British merchants and traders; whether His Majesty's Government are watching the situation with a view to taking some action; and what action they propose?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Home): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative, I am not in a position to make any statement as regards the remainder.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have any instructions been given to Sir John Bradbury, our representative on the Reparation Commission, in view of this grave crisis?
    Sir R. HORNE: The Reparation Commission, of which Sir John Bradbury is a member, is constantly in touch with the situation and, being the British representative, he is constantly in touch with His Majesty's Government.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have any instructions been given to Sir John Bradbury, and, if so, in what sense?
    Sir R. HORNE: I think it would be particularly ill-advised to disclose what is going on in this very delicate matter.
    Lord R. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether the Government contemplate any statement on this subject either immediately or in the near future, and, if so, when?
    Sir R. HORNE: As soon as developments have taken place, the Government will be anxious to give the House complete information, but I daresay my Noble Friend realises that at present that could not possibly be done.
    Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: Is His Majesty's Government in constant communication with the French Government in the matter?
    Sir R. HORNE: Of course they are constantly in touch with the French Government.
    Mr. MURRAY: On this matter?
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fall in the mark, the Powers are reconsidering the reparations to be expected from ex-enemies, such as Germany and Hungary?
    Sir R. HORNE: I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the Reparation Commission was set up in accordance with the various Treaties of Peace for the purpose of continuous consideration of reparation questions. The matters referred to in the question are receiving the attention of the Reparation Commission as well as of the Governments concerned.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any truth in the newspaper suggestion that M. Poincaré is coming over here at an early date to discuss this, or is it only a feeler put out by the French Press?
    Sir R. HORNE: As far as I know there is no suggestion that M. Poincare should be here in connection with this particular matter. If my hon. and gallant Friend will remember, certain arrangements were made that a discussion would take place at the end of this month when M. Poincare was here. There has been no alteration in this arrangement. On the other hand, I should not like it to be inferred that what appears in the Press is necessarily a feeler put forward by the French Government.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the Government going to rest content with the simple activities of the Reparation Commission; and do not recent events show that we shall have to do something more?
    Sir R. HORNE: Of course, His Majesty's Government is constantly dealing with this matter, and it is not merely being left to the Reparation Commission by any means, but necessarily the Commission is the chief source from which information is obtained, and the advice which it gives is of very great importance.

    CANADA (REPRESENTATION AT WASHINGTON).
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to appoint a Minister plenipotentiary to represent Canada at Washington; and, if

    1223
    so, will he define the duties and powers of the Canadian Minister and the position that he will occupy vis-a-vis His Britannic Majesty's Ambassador?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The arrangements proposed in connection with the appointment of a Canadian Minister at Washington were explained in a statement made on the 10th May, 1920, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central, when he was Leader of the House. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to this statement in connection with the latter part of his question. As regards the first part, His Majesty's Government have received no recent intimation of the wishes of the Canadian Government.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is it not the case that no discussion took place upon that statement in 1920, and in view of the fact that this is a far-reaching constitutional change, will the House be given an opportunity of discussing it before it is completed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The House did not seek an opportunity for discussion of the matter at the time when the announcement was made in 1920, or did not insist upon such an opportunity. As far as I am aware this matter has made no progress since in any way. We have received no intimation of the wishes of the Canadian Government since. There is, therefore, clearly no case for further discussion now.
    Lieut-Colonel MURRAY: Is it not the case that I myself called attention to this in the Debate in 1920 and got no reply from the Front Bench?

    COAL (SALES TO GERMANY).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that British coal is being sold to Germany for payment to the French Government as reparation coal: can he say how much British coal has been so sold during the present year; and what have been the total exports of coal to France and Germany, respectively, from the beginning of this year to date?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I have no information that British coal sold to Germany is being transferred to France as reparation coal.
    1224
    The exports of British coal to France and Germany during the first six months of this year were 6,616,992 tons and 2,822,655 tons respectively.

    TEACHERS' SALARIES (BURNHAM SCALE).
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the inequality of treatment of teachers serving under different local education authorities owing to the fact that in certain areas the Burnham scales have been put in force and in others repudiated, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to ensure that teachers in all parts of the country receive the appropriate rates of remuneration to which they are entitled?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I understand the hon. Member to suggest that the local education authorities should be placed under a statutory obligation to pay their teachers on the scales allocated to their areas by the Burnham Committee. My right hon. Friend is afraid that he does not see his way to adopt that suggestion.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES COMMISSION.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary of State for War the number of per sons employed in London in connection with the work of the British War Graves Commission: what their total remuneration is; and how many of these are in receipt of salaries over £1,000 a year?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): The number of persons employed in London by the Imperial War Graves Commission is 8. The answer to the second part of the question is £118,944 per annum; and to the third part, is four.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to disinter the bodies of British soldiers buried in Italian churchyards; and, if so, whether, before this expense is incurred, in each case he will take steps to ascertain whether it is in accordance with the wishes of the relatives of the fallen soldiers?
    Sir R. SANDERS: The Imperial War Graves Commission have no intention of disinterring the remains of British soldiers in Italian churchyards, except in a few cases where the sites of the original graves are not procurable in perpetuity. Free perpetual concessions in the place of original burial in more than half the Italian churchyards containing British War Graves have already been granted by resolution of the various Italian municipal councils, and the Commission confidently expect similar free grants for the majority of the remainder.

    OFFICERS' PAY AND PENSIONS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for War what is the pay per month, including allowances, now and in 1918, of a Second Lieutenant in a line regiment; and what is the average age at which a commission is granted to a Second Lieutenant?
    Sir R. SANDERS: The present daily rates of pay and allowances of a Second Lieutenant on appointment are: Pay, 13s.; ration allowance, 1s. l1d.; lodging allowance, 2s.; fuel and light allowance, l1d. Making a monthly total of £27 12s. l0d. In 1913, the rates were: Pay, 5s. 3d.; mess allowance 10s. a month; loading allowance, 2s.; fuel and light allowance, 5d. Making a monthly total of £12 7s. 8d. The average age at which a first commission as Second Lieutenant is given is 19 years.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for War what is the monthly pay of a full colonel of the line now and in 1913, including the allowances usually drawn in Home service and in command; and what is approximately the average retiring pension paid to such colonels at about the age of 55?
    Sir R. SANDERS: The pay of a full colonel depends on the appointment he holds, but when no special rate is fixed the present daily rates of pay and allowances are as follows: Pay £2 15s., ration allowance 1s. l1d., servant allowance 2s., lodging allowance 5s. 6d., fuel and light allowance (if married) 5s. 2d. (if unmarried) 3s. 6d., furniture allowance (if married) 2s., making a monthly total of £110 19s. 1d. for the married officer and £105 5s. 5d. for the unmarried officer. In 1913 the pay was consolidated, namely, £650 a year (£54 3s. 4d. a month) with
    1226
    quarters, or £750 a year (£62 10s. a month) without quarters. The average pension of a full colonel retiring at 55 is £795 a year.

    GUN PRACTICE (WHITESAND BAY).
    Mr. FOOTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has made his inquiries as to the proposal to set aside any part of the Whitesand Bay, near Plymouth, for gun practice; and whether he has considered the serious effect any such action would have upon the fisher men of Looe, Polperro and Cawsand?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. SANDERS: Yes, Sir; I have made inquiries and have ascertained that there is no present intention of carrying out regular gun practice at Whitesand Bay. A few rounds only will be fired at intervals of years for testing purposes, and I have no reason to suppose that the interests of the fishermen will suffer. There have always been guns in the bay and they were fired from time to time before the War.

  POST OFFICE.

    WIRELESS BROADCASTING.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Post master-General whether, in issuing licences for wireless broadcasting apparatus, he proposes to make any stipulation as to the country of manufacture of the apparatus employed?
    The ASSISTANT - POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The conditions on which wireless broadcasting licences will be issued have not yet been settled. I hope to make a statement on the subject soon, and I will then deal with the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member.

    HALFPENNY POST (FIRST DELIVERY).
    Sir JAMES BRUTONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inconvenience to the general public, and especially to those engaged in commerce, by the non-delivery by the first daily post of communications bearing a halfpenny stamp; and whether he will take steps to obviate the present unsatisfactory practice?
    Mr. PEASE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. A. T. Davies) on the 6th July.
    Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases of printed papers, advice notes and goods notes, there is great delay and expense because of the non-delivery of these documents?
    Mr. PEASE: As I said in the House yesterday, the Department has received some complaints in regard to this matter and are endeavouring to find a remedy.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that representations in regard to these matters have been made by the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners?
    Mr. PEASE: I have no doubt, if my hon. Friend says they have done so, it is so.

  INDIA.

    WAR DECORATIONS.
    Colonel Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India when it is hoped to be able to issue the British War medal to the officers and men who were serving in India between the 5th August, 1914, and 11th November, 1918?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, application for the medal must be made by the officer or man concerned, or by his commanding officer. I have no reason to think that any avoidable delay takes place in dealing with such applications.
    Sir C. YATE: When will those who have applied obtain their medals?
    Earl WINTERTON: If my hon. and gallant Friend will bring to my notice any cases where such application has been made, and met with long delay. I will inquire into them.
    Sir C. YATE: Thanks.

    ARMY RESERVE.
    Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether in the reconstitution of the Indian Army Reserve of Officers those officers who have already done 10 or more years' service therein, and who are not desirous of resigning their commissions, will be allowed to serve on; and, if not, will he consider the question of some special
    1228
    concession, such as the grant of an honorary step in rank on retirement, and of a reserve long-service decoration to those pre-War service officers whose services are now to be dispensed with?
    Earl WINTERTON: The question of the Indian Army Reserve is still under consideration. I will bring the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend to the notice of the Government of India.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    PUBLICATIONS.
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction and uncertainty existing amongst pensioners: and whether, so as to place Members of Parliament in a position to explain the real situation to pensioners, he will give instructions that each Member shall be supplied on application with all warrants. copies of all regulations, instructions to pension committees, medical boards investigation officers and assessors and all others having authority to deal with penions and allowances, including any instructions sent out where the recipients are bound to secrecy under the Official Secrets Act?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I am glad to say that the information in the possession of the Minister does not confirm the description of the state of mind existing among pensioners which my hon. Friend suggests. I would remind him that there already exists a complete local machinery from which pensioners and claimants to pension can obtain full information and assistance. Moreover, it is the statutory duty of the new War Pensions Committee to hear and investigate complaints. My right hon. Friend thinks that the Royal Warrants, Regulations. Committees' Handbook and other publications already available to Members contain all the information that is necessary for my hon. Friend's purpose.
    Mr. WHITE: Can the Pensions Handbook, Investigation Officers' Instructions, Instructions to Medical Boards and Assessors, be placed in the hands of members on application, and are there

    1229
    any instructions sent to anybody in authority to deal with pensions which come under the Official Secrets Act?
    Major TRYON: I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will put down that further point. He will see—
    Mr. WHITE: It is down!
    Major TRYON: Then I shall be glad if he will put it down again.

    WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. G. W. H. JONESasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will take steps to withdraw the time limit of seven years in respect of widows' pensions which is laid down in Article II of the Royal Warrant?
    Major TRYON: I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Wandsworth, Central, on the 13th June, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Captain LOSEBY: Is it not a fact that the widows of married men whose death was clearly attributable to War service are disentitled under this Clause, and does; the hon. and gallant Gentleman contemplate initiating any legislation to remove this obvious anomaly?
    Major TRYON: The action proposed has been several times stated by me here. It is to the effect that the whole question is being considered, and that individual cases are also being gone into as well.

    HEALTH AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how much of every 20s. received in the way of contributions from all sources to the National Health Insurance Fund and the Unemployed Insurance Fund is expended in benefit and how much in the cost of administration?
    Sir JOHN BAIRD (for Mr. Hilton Young): Out of every 20s. of the total amount received from all sources into the National Health Insurance Fund it is estimated that 12s. 2½d. goes in benefit, 5s. l½d. to reserve and 2s. 8d. on administration. The corresponding figures for the Unem-
    1230
    ployment Fund are 17s. l0d. in benefit and 2s. 2d. in administration (including the cost of dealing with insured workpeople at Unemployment Exchanges). The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the amount estimated to be paid out in unemployment benefit during the current financial year is substantially greater than the total contributions, the balance being met by borrowing.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the 2s. 8d. referred to covers the administration of medical as well as cash benefit?
    Sir J. BAIRD: I would like to have notice of that.

    CELL ACCOMMODATION (SHEFFIELD).
    Mr. GILLISasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that persons brought before the Sheffield Bench and remanded without bail have to be sent to the prisons at Leeds, Lincoln, Derby, etc., on account of the lack of proper cell accommodation in Sheffield; and that cases have occurred where the prisoner has been brought back and immediately placed in the dock for trial without any opportunity being afforded him of preparing his defence; and whether he will take whatever action is necessary to secure that a city like Sheffield shall be provided with proper cell accommodation for prisoners on remand?
    Sir J. BAIRD: My right hon. Friend has received a representation on the subject, and I will let the hon. Member know the result of inquiries he is making.

    CONVICTION (ERNEST HILL), SHEFFIELD.
    Mr. GILLISasked the Home Secretary whether he has given consideration to the case of Ernest Hill, a boilermaker, who was sentenced to a term of three months' imprisonment by the Sheffield magistrates for an offence alleged to have been committed by him on the occasion of a demonstration by pickets in connection with the recent engineering dispute; whether he has caused inquiry to be made into the circumstances of Hill's trial and conviction, particulars of which

    1231
    were forwarded to him on 31st May; and whether he can now see his way to recommend some remission of the sentence?
    Sir J. BAIRD: Inquiry has been made concerning this case. There appears to be no ground for questioning the decision of the magistrates. The defendant did not appeal and he has not petitioned. My right hon. Friend feels that he would not be justified in recommending interference with the sentence passed by the Court.

    UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).
    Mr. MALONEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the withdrawal of half a million in the holding of gold by the Bank of England and of a similar amount in the holding of gold by the Currency Department against the issue of currency notes is in preparation for the shipment of gold to meet the service on our debt to the United States Government?
    Sir R. HORNE: Yes, Sir.

    GREECE AND TURKEY.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement with regard to the present position of the negotiations between the three Entente Powers in reference to the settlement of the future relations of Greece and Turkey in the Near East?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir; I regret that I can and nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Clackmannan and Eastern (Major Glyn) on the 21st ultimo.
    Lieut-Colonel MURRAY: Has the hon. Gentleman no further information?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The subject is, of course, engaging the attention of the Governments concerned.

    ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
    ord ROBERT CECILasked the or of the Exchequer how much it is estimated will be saved
    1232
    annually by the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, apart from the transference of burdens from taxes to fees?
    Sir R. HORNE: It is absolutely impossible to furnish an accurate forecast of the savings referred to in the Noble Lord's question, as so much depends upon how far the provisions relating to children under six and the consolidation of police forces would be acted upon. On a rough estimate, however, I should hope that public charges would be diminished in a normal year by between £700,000 and £750,000. I should like to add, as some misconception seems to have arisen, that the savings to be effected are only those which we hope to be effected by legislation. The great bulk of the savings which we have expressed our intention to effect will be effected by administrative action rather than by this
    Act.
    Lord R. CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my question referred only to savings actually accruing as a consequence of this particular Act?
    Sir R. HORNE: Yes, and I have answered that question.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Is there any truth in the report that the Bill is to be withdrawn—I hope not?
    Sir R. HORNE: No.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give details to show how he arrives at the £750,000?
    Sir R. HORNE: It is impossible to give details, or an accurate forecast in a matter of this kind.
    Dr. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the amount to be transferred from the Imperial Exchequer to the rates?
    Sir R. HORNE: I do not think that any of the sums to which I have referred will be transferred to the rates at all.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can give details of his Estimate?
    Sir R. HORNE: The matter is one of speculation as to the extent to which certain reforms will be acted upon. We cannot be expected to give an accurate forecast.

    MARRIAGES (NONCONFORMIST CHURCHES).
    Sir W. SEAGERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Nonconformist places of worship in England and in Wales, respectively, have been registered for the solemnisation of marriages; and how many have adopted the Marriage Act, 1898, under which a marriage may be solemnised without the presence of a registrar?
    Sir A. MONO: The figures asked for in the first part of the question are— England, 15,485; Wales, 2,620. The figures asked for in the second part of the question art!—England, 4,466; Wales, 371.
    Sir W. SEAGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to bring to the knowledge of Nonconformists the great advantages of this Act?
    Sir A. MOND: I do not think that rests with the Minister of Health.

    FINANCE BILL.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I wish to ask a question with reference to the Report stage of the Finance Bill. I think it would be greatly to the convenience of the House as a whole if, at the commencement of the next stage of the Finance Bill, you, Mr. Speaker, would indicate four or five of the Motions for new Clauses which are in order, and which you propose to allow.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think I had better do that when we come to the Bill itself. All I will say now is that, since the passing of the new Standing Order, I do not think it was intended that the Report stage should be a repetition of the Committee stage. I shall have to refer to that point when I come to deal with the Amendments.
    Captain BENN: Has your attention, Mr. Speaker, been drawn to the fact that during the Committee stage many of the Amendments were taken at a very late hour, when many hon. Members were not able to attend, and will you bear this fact in mind when you are considering whether or not you will call on the same Amendments?
    Major Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Does your ruling apply to the Committee stages
    1234
    which are not held upon the Floor of this House, but upstairs?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am dealing now only with cases where the Committee stage is taken in the Whole House. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Benn), I have carefully examined the proceedings right through the Committee, and have familiarised myself with them.

    BILLS REPORTED.
    Ayr Burgh (Electricity) Bill [Lords,]
    Reported, with Amendments, Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    St. Marylebone Borough Council (Superannuation Bill,
    Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee,) to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

ESTIMATES.
Third Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

POST OFFICE (PNEUMATIC TUBES ACQUISITION) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to, Windsor Gas Bill, with an Amendment.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill, with Amendments. Amendments to—
Dartmouth Harbour Commissioners (Reconstitution) Bill [Lords,] without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to postpone for a further period the operation of the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915, and the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act, 1914; to make further provision with regard to the sale of milk; and for purposes connected therewith." [Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
MILK AND DAIRIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords.]
Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NO. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading road.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a Bill to deal with the gaps in uncovenated benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act of last April. We have thought it necessary to modify the terms of that Act because of the urgent representation of boards of guardians in the hardly-hit areas. Happily I can make the change, which I will presently describe, without asking for increased contributions from the three parties contributing to the insurance fund—namely, the employers, the people who are in work, and the State, and without increasing my borrowing powers. Of course, the House understands that I am here dealing with one side, and one side only, of our many-sided endeavour to find a remedy and a palliative for unemployment. I cannot here and now discuss the various schemes of relief works now being operated, such as the effect of the export credits scheme, or the operations of the trade facilities scheme, although each has played and is playing a valuable part in our provision against unemployment.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why cannot you deal with them?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Simply because I am dealing with the matters raised in this Bill. The grave industrial depression from which we have been suffering now for 22 months began to reveal itself in the autumn of 1920. In September, 1920, when the slump began to develop, there were about 300,000 persons registered as wholly unemployed in Great Britain. In the succeeding months those numbers went up by leaps and bounds, and by the end of June, 1921, the number registered as wholly unemployed reached over 2,000,000. In addition, there were over 750,000 workers registered as feeing on short time. During the autumn of 1921 there was some improvement, but last winter the figures went up again. At the beginning of this year there were over 1,800,000 persons registered as
  1250
  wholly unemployed and nearly 300,000 on short time. Since the beginning of this year there has been a steady but slow improvement week by week, and to-day there are just under 1,400,000 registered as wholly unemployed and just under 100,000 on short time.
  Mr. T. THOMSON: Can the right hon Gentleman give us the percentages?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have not prepared the percentages.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Do those figures include the miners?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Some miners, but not, I think, many on short time. For the purposes of the recent Insurance Act, the Act of last April, a forecast-had to be made of the course of unemployment for the period up to July, 1923, during which time the Act is to be in operation. The assumption made was that unemployment might fall to about 1,500,000 by the end of June this year, and remain on the average at about this figure for the succeeding 12 months, thus bringing us up to July, 1923. Things have so far turned out rather better than we have anticipated, and that is the first point I wish to make. The ordinary principle of insurance is to limit the payment of benefit to those qualified for it and who have made the requisite number of contributions. That principle remains the permanent basis of the insurance scheme. Owing, however, to the great amount of unemployment, and particularly to the fact that unemployment was already very bad when 8,000,000 of the 12,000,000 people who are now insured came into the Act for the first time in the autumn of 1920, I felt it to be necessary, from the very outset, to depart, in a very large number of cases, from that established principle of paying the requisite number of contributions in advance of benefit; and we have, in fact, paid what we may term uncovenanted or free benefit to persons who, although they have paid few or no contributions so far, can show that they are, in ordinary times, genuine wage-earners in one of the insured trades. These persons will remain insured, and, when trade takes a turn for the better, will resume employment and do their share towards paying for the benefit which they have drawn. In a word, I added to the permanent side of

  1251
  the Act an emergency side, and the emergency side has involved operations at least as great in volume as the permanent side. That is the second point that I want to make.
  The more I think of it, the more I feel that the step I took when the slump came, of thus adding an emergency side and paying benefit in advance of contributions, the more I feel that I was right. It has enabled hundreds of thousands of persons to preserve their self-respect and avoid recourse to the Poor Law; and I am bound to say that the cheerfulness with which the heavy contributions rendered necessary to do all this have been paid by those lucky enough to be in work, is a fine example of the spirit of helpfulness one to another which characterises our people. When we reached April of this year, the provision made for uncovenanted benefit up to that point had in a great many cases been exhausted, and in all cases would be exhausted by this present July, because the provision made by the Act did not carry us any further than that. The continuance of grave unemployment made it inevitable that a further grant of uncovenanted benefit should be made, and provision was accordingly made, by the Act of April last, to cover the period from April, 1922, to July, 1923. At the same time we continued the dependants' grants in respect of wives and children, which had been provided as a temporary measure for six months in the previous November, to cover the winter and early spring, and which has been of a great advantage. We continued that Act from April last down to July, 1923.
  The joint effect of these measures will place upon the Unemployment Fund, down to July, 1923, a liability for paying benefit in the period from April last to July, 1923, which it was estimated might reach a figure of £60,000,000, the State finding one-fourth; and it must never be forgotten, when the term "dole" is used in connection with this money, that three-fourths of this money comes from the employers and the employed persons themselves. That provision of £60,000,000 was made possible, first of all, by continuing the very high contributions which have been necessary in the past, and continuing them, not only for the Insurance Act, but for the Unemployed Workmen Dependants Act, which I
  1252
  carried forward. As I have said, these contributions are very high, particularly in the case of people who are working short time. They amount, in the case of a man, to l0d. a week from his employer and 9d. a week from the man; and, considering the amount that they have 10 pay for Health Insurance, and the contributions which many of them make voluntarily to trade and friendly societies, I am profoundly grateful for the generous way in which they have paid these high contributions and paid them without complaint.
  In addition to continuing these high contributions, it was necessary, in order to finance the scheme up to July, 1923, to increase the borrowing powers which I already possessed, and the House, at my suggestion, increased them from £20,000,000 to £30,000,000 in the Act of last April. As a matter of fact, I have borrowed, up to now, £15,000,000. We found, with these provisions, that we could furnish 37 weeks' benefit from last April to July, 1923, and we thought it prudent to reserve 22 of those weeks for next winter and early spring, thus leaving 15 weeks in the period of 30 weeks between April and November, 1922. We thought it expedient to divide the 15 weeks up into three Parts of five weeks each, laying it down that, when the five weeks' uncovenanted benefit had been drawn, no further benefit should be payable until after an interval of five weeks. Therefore, from April to October, as the scheme of the Act of last April stands, uncovenanted benefit would have been paid in this way: five weeks' benefit, five weeks' gap, five weeks' benefit, five weeks gap, five weeks' benefit, five weeks' gap. That covers the 30 weeks of the calendar for that period.
  As soon as the first gap of five weeks was entered upon, we received representations from Poor Law authorities that the effect of the gap was automatically to throw large numbers of persons, who hitherto had been upon the Unemployment Insurance Fund, upon the local rates. In a number of the areas from which representations were received by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the local rates are already very high, and the authorities urged upon us, on that occasion and on others, that the system of gaps should be abolished. In view of these representations, the situa-

  1253
  tion has been most carefully examined. As a matter of fact, we are rather better off, as I have already indicated, as regards unemployment, than we had anticipated, and, therefore, better off as regards the financial position of this fund. Moreover, the stops which I have taken, and in which I have been very greatly helped by the local employment committees, to reserve benefit for those who are best entitled to it, and, in particular, to look closely at the claims of boys and girls and single young men and women, have materially eased the situation. That policy I shall continue, because I want this money, limited as it is, to be conserved for those who need it most—men and women with little children. We anticipated that we should have borrowed, up to this moment, 219,000,000, but, as a matter of fact, for the reasons which I have shortly given, we have borrowed, as I have just said, £15,000,000, and, consequently, it will be possible, in response to the appeal of the local authorities, to provide, between the 6th April last and the beginning of November, 1922, 22 weeks' benefit instead of 16, as set down in the Act of last April. For those who have been unemployed continuously since the 6th April, uncovenanted benefit has already been paid for the first five weeks, and they have already served, if I may use the term, the first five weeks' gap, and are now in receipt of their second five weeks' of benefit. That will come to an end tomorrow week, the 20th. Therefore, in meeting this demand, which is urgent, I hope I may ask for the co-operation of the House to secure the passage of the Bill with all expedition.
  4.0 p.m.
  I have only one or two other words to say. I think it is essential to maintain the principle of having some interval between the periods of benefit, but we have come to the conclusion that we can reduce the interval from five to one week, as the Prime Minister said, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) on Monday. This will mean that as from the 20th July, for those who have then drawn 10 weeks' uncovenanted benefit since April and remained unemployed, the provision will be as follows: One week gap, five weeks' benefit; one week gap, five weeks' benefit; one week gap, two weeks' benefit. That will carry us down to the end of October. I would
  1254
  remind the House that the Act we passed last April already makes provision for payment of benefit from November, 1922, to July, 1923—
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With gaps.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: During that period of 22 weeks—the provision I still have in hand, from November on—the benefit will be drawn, first of all, in 12 continuous weeks, if necessary, under the same conditions as it has been drawn since April under the Act of 1922, and two further periods of five weeks. But in connection with those five weeks I have laid it down that it is to be subject to the payment of some contribution, because I want to get back, I hope not unduly hastily, to the normal conditions under which people have to pay some contributions to benefit. Therefore I think that the provision already contemplated from November onwards may stand. The cost of this proposal to reduce the gaps from the 20th July to the end of October, or the 1st November, is estimated by the Government Actuary at £2,750,000. I have already mentioned that although a considerable part of the reduction in the anticipated expenditure is the result of the smaller number of pea-sons unemployed, savings have, been effected in the administration of the scheme in the direction particularly of not unreasonable restrictions, as I think, in regard to payment of benefit to boys and girls, and to single young men and women; and our efforts in that direction, that uncovenanted benefit should only go to proper cases, will continue. It is our manifest duty, as far as possible, to see that the money so sorely needed, and contributed by very heavy contributions of people at work, and particularly people on short time, is not improperly dissipated. I am not making any general charge, but I desire to say that it cannot be denied that there are some young people without responsibilities whose endeavours to find work of some sort or another—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have not seen this Bill, but does it deal with all these things, with the administration of the Act?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir, I shall have to lay down Regulations in connection with it. I desire to say that there are some young people without responsi-

  1255
  bilities whose endeavours to find work of some sort or another apparently cannot be described as particularly energetic. My difficulty as regards the men is to put my hand upon the work. In this connection, I should like to take the opportunity to appeal to employers of labour to send us their vacancies, and then we can put the man wanting a job into touch with the job that wants a man. We have had very few vacancies during this long time of depression notified to us, except for women. They have been invaluable. In the last 18 months we have filled 284,000 vacancies for women, and of these, 190,000 have been for domestic service of one kind and another. Employers will be rendering a signal service to themselves and to the community, and will be helping the administration of the scheme, if they will only place their vacancies at our disposal. I am asking in this Bill that the 15 weeks' uncovenanted benefit from April to November may be 22 in order to avoid two more gaps of five weeks each. I do this because of the case made out by the Poor Law guardians in the areas heavily hit by the long period of depression through which we have been passing. I can do it without asking for a further grant from Parliament, and without increasing my borrowing powers, but, of course, I am to the extent of this additional seven weeks postponing the date at which my scheme would otherwise again become solvent. I beg respectfully to ask the House to do what it can to give this Bill a speedy passage.
  Mr. CLYNES: The right hon. Gentleman has kept within the narrow limits of this small Bill, and it is not my purpose to attempt to travel far outside it. The Act which this Bill proposes to amend may fairly be described as an Act very frequently amended, partly for better and partly for worse. I think this is the sixth or seventh amending Bill dealing with this piece of national legislation, and I repeat the statement made on a former occasion, that this, the last for the moment, will not be the last, and that later on a Bill will be introduced again to amend a piece of legislation which to a large extent has become patchwork in detail. This Bill will add very little, if
  1256
  anything, to the needy recipients of unemployment benefit. It is not so much a Bill to give additional support to men in want as it is a Bill to relieve guardians driven to a state of desperation because of the gaps that were provided for, and are still provided for, in the existing law. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman in his speech to-day has twice reminded us that this Bill is the result of the approaches of the guardians who recently sent a deputation to the Government to explain their condition of embarrassment, and indeed, in some cases, their conditions of utter despair. While I do not propose to enlarge upon the general theme, I would like to remind the House that, in some districts, the degree of unemployment is such that most of the able-bodied workers in the locality are unemployed and are living not so much on the support of those who are in work as on the money that for the time being the guardians are able to borrow, supplemented by what the Act provides. So this Bit. is a concession to the desperate state of those local authorities who can no longer stand the strain of trying to maintain this considerable proportion of unemployed which is thrown on their hands. This Bill is an admission, further, on the part of the Government of the need for making this unemployment question more a national and not a local consideration, and for the nation assuming such responsibility for dealing with this distress of unemployment as will reasonably protect these distressed industrial localities from misfortunes which have not to be borne by the more fortunate centres of population in other parts of the country.
  The right hon. Gentleman has cited figures showing some improvement in the state of unemployment. I do not think these figures fully express the realities in many parts of industrial England, particularly in those centres where work consists largely of employment in mining, steel industries, ship construction and repair, and so on. These figures are again reduced, because such a large number of unemployed workers have completely lost heart and having exhausted their benefit are not included in the statistics which the right hon. Gentleman has given the House to-day. All the same, there is, no doubt, some very slight improvement, but it is an improvement so slight as to entitle us to call

  1257
  upon the Government to cease dealing with this question by mere measures of relief, and the mere process of continuing to give away something for nothing at all, and leaving this enormous volume, or surplus, and capacity for wealth-production entirely unused, and even very badly maintained. As yet, the right hon. Gentleman cannot look forward to any approximate date when there will be a substantial reduction in this volume of unemployment. Conditions have created in this country a class of permanent unemployment, or a class of workers who have come to regard the state as a permanent part of our social and industrial system. So much is this so that the unemployed have become an organised outside body, with committees, councils, and national executives, and some features of the unemployed problem in this country have been used only for the purpose of securing some greater maintenance from the State. It will be good for the State and good for the unemployed if we can cease to pay them something for nothing at all and to pay them something in return for some useful service to the State. I am not proposing to pursue the question, but I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister last autumn made solemn pledges to the community in a statement in Inverness on his way from the North of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman, referring to that speech, will find definite assurances that schemes were to be produced and formulated by the Cabinet, and, furthermore, that measures of relief would be perfected, and that, indeed, the principle of sharing the last crust that was in the national cupboard would be carried out in any policy propounded by the Government. I allege that in spite of those public pledges, which at that time gave relief and warded off a very menacing attitude then being assumed by the unemployed and for the moment placated the disturbed labour elements who went to interview the Prime Minister, they have not been kept either in respect to schemes or measures of relief. Indeed, the whole system of relief as it has been followed is wasteful. It cannot be called a policy, and the Government is still determined to pursue this plan of giving out some sort of assistance to buy off what are frequently dangerous tendencies on the part of this great number of men. They
  1258
  would be a better and a more useful body if some degree of service could be exacted from them by a moderate change of policy on the part of the Government in regard to unemployed benefit.
  While not going into the general question, I would like to say that we who are more or less personally associated with the administration of this law are thoroughly dissatisfied with it in detail. It bristles with anomalies. It is a law of which experience justifies a demand for a complete review and overhauling, especially upon the administrative side, and, although this is not the place or the moment for going into that question. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to realise that we are very much concerned about the administration of it, and that in our judgment it requires a good deal of overhauling. I have not in mind at all that feature of administration which has dealt firmly with some few who may reasonably be termed shirkers, and who have not accepted or sought opportunities for employment. There are some few undoubtedly, but it does appear from me from reports that come to hand that the existence of these few has been used to exclude from benefit a considerable number of deserving unemployed who have not been justly or reasonably treated in respect to their claims.
  This Bill proposes to reduce what is termed the gap from five weeks to one The right hon. Gentleman did not adduce to the House any argument to justify a gap of any kind. If the impoverished condition of the guardians has induced the Government to recognise the unwisdom of a gap of five weeks, what wisdom can there be in maintaining a gap of one week? The little that the unemployed receive is given on the principle of affording such monetary relief to a distressed person as will keep that person from a state of starvation, and it is impossible for these unemployed people out of what they receive in the four weeks to save any sum on which they can live in the fifth week. What are they to do during that fifth week? It is known I am sure to every member of the House that so far as the unemployed had any reserves at all they have been exhausted. The pawnshops are full, and I hear that some pawnbrokers have had to go out of business for the reason that their places are choked with goods, and that articles

  1259
  are not being taken out. Indeed, the homes of many of these poor people have been denuded of furniture and small household goods which are necessary, and the pawnshops are choked with these things. They cannot within four weeks save anything at all. The sum they receive in these five weeks is too small for their immediate need, and it is a mockery to these poor people to say that in the fifth week they must do without this benefit and must do the best that they can. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, either now or on the Committee stage, to give some justification for the principle of this gap. Is there any curative quality in it, or is there any moral value in it? I think, as he has been able to do without borrowing and without demanding an increased contribution, to draw even more upon those future resources which are really at the bottom of this Bill and abolish completely a gap which cannot be fairly defended either for one week or for five.
  We accept this Bill as an instalment of some further support, but we do not in the slightest degree abate our protest against the policy of the Government or depart from our view as to the real remedy for dealing with this serious domestic, economic problem. We join with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing a hope that the House will give facilities for the speedy passage of this Measure, but we think that in Committee his mind should be kept open in order that we may further debate the policy of any gap at all, whether for five weeks or for one.
  Mr. T. THOMSON: I am sure that the whole House will agree with the closing remarks of the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) in welcoming this Bill as an instalment, so far as it goes, and wish it a speedy passage. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, referred to a deputation which waited upon the Prime Minister and himself a few weeks ago representing the necessitous areas who are heavily overburdened by the abnormal amount of unemployment. I understand from his remarks that this is the answer of the Government to that deputation. I am afraid from a reply which I got from the
  1260
  Colonial Secretary yesterday that this is all that they are going to do. I asked the right hon. Gentleman—
  "Are we to understand that the concession announced by I he Prime Minister is the limit to which the Government is prepared to go to meet the deputation that waited on them some weeks ago from necessitous areas?"
  The reply unfortunately was as follows:
  "Yes. A Bill will be introduced, and opportunities for raising these points will then occur."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 11th July. 1922: col. 1046, Vol. 156.]
  If that be the final answer of the Government, I am sure that it will be received by the representatives of the necessitous areas and the necessitous areas themselves with great disappointment and dismay. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House of the representative character of that deputation It was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. Its chief spokesman was the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Sir S. Roberts). and its second spokesman was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain), two of the most stalwart supporters of the Government, indicating that this deputation was representative of all sections of the House and of all the areas which are so heavily hit at the present time. I am sure that all of them will receive with alarm the fact that this is all that the Government are proposing to do to meet the terrible plight of those areas which are so heavily hit by the present unemployment. The Minister referred with some satisfaction to the fact that there was a general decrease in the amount of unemployment, taking the average of the whole country. I asked him if he could give us the figures, but unfortunately he was unable to give us the percentage figures of unemployment. It seems to me that the fact the average is declining is an added argument in favour of more assistance being given to those particular districts where the amount of unemployment is increasing. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour told me yesterday that the amount of unemployment in the iron and steel trades is 34.1 per cent.—a most appalling state of unemployment. There have been published to-day Lioyd's shipping returns, and they show that for the last quarter the tonnage laid down in the shipyards of

  1261
  this country was the lowest known for the last 30 years. They further show that the amount of tonnage under construction last quarter was the lowest ever known in the history of this country. In fact, the tonnage turned out was even less than that turned out by Germany. The engineers report that 29 per cent. of their men are unemployed at the present time. With appalling figures like those and with no prospect of any considerable improvement in the heavy iron and steel trades of this country it is really most alarming that all the Government can do is to reduce the waiting period from five weeks to one.
  The deputation from these necessitous areas intended that there should be relief not only for the future but for the present. I wonder ill the Minister really realises and appreciates the condition, almost bordering on bankruptcy, of these industrial areas where the heavy iron and steel industry and certain other industries are concerned. Does he realise that the rates are from 20s. to 30s. in the £ and that, in addition, the guardians have had to borrow hundreds of thousands of money amounting to over £6,000,000 in 52 areas? With these appalling debts and rates of from 20s. to 30s. in the £, they really have a right to ask the Government to do something more than they propose. The deputation to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred asked that the measure of relief which was given last year to the London areas by means of the Measure for the equalisation of the poor rates should be applied to the provinces. Figures can be produced showing that the variations in the provinces as between one district and another are infinitely greater than the variations which prompted the Measure of last year to equalise the poor rates in the London areas. Statements were submitted showing that in some industrial areas unemployment relief was received by five people per thousand, whereas in other districts the number was from 120 to 130. These areas are heavily hit in having to support people who, owing to war conditions, left their own districts to go into these iron and steel districts and are now compelled to remain there because they cannot go back to their own districts on account of the shortage of houses.
  1262
  These districts, owing to this large amount of unemployment, for which they are in no way responsible, have a right to ask the Government to do something to save them from bankruptcy. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of that recovery of trade which we all recognise as the prime factor for which we should all work, that he should not seek to pile up the rates in these districts. It was pointed out by one firm on that deputation that whereas the burden of the local rates in 1914 was equivalent to 8d. per ton of their output of steel, to-day the local rates amounted to 5s. 4d. per ton. This is piling up a burden which is going to cripple industry and destroy any possibility of the revival of trade. I do urge that something more is wanted than this Measure, welcome as it is. I hope that the reply given by the Colonial Secretary yesterday is not the final word of the Government on this question. If it be, then we shall have to have deputations from the Mayors of Sheffield, Birmingham, and Middlesbrough to see whether they cannot influence the Prime Minister in the same way that the Mayors of the London boroughs were able by direct action to get that which they could not get by reasonable argument. I hope that it will not come to that, but that the Government will realise the seriousness of the question, and that it is unfair that one district should suffer more severely than another. It is indeed a national question and demands national assistance. I hope the Government will do more than this paltry though welcome Measure to help these necessitous areas which are on the point of bankruptcy.
  Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: The Minister of Labour is far too old a hand to be disappointed at the somewhat grudging spirit in which his Measure has been received. The attitude of the Labour party, as expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), seems to be this: "We will take anything we can get from you, but we will give you no thanks. We will reserve to ourselves the right to point out how much more we should have done had we been in power." At some time or other, they may be put to the test. My right hon. Friend has remarked—and I agree with him—upon the futility of continuing to pay something for nothing.

  1263
  He has suggested, not for the first time, how much better it would be if we could get some work in return for this. I agree with him. I have advocated the same thing before, but I think it would be a mistake if the House were to run away with the idea that a scheme of that kind is capable of anything like universal application. I think it could only be applied to cases where work was being found by public authorities, and, even so, it does not in any way solve the difficulty of finding suitable work for the man whose trade is not that of a navvy or an agricultural labourer, but who is accustomed to work with his fingers at fine work, such as jewellery or any other craft, and who cannot be found work suitable for him, unless it be work of his own trade. I am not at all sure that my right hon. Friend is not prepared to go so far as to say that the Government should find him work in his own trade. I think I have seen some proposals of that kind in a Labour programme, but what on earth would be done with all the brooches, bracelets and rings that would be made in a Government factory, in order to give work for the unemployed, for which we 6hould be unable to find purchasers, I have never heard explained.
  As one of those who took part in the deputation to the Prime Minister, I wish to welcome this instalment for the relief of the areas which have been so heavily hit by unemployment. I would like to show the House what this has meant to the guardians by quoting some of the figures of relief in my own district. Before the gap came into operation, the guardians in the area of the Birmingham Union were steadily dealing with from 18,000 to 19,000 cases per week, on which they were spending about £15,000 weekly. The moment the gap came into operation, the number of cases at once rose to 25,000 and £25,000 a week was spent upon them. That brings two consequences in its train. First of all it means, of course, an enormous addition to the overdraft of the guardians. In Birmingham, the guardians have an overdraft of something like half a million, which has been incurred simply through this unemployment. There are other towns which are in even a more parlous condition as regards the overdraft. Then, if a board of guardians, which has got its machinery arranged for a certain average number of cases
  1264
  per week, has suddenly dumped upon it an increase of 50 per cent. in the number of cases which they have got to look after, it dislocates their whole machinery. As a matter of fact, while it was found possible, so long as the work was steady, to investigate each case once every fortnight, the moment this gap came into operation, so that the number of cases was greatly increased, that investigation had to be completely given up. That is not a good thing for the guardians, and it is not a good thing for the people themselves. Therefore, the Measure which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced to-day, and which I congratulate him upon being able to offer to us without having at the same time to ask for more money, will be a very welcome change to the board of guardians.
  On the question of the one-week gap, which he has still left in operation, I certainly expected he would have enlarged a little upon the necessity for that one week because I think it is quite clear that what will happen will be that, as soon as the one week comes, those who have been in receipt of unemployment benefit, will go straight away to the guardians, and you will have this precise phenomenon reproduced, of which I have given figures to the House to show the operation. I can only imagine that the object of my right Friend is, so to speak, to pull the men up at certain intervals, to make them realise that they cannot go on for ever receiving benefits, and must look round to see if they cannot get work. I imagine that is the object of the week, but I confess I am very sceptical. I am afraid they have already got into the habit—I do not know what else they could do—of going from one body to the other, and when not enjoying unemployment relief, to get what is necessary to sustain their lives, and those of their families, from the guardians. The idea that, they will run round for a week looking diligently for a job, which they know in their hearts they are not likely to obtain—I very much doubt whether that will be sufficient inducement to them, and I fear very much that the result of this gap will be, that after every period of five weeks, we shall have the same tremendous rush to the guardians, the same dislocation of their machinery, and, to some extent, although to a very much diminished extent, a further piling up of the liabilities of the

  1265
  guardians. I hope my right hon. Friend will give further consideration to that point in Committee.
  With regard to the general question, of which my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) spoke, I agree that, at any rate, unemployment, as we know it to-day, is not due to local causes. It is due to national causes. That is admitted, and it is not fair that local ratepayers, by the accident of the conditions in their neighbourhood, should be treated so differently as they are under our present rating system. Whether the equalisation, or the greater equalisation, of the burden should be necessarily carried out by putting the burden on the taxpayer, is another matter. I am not sure that the resources of civilisation are exhausted, and that there are not other ways of meeting this inequality, but I feel certain that it is so great and unfair, that something will have to be done sooner or later to put it right, and, like my hon. Friend, I reserve full power to come again to the Government to make further representation to them upon that subject.
  Mr. MALONE: I want to obtain an assurance from the Minister of Labour on one particular point before we pass this Bill. First of all, I want to make one or two observations concerning the actual Bill before us. It seems to me that this Bill is a very good example of the hand-to-mouth method in which this Government has dealt with the whole unemployment question. This Bill only deals with the third period of unemployment,. When we come to the unemployment of the fourth period—the period of 35 weeks—I cannot see how the Minister of Labour can avoid having to come to the House some time in the Autumn Session, and asking us to pass another Bill on similar lines to deal with the gap which undoubtedly occurred in the first part of this year. This Bill is the result of representations made, in March of this year, by the Guardians of West Ham to Members of Parliament whose constituencies are situated in that area. Those representations were made a long time before the effect of the gap was upon them. It had nothing to do with the gap whatsoever. As a result of the representations, a conference was called in this House of Members concerned, which led up to the meeting and the
  1266
  deputation to the Prime Minister on the 20th June. This question is really a question between the Government and the ratepayers. It does not really affect the question of the unemployed. I shall certainly support this Bill, because beggars cannot be choosers at the hands of a Government of this sort, which has particular concern in supporting the interests of the rich, and not protecting the poor.
  When the deputation came before the Prime Minister, he showed quite clearly that it was a question of a tug-of-war between the ratepayers and the taxpayers. What does this competition between ratepayers and taxpayers mean in areas such as that which I have the honour to represent, where there are not rich people residing? The competition between the ratepayers and the taxpayers is a competition between the rich and the poor. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is certainly so in areas such as mine, composed almost entirely of industrial workers and low-paid clerical workers employed in the City of London. In these areas, where unemployment is greatest, the greatest charge on the rates occurs, and the few workers who are in employment have to bear the burden of those who are unemployed. It is very frequently stated in this House that we cannot afford to be more generous to the unemployed, but, as I have often pointed out, we are not really as badly off in this country as people make out. From figures published last week I find that £448,774,277 was subscribed to new capital issues in the first six months of this year, which shows, at least, that some people have a little money with which to play about. We who represent these poor areas have a right to point out that this Bill does not really help us very far. I do not know whether the Minister of Labour has worked out how much this Bill is going to cost, but in areas such as West Ham Union, which has spent over a million in unemployment in the last 12 months, this Bill is not going to run very far into five figures. It will probably mean something like £50,000 in the ease of relief in the next six months, which is an almost insignificant proportion of the total amount that has got to be spent on unemployment.
  The question of the gap is not really the issue. The issue is really the whole question of affording relief to industrial

  1267
  areas where the rates are high, and they cannot afford to bear the burden of unemployment. It seems to me intolerable that, in an East-end area of London, where the rates are something like 27s. 6d. in the £, we should have to provide the dole for people whose work is in the City of London, where the rates are a third of those in the area in which the unemployed worker lives. The City of London, which is responsible for employing these people, is paying only 10s. or 12s. in the £ in rates, whereas these people who are unemployed, and their colleagues, have to find 27s., and, in some cases,:53s. 6d. in the £ in rates every year. Something ought to be done to equalise all the rates. This Bill really shows the failure of the Government to provide national remedies for unemployment. If the Government had adopted the suggestion which was put forward by some hon. Members when the Unemployment Act came before this House in the early part of this year, they would not be faced with the necessity of having to come forward with a stop-gap Measure of this sort now, and probably with another Bill on exactly similar lines in November next.
  I now come to the point on which I want a particular assurance from the. Government. When the deputation went to the Prime Minister in June, the Prime Minister, in his concluding remarks, said:
  "If anyone could supply him with the definition of necessitous areas which everyone would stand by, he would promise, at any rate, to consider that, hut he was sorry that he could not give any further promise to the deputation."
  It is on the question of what is a necessitous area that I want an assurance before the Bill is passed. Have we any likelihood of the Government agreeing to consider these difficulties, because this Bill does not go very far? Suggestions have been put forward as to the definition of necessitous areas. I have here a suggested definition, which I believe has been agreed to by a large number of Poor Law authorities. Probably the Minister of Labour has seen it:
  "If in any Poor Law union expenditure on unemployment relief, exclusive of relief occasioned by strike, lock-out, or trade dispute shall exceed in any half-year the produce of a rate of one shilling in the pound, to be calculated in the manner prescribed by the Minister of Health, a grant
  1268
  equal to the prescribed proportion of the amount of such excess shall be paid to the guardians of the poor of any such union, subject to the approval of the Minister of Health."
  That definition has been worked out on a sliding scale according to rateable value, so as to bring the varying rateable values into account. The Minister of Labour says that he has saved a great deal of money over the sum allocated for unemployment this year. This scheme, which I understand the Poor Law authorities have put forward, is not calculated to cost more than £1,000,000. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, see his way to grant this £1,000.000 to the Poor Law authorities which come under this definition, or can ho before we pass this Bill on its Second Reading give some assurance that this matter is being earnestly considered by the Cabinet, and that we shall get a decision in a very short time?
  Major BARNES: This Bill is the crumb of comfort which was brought away by the deputation which waited upon the Prime Minister. Those who were present at that 'deputation remember the very earnest confabulation that took place, and they will be grateful to the Minister of Labour for the part he must have played in getting us this concession. I do not propose to minimise it, but all that has been said as to the inadequacy of the Bill to deal with the matter remains, and if this were all that we had to look forward to we might be very disconsolate. Two days ago, however, I put a question to the Prime Minister, and he told us that a Cabinet Committee was sitting to consider the prospects of unemployment during the coming winter. I take it that that shows that the Cabinet recognise that this is a serious matter. The general opinion of everybody engaged in conducting great industrial concerns is that we are-in for a very hard winter. In his reply will the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the scope of the inquiry which the Cabinet Committee is making, whether they are getting any evidence on the question of necessitous areas, and whether they will be prepared to receive any evidence upon that question? The Minister of Labour must be very much impressed, not only with what has been said this afternoon on that question but also with the growing volume of opinion that the burden of unemployment is at

  1269
  present too heavy upon particular parts of the country. It would give a great deal of encouragement and hope to those persons who are having to face these very serious difficulties which arise at a time of unemployment if they could be told that the Cabinet Committee is really turning its eyes in that direction, and that we shall not be told when we learn the result of its efforts that this was an area of the field that they had not surveyed.
  Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I welcome the introduction of this Bill, and also the information which the right hon. Gentleman gave that the number of people out of work to-day has decreased. If I followed him correctly, the number out of work to-day is 1,400,000. Are those all in receipt of unemploment benefit?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Not all.
  Sir G. COLLINS: There may be a large number of others in the country out of work, in addition to the 1,400,000.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I said there were 1,400,000 on the register. I am asked whether they arc all receiving unemployment benefit, and I reply, not all of them. Over and above these people there is no doubt a margin of other unemployed people, but how big that margin is I cannot say.
  Sir G. COLLINS;: There are 1,400,000 on the register. Whether that takes into consideration those who are not entitled to draw unemployment benefit is a matter for consideration. When we consider to-day the situation in Europe, we ask the Government to consider the situation there, and to realise that until they can secure that the Continental nations are safe from bankruptcy the figures which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned may be much increased during the coming months. The figures which he quoted to-day are for the summer months, and it is correct to state that unemployment generally is heavier in the winter than in the summer months. Therefore, the finance of this Bill is based upon the hopeful sentiment and outlook of the Minister of Labour. I hope that those views may mature, but, whether that be so or not, the powers that are given to him under the Insurance Act will expire at an earlier date than he anticipates. I understand that in November unemployment will be paid for 12 continuous weeks.
  1270
  I cannot follow exactly what will happen to those who are unemployed at that time, and whether they will have to wait a further period after the 12 weeks have expired.
  I support the appeal that we should reduce the waiting period. In conjunction with many hon. Members, I have been interviewed by parish councils and local authorities, and these authorities put the matter to me in this way. They say that men draw unemployment benefit from the Unemployment Exchange, and at the end of the period they come under the jurisdiction of the parish councils in Scotland. Inquiries have to be made by the officials of the parish council. Much expenditure is being incurred by every parish council in Scotland in investigating these cases, and they say to me with great force, "Why maintain these two services? Why not. abolish the waiting period?" If the Minister of Labour would keep an open mind on that subject during the progress of the Bill through Committee he may find its passage into law will be easier. In his opening statement the right hon. Gentleman referred to the credit schemes of the Government, and said that they had played a valuable part in coping with the problem of unemployment. I was hopeful that he would have given the House some figures to show that, because on the last occasion he gave the House certain figures which showed that only about 5 per cent. of the unemployed people in this country had found employment through these schemes. Whether that 5 per cent. is a valuable part of the scheme for coping with the problem of unemployment I leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to decide.
  Sir GEORGE RENWICK: I cannot allow this Bill to have its Second Reading without saying a word in regard to it. Never in all my experience have I heard a Bill damned with so much faint praise as this Bill. We were told by the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) that this was the sixth or seventh Bill that has been introduced dealing with unemployment. It will not be long before there is a strong demand made for another Bill. We shall never arrive at any continuity in regard to our policy if we proceed in this way. I doubt if it is wise to relieve the boards of guardians of their responsibility at the present time.

  1271
  The boards of guardians are watchdogs, helping to tone up the Employment Exchanges by saying who are wasters, who are the men who do not want employment, and who are the men who deserve employment, and if we relieve the guardians of that responsibility, they will no longer act in that capacity, and there will be more claims than ever before the Unemployment Committee. Very large numbers of workmen in my constituency are utterly opposed to this unemployment benefit. They recognise that it leads large numbers of men to shirk work instead of looking for work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the work?"]
  Mr. NEAL MACLEAN: The shirkers are at the other end of the lobby.
  Sir G. RENWICK: I can point out where there may be some work. I now make this statement, and let hon. Members opposite deny it if they can, that the rules of the trade union are very largely responsible—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member is not in order. The question is whether the period should be five weeks or one week.
  Sir G. RENWICK: Hon. Members opposite have ranged over a rather wide field. Last week 60 men received £4 4s. 4d. each for 27 hours' work, 16 hours normal and seven hours' overtime.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: These questions must be raised on the Vote for the Ministry of Labour.
  Sir G. RENWICK: I bow to your ruling, and I will reserve my remarks. I know that what I have to say will be unpalatable to hon. Members opposite. On some other occasion I shall be able to give the figures.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been asked questions with respect to what we propose doing for the winter. The Cabinet Committee is sitting on this subject, and I cannot say anything further at the present time. I am much obliged to the House for its desire to get this Bill on to the Statute Book as soon as possible.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Dr. Macnamara.]

FINANCE BILL
As amended, considered.
FINANCE BILL

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduction of club duty.)
  5.0 p.m.
  The Excise Duty to be charged under Section forty-eight of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, on statements of purchases of intoxicating liquor to be supplied in clubs shall, as respects any statement relating to purchases during any period after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, be at the rate of threepence instead of sixpence for every pound of the purchases shown in the statement.—[Sir Robert Horne.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Sir R. Horne.]
  Sir G. COLLINS: I should like to ask one question. During the progress of the Bill, could the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the cost that this concession will be to the Exchequer? If I remember aright, the figure was something like £200,000.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Home): I think I gave the figure as £189,000.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to duties to be charged on certain negative cinematograph films.)
  If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs find Excise as respects any imported negative cinematograph film, whether developed or undeveloped, that the production of the film was organised by persons whose chief or only place of business was in the United Kingdom, and that the producer or the film and the principal actors and artists employed for the production thereof were British subjects and domiciled in the United Kingdom, that film shall, subject to compliance with such conditions as the Commissioners may by regulation prescribe, be treated for the purpose of the duties charged on imported cinematograph films by Section twelve of the Finance (No. 2) Act. 1915.as being blank film.—[Sir R. Horne.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This Clause is one dealing with the film industry in this country. Its intention is to provide that, where British actors or actresses go abroad for the purpose of

  1273
  the production of a film, when the film is brought; to this country it should be treated, for the purposes of duty, as a blink film.
  Sir G. COLLINS: If I recollect aright, the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook to insert this Clause on the representation of an hon. Member. I thank my right hon. Friend for inserting this Clause, and beg to ask whether it will cover the case of cinematograph films taken on the Everest Expedition. The matter has excited interest in all quarters of the House.
  Sir R. HORNE: This Clause will, I understand, cover that.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Relief from Entertainments Duty.)
  (1) Entertainments Duty within the meaning of Section one of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, as amended by any subsequent enactment shall not be charged on payments for admission to an entertainment as respects which it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that the entertainment—

  (a) is provided by a society which is established solely for the purpose of promoting graphic art or the art of sculpture, or both such arts, and which is not conducted for profit; and

  (b) consists solely of an exhibition of works of graphic art or of sculpture, or of both such classes of works, executed and exhibited by persons who practise graphic art or the art of sculpture for profit and as their main occupation.

  (2) The provision in Sub-section (5) of Section one of the Finance (New Duties') Act, 1916. requiring the repayment to the proprietor of an entertainment in certain cases of the amount of the Entertainments Duty paid in respect of the entertainment, shall have effect as if for the words "and that the whole of the expenses of the entertainment do not exceed twenty per cent. of the receipts" there were substituted the words "and that the whole of the expenses of the entertainment do not exceed thirty per cent. of the receipts.
  (3) In this Section the expression "society" includes a company, institution, or other association of persons, by whatever name called.—[Sir R. Horne.]
  Brought up. and read the First time.
  Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  1274
  This Clause is one which has been put on the Paper in response to a pledge which I gave to several hon. Members who sought to have excluded from the duty an art exhibition, including exhibitions of sculpture, or rather, that they should be free in the ordinary way from Entertainments Duty. I have put down the Clause in a shape which I hope is agreeable to all Members of the Committee. That covers the first part of the new Clause. The second part deals with another pledge I gave in the course of discussions in Committee. It was represented to me that, at the present time, the amount of allowance which is given for expenses before an exhibition may escape the Entertainments Duty, when the exhibition is given for the purposes of charity—that the amount of 20 per cent. was not sufficient to encourage such exhibitions being given. I agreed to increase the limits from 20 to 30 per cent. of the receipts, and the Clause which I now move expresses that change.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for meeting me on the proposition contained mainly in the first part of the new Clause. I may say, however, that I received this morning from the Arts League, which really promoted this Clause, a letter which says that they have taken advice and are not sure whether the phrase "graphic art" has ever been included in an Act of Parliament before, and they wonder whether the Treasury were satisfied that graphic Art included certain things. I would put a case to my right hon. Friend. They were afraid, with the Clause so drafted, that if you had, say, a mixed exhibition of oil paintings, water colours and sculpture, that those, not being graphic arts in the legal sense of the word, it would mean that the whole exhibition would have to pay Entertainments Duty. I suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could get out of that difficulty by the inclusion of the words "or arts craftsmanship," after the words "art of sculpture," which is, apparently, a term known to the law, I do not like pressing this, as it came to me only this morning, but I think the words "graphic art" may be given a limited meaning, and stained glasswork and things of that kind may be cut out. I gather that the words have a very nar-

  1275
  row definition. They rule out all arts called reproduction work. The only difference between art craftsmanship, as opposed to craftsmanship, is the original design. The original design of an etcher is "arts craftsmanship," but if this is sold to a photogravure firm it ceases to be art craftsmanship when they reproduce the design. It would put the minds of artists at ease if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could include after the words "art of sculpture" the words "or arts craftsmanship." Maybe the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor-General can be satisfied that all the bona fide, artists' exhibitions are covered, and, if so, I, naturally, shall not wish to raise an objection.
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I should like to know if this Clause deals with all cinema entertainments that are not conducted for profit. There is one case which I explained last year, but up to the present we have had no satisfaction. It is an entertainment run by workmen, and there is a library and various other things. They hold a cinema performance about four nights a week. The profits are not distributed. They are used for the purpose of recreation grounds and various other things, and simply because they employ four artists during the week, these people have to pay Entertainments Duty which involves them to the extent of over £1,000 per annum. They are not making a profit in any way. If a performance of this kind is not conducted for profit, surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to consider them. They are running it with their own committee and everything else. I wish the right hon. Gentleman could satisfy me on this matter.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it intended to take in all these Amendments on the duty now?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have received only one Amendment. It is in order.
  Mr. MYERS: The duty will still remain for a large number of people in this country. One claim put forward in connection with this matter was to the effect that all entertainments which are got up for charitable purposes should be exempt from the Entertainments Duty. We are all acquainted with the attempts which have been made during the last few years
  1276
  to run entertainments, such as concerts, for the purpose of making provision, let us say, for a discharged soldier who has lost a limb. The intention was to set him up in business, to provide him, perhaps, with a horse and cart and various other things, and we know from experience cases where this has been attempted and where the benevolent spirit manifested has received a rude shock when it was discovered that a considerable proportion of the receipts of the entertainment had missed its object altogether, and had been roped in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are having now a wider field for the benefit of the hospitals of the country, and it is conceivable that in some of our industrial areas attempts will be made to run some similar functions for our local hospitals. Artiste ought to be engaged to ensure success, and if it is established that the whole of the receipts go for charitable purposes, I would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should look upon such events with a kindly eye, and where it can be established that all the proceeds go to a charitable object, that he should keep his hands off the receipts of these entertainments.
  Sir R. HORNE: I quite appreciate what the hon. Member says with regard to entertainments given for the purpose of charity, but if he knew as much of human nature as the Exchequer does he would see that such a provision as he suggests leaves a very large loop-hole for abuse. A large number of people under these circumstances would be very agreeable to giving entertainments ostensibly for a charitable object, but from which in the end practically nothing goes to the charity because everything is taken up by the expenses. I am afraid long before I was at the Exchequer I was familiar with charity being used to cloak such entertainments as these, and to attract people to entertainments which really were being run lot the amusement of the actors and actresses giving the entertainments, and when nothing appreciable went to the charity. In order to meet cases of that kind we were bound to make arrangements by which only such charitable entertainments should be recognised as those in which not more than a certain proportion of the receipts went to the expenses. At firs: we fixed it at 20 per cent. We have now fixed it at 30 per cent., and I believe that leaves a

  1277
  sufficient margin. With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), the Clause really covered everything he is asking for at the time we first put it forward, and at this moment I am of opinion that as it stands it will cover the case he has stated. If it does not, we shall be able to deal with it next year if it is regarded as technically not within the precise terms of the Clause. I do not think he will have any reason to disagree with the operation of the Clause as it stands.
  Mr. ORMSBY - GORE: Has the Treasury power to define graphic art so as to cover subordinate arts of the kind I have mentioned?
  Sir R. HORNE: I have not the power to define. Only the Law Courts have that. But at the Treasury one has the power to say which are evading the law and which are not.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Appeals to Special Commissioners against assessments under Schedule E.)
  Any person charged to Income Tax under Schedule E may appeal to the Special Commissioners against any assessment in respect of his emoluments for any year, or against the amount of tax deducted therefrom, and the provisions of Section one hundred and forty-eight of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall, with any necessary modification, apply to any such appeal:
  Provided that where any such person has under any other provisions of the Income Tax Acts any right of appeal to any other hotly of Commissioners, he may appeal either under those provisions or under this Section, hut not under both.—[Sir R. Horne.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be road a Second time."
  This is a Clause which I agreed, after discussion, to put in the Bill in response to a request by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). It deals with the power of people who are passed to Schedule E to make their appeal to the Special Commissioners. I recognise the cogency of the argument he stated, and I think the Clause will meet the views he presented.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for the concession.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I should like to put a question on this Clause. The Bill provides for a very great extension from Schedule I) to Schedule E. The matter has been very hastily considered, but I understand these Commissioners do not exist in Scotland, and the question arises what form Scottish appeals are going to take. Will it lead to a centralisation of the appeals in London, and if that is so will something be done to safeguard the position as far as Scotland is concerned?
  Sir R. HORNE: The right of appeal to the other Commissioners is not taken away. The Clause only gives a right of appeal to the Special Commissioners by those who desire to appeal to them. No one in Scotland will be deprived of the right of making the appeal he has been accustomed to make. If he chooses to make an appeal to the Commissioners in London he can take that option, hut he is not under any compulsion.
  Sir G. COLLINS: If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly an individual in Scotland can appeal to the Commissioners in Scotland, but if he wishes to appeal to the Special Commissioners he must lay his case before the Special Commissioners in London. Why is the Income Tax payer in Scotland, resident perhaps in the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency, or in the far North, to be burdened with stating his case to Special Commissioners in London?
  Sir R. HORNE: He need not.
  Sir G. COLLINS: Why should he be placed at a greater disadvantage than the resident in London? In Birmingham the conditions are similar and are known to the Special Commissioners in London, but our conditions in Scotland are very different. The Income Tax law and administration is very different in Scotland. The Income Tax payer in Scotland pays more promptly than the Income Tax payer in England. In addition to that, when he feels that he has been unfairly treated by the Income Tax Commissioners, he must under this new Clause put his case before the Special Commissioners in London.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No, he need not.
  Sir G. COLLINS: The right hon. Baronet can appeal in his way to business or in half an hour during the sitting of the House, but if he were unfortunately resident in the far north he would require to travel to London.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman does not understand the Clause. It gives people in Scotland power to appeal to the people to whom they are appealing at present and it gives them an additional appeal, namely, to the Special Commissioners. Anyone living in Northumberland who wishes to go to the Special Commissioners has to come to London just the same. It gives them something they had not got before.
  Sir G. COLLINS: This question has already aroused some interest in Scotland. The papers during the last few days have contained several letters on the subject. My appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this: Cannot he set up some machinery in Scotland, some Special Commissioners before whom individuals desiring to appeal may have their case tried in their own country with the outlook and spirit of their own fellow countrymen.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I wish to back up the arguments which have been put forward. It is quite true that the Clause gives a certain additional advantage which was not possessed before by those making application, but what is agitating quite a large number of people in Scotland is the fact that if they desire to take advantage of this benefit they have to come to London. Is it not possible, more particularly as the right hon. Gentleman hails from that part of the country, to have not only the Special Commissioners who are already constituted in England, but Special Commissioners for Scotland? Surely it is quite as good for them to go to Edinburgh or Glasgow, or even Perth, one of the ancient capitals, as to come all the way to London for certain things which they submit to the Commissioners here in correspondence are not considered to be quite clear and explicit and their presence is desired in order to make the thing more explicit and clear. Considerable correspondence is appearing in the Scottish Press wondering why they have to come, and we are putting this point to see whether some arrangement cannot
  1280
  be made and whether when you are giving this advantage you cannot go a step further and give that consideration to the people in Scotland who desire to place their claims before the Special Commissioners.
  Sir R. HORNE: I think I am as good a Scotsman as anyone, but what I have been listening to would really tend to make the national spirit very unpopular. I recognise, of course, what my hon. Friend opposite desires. He is an economist. He wishes to duplicate all the machinery of administration by appointing a similar piece of mechanism in Scotland, and I should probably be asked to set up re-duplicating machinery in every place where there is anything like a national spirit. I suppose we should have another duplicated machine in Wales to apply exactly the same provisions of an Act which is universally operative. I cannot assent to any such suggestion as that, but I would point out that while the Special Commissioners have their central place of operation in London, in point of fact they endeavour to seek the convenience of appellants and they go on circuit like judges and hold then-appeals at various centres according as the cases at that particular town can be most conveniently discussed. Under the circumstances it is really ridiculous to make any complaint when an option is being given which, as I understood, would be satisfactory to the whole House.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: May I ask whether this Clause covers those people who pay their Schedule E in gross? For instance, the Corporation of Liverpool pay all their officials in one lump. There have been a great many complaints because parties having separate interests, think they have not been properly considered, and. apparently, under this Clause they will have a right to appeal. I want to know whether the Clause gives that right. At present, when you treat people in gross like that, a man who has separate interests does not always get consideration.
  The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Leslie Scott): I have made it my business, being also a Member for Liverpool, to inquire into this matter, and have ascertained that the result of the Clause would be as my hon. Friend desires.
  Mr. RAFFAN: The position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, that these special Commissioners go on circuit to suit the convenience of the appellants. Does the circuit go to Scotland?
  Sir R. HORNE: Of course, the circuit includes Scotland. Scotland is a part of Great Britain, and I think the more important part.
  Mr. RAFFAN: In that case, it appears to mo that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has entirely destroyed his own argument. The argument was that, if we duplicate this machinery for Scotland, it would involve a considerable amount of additional expense. But why should there be additional expense in having Special Commissioners for Scotland with special knowledge of Scottish conditions? There would, in the circumstances, be no additional expense, but a great amount of additional convenience.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Allowance to owner of mineral rights in respect of expenses.)
  (1) Where for any year of assessment rights to work minerals in the United Kingdom are let, the lessor shall be entitled on making a claim for the purpose to be repaid so much of the Income Tax paid by him by deduction or otherwise in respect of the rent or royalties for that year as is equal to the amount of the tax on any sums proved to the satisfaction of the Special Commissioners to have been wholly, exclusively, and necessarily disbursed by him as expenses of management or supervision of those minerals in that year:
  Provided that no repayment of tax shall be made—

  (a) except on proof to the satisfaction of the Special Commissioners of payment of tax on the aggregate amount of the rent or royalties; or

  (b) if, or to such extent as, the said expenses have been otherwise allowed as a deduction in computing income for the purposes of Income Tax.

  (2) The provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section thirty-three of the Income Tax Act, 1918. shall apply to claims under this Section.—[Sir L. Scott.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir L. SCOTT: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House will remember that this matter was brought up on the Com-
  1282
  mittee stage by the hon. and gallant Member for the Faversham Division (Lieut.-Colonel Wheler) and in answer to questions from the opposite benches I promised that I would give certain information on the Report stage. This is a case in which, I suppose accidentally, there has been for a number of years a departure from the ordinary principle of income taxation, namely, that tax should be charged only on the income received. The cost of earning the income is not a part of the income, and must be deducted in order to get at the balance of the profits and gains on which tax is payable. That is the ordinary principle in Income Tax Acts. In regard to Income Tax and Super-tax, payable by recipients of mineral royalties, they have had to pay tax on the whole of the royalties without any deduction for the cost of collecting those royalties.
  The Clause moved in Committee was intended to remove that obvious and grave injustice. On behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I intimated that the particular wording of the Clause then submitted would not, in our opinion, suit, but that we should bring up a Clause which, in our opinion, would have the desired effect, and no more than the desired effect, on the Report stage. The Clause which was submitted proposed a reduction of an arbitrary fraction of the gross rents received of one-eighth, which might, in some cases, be substantially more than the actual cost of collection. The Royal Commission on Income Tax reported, quite definitely, that it was right that the owner of minerals or mineral rights should be allowed the expenses of management, of supervision, and, following that recommendation, we have inserted in the Clause words which will limit the deductions closely and rigorously to the necessary cost of collection. The claimant for deduction has to prove to the satisfaction of Special Commissioners that the amount has been really, exclusively and necessarily disbursed by him in the expenses of management and supervision of those minerals in respect of which he receives the income in the year of assessment. Then there are provisos to prevent abnormalities arising, with which I need not trouble the House. The second Subsection simply provides that claims must be made within 12 months from the year of assessment in order that a claimant

  1283
  may get back any overpaid income Tax. That is necessary, because the tax is almost invariably collected by deduction at the source from the person who pays the royalty to the royalty owner. Therefore, in order to give the benefit of the amounts allowed it is essential to do it by way of repayment.
  In Committee we were asked to say exactly what was the estimated cost of this alteration in the law, which, be it understood, is not a concession in relief from Income Tax in the ordinary sense, but simply a provision that Income Tax should be calculated in this particular case in the way in which Income Tax is always calculated, namely, upon the balance of profits and gains. In this year the cost will be £15,000, and next year it may amount to nearly £50,000. But this is not a question of whether the amount is an amount which the revenue can afford as a concession by way of relief. It is the rigorous application, and nothing more than the application, of the ordinary principle of Income Tax that a man shall be taxed on income which he has, and not on income which he has not, and that, in so far as in a business expenses are incurred for the purpose of earning profits on a business, those expenses are set against the gross receipts in order to arrive at the profits.
  Mr. RAFFAN: The action of the Government in this matter is extremely characteristic. Appeals have been made to them in all directions for concessions in the interests of the poorest sections of the community, and it has generally been deemed a sufficient answer to say that at this moment of financial stress it is not possible to make these concessions. I could give a number of cases where, at very small cost, relief could have been given to a very large number of people, War widows, and so on, but I will content myself with referring to the case of the workman whose income is diminished because of—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot argue as to matters that might arise.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I have taken part in these Debates for many years, and it appears to me to be a new ruling if we are not entitled to compare the action of the Government in certain matters with their action in regard to other matters.
  1284
  I would like your ruling on this particular point.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: My ruling is that it is open to the hon. Member to refer to other classes which have been refused relief by the Government, but it would not be in order to discuss those in any detail. It would be open to the hon. Member to mention that there were such cases, and then pass on to the subject: matter of this Amendment.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Is a speaker in a Debate not entitled in arguing his case to take an. illustration, and to use it to prove the point which he is arguing? I understand that that was what the hon. Member was doing. Is not that in order?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It all depends upon the length of the illustration.
  Mr. W. THORNE: There is a great principle involved in this Clause. I would ask your ruling as to whether we are to be allowed to discuss the position of an ordinary working man who has to pay his train fare to earn his wages, as this, of course, is part of his expenses in exactly the same way as the cost of collection is part of the expenses of the royalty owners.
  Mr. LAWSON: If the Solicitor-General argues that it is only the balance of a man's income that is taxed, and that that is the general rule in taxing incomes, and if we have cases in which we know that men are being taxed upon their gross income on the part which they do not receive, are we not in a position to argue their cases in dealing with a matter of this kind?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As to these cases, I can only repeat what I have said If they are mentioned purely as illustrations of the argument of an hon. Member. they will be in order. If the illustration itself were prolonged so as to be an argument in itself, it would not be in order.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I am much obliged. I expressly stated that I did not intend to go into the very large number of cases which could be quoted, but proposed to deal with this particular case, because it did appear to me to cut right across the argument of the Solicitor-General. He says that it is the ordinary law that a person pays on his net income. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been

  1285
  asked to give effect to that in the case of the workmen of the country. A very large number of them require to live some distance from their work, and they incur considerable expense in travelling to and from their work. His answer was that that might be a very good case for relief but he could not afford it. That concession could not be afforded to the working men of the country, though a strong appeal was made by their representatives in this House. But all that is required for the landed interest is that the hon. and gallant Member for Faversham (Lieut.-Colonel Wheler) should make one speech with regard to the matter and the Government at once concede what is asked, as they always do. Therefore they are prepared to find in this year of stress £l5,000 as a donation to the distressed landowners and mineral owners, and they arc prepared to allow £50,000 of our revenue to be sacrificed year after year for a class which is certainly not the poorest in the community, and in their case certainly it cannot be argued that this is a concession which could be of the slightest benefit to trade or industry.
  Might we ask what is the ordinary practice, not merely with regard to the incomes of working men, but with regard to rents? I am in the position, to some extent, the unfortunate position at the moment, of being the owner of a small amount of cottage property. I do not collect my own rents. My duties in this House preclude me having time for that purpose. Am I allowed to make a deduction for collection of my rents when I pay my Income Tax? All I can say is that if I am assured that I have that privilege I should be very grateful, but up to the present moment I never have made such deduction, and I was under the impression that I was not entitled to do so. Why should it be held that the owner of cottage property has to pay his Income Tax on a sum which includes the amount which he has to pay for the collection, but the owner of royalties, in whose case the cost of collection cannot be anything like the same proportion, is to be relieved?
  I am aware that the learned Solicitor-General has been able to invoke to his assistance a recommendation of the Income Tax Commissioners. With great respect to them, I suggest that the words of this new Clause go very much further
  1286
  than the mere cost of collection. "Management or supervision" are clearly words which could be extended very far beyond the cost of collection. Assume that a mineral owner, thinking of the potentialities of his property, which is a developing property, says that for the purpose of managing that property properly he will employ a mining engineer and pay him. I can imagine that it might quite well be held that that was legitimate supervision of his mining property. I am aware that if such a case were brought before the Court the learned Solicitor-General would argue with great ability on the other side. None the less, it seems to me that these words might very well go beyond what has been recommended. Even in a limited sense this is a concession to the landlord interest, such as has been given to no other interest in the country. It is extremely characteristic of the Government. I have no doubt that the Government supporters will support them in the Lobby now. In any event, I hope that a Division will be taken on the Amendment.
  Mr. LAWSON: We have had at least the advantage this afternoon, as it is early in the day's Proceedings, that some hon. Members opposite have graced the House with their presence, which is more than they did when the Amendment which gave rise to this new Clause was moved. When the Amendment was moved it was in the early hours of the morning, and, if there was another hon. Member behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer except the Mover of the Amendment, that was about all there was. As the previous speaker has said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted this proposal with scarcely any discussion of it and almost without any reason being given for it. The Government had promised that it would buy out the mineral royalty owners. As an instalment it makes to the royalty owners the concession now proposed. The excuse given is that the Government could not afford the money to buy the royalties. It seems to me that the Government is on very slippery ground in this particular case. I have seen these royalty accounts made out. I have seen the number of tons entered on various forms preparatory to their being sent to the royalty owners. That work is done by the employés of the colliery companies. I take it that it

  1287
  is part of the general arrangement. In future, if a charge is made for doing this kind of work, is exemption to be given to the royalty owner in respect of that charge?
  It has been suggested that it is sometimes necessary to send in a surveyor to see exactly what is happening to the coal or other minerals. What happens is this: A gentleman has minerals under his land. The minerals are not being worked. The owner is not getting any income from the minerals. He is managing to "rub along" without any income from this source. Then comes the rumour that the minerals are being worked. That rumour may be denied. The owner sends someone to survey the land or to examine the mines, in order to ascertain whether the minerals are being worked or not. It is not an unknown thing for coal to be stolen in this way. The owner hears that his coal is being worked, and the surveyor reports, "Yes, the coal is being worked." The owner at once begins to receive an income from the coal. Is he to be excused the cost of the surveyor's visit— a visit which has resulted in his getting an income from a source where previously he received no income? That is a fair interpretation of the actual position. I am amazed that the royalty owners should give prominence to their present position by asking for a slight concession of this kind, which certainly will not be without its effect on the public mind.
  I would draw attention to the very very plausible explanation of the learned Solicitor-General. I am very sorry to say that of the hon. Gentleman, because he has been very fair and lucid in most of his interpretations of Clauses and Amendments. In this particular case he has put this position to the House: Here is a man who does not get the gross income; he gets only a certain portion of it, and the law is that you tax him only upon the balance of his income. Is there anyone in this House who believes that that is the usual interpretation of Income Tax law? Certainly not. We have put exactly the same position to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of men and women who go backward and forward to their work and pay their expenses and railway fares all the time, and have to work for their living in order to keep body and soul together. They
  1288
  do not get any exemption. Yet here are people whose mineral rights are historically questionable, and against whom the public conscience of this country is very strong. They get exemption. A concession of this kind, following other concessions, is certainly not doing honour to the reputation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It provides proof that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving more credence to the claims of certain classes, without regard to justice, than has been given by any Chancellor of the Exchequer, at least during the time I have been in the House.
  Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: I do not propose to follow the arguments of the last speaker, beyond saying that his description of the way in which mining rents are collected is absolutely wrong.
  Mr. LAWSON: I have seen it done.
  Lieut-Colonel WHELER: I heartily oppose any description of that sort as unjust and unfair. I pass to the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan). It seems absurd that the hon. Member, who said that he owned cottage property, does not realise that before taxation he has a deduction made of one-sixth, and, over and above that, if he can show any other expenses in connection with his property, he is entitled to put them into his claim for exemption.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Not expenses of rent collection.
  Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: The reason why I asked for this concession to the owner of royalties is that this was the only type of property left out. My request was simply a request that royalty owners should be put on the same level as other people in regard to Income Tax law. In a calmer atmosphere, where these matters were more judicially considered, the Income Tax Commissioners recommended this concession, and their Report was signed by several Labour Members. For hon. Members to come here and to excite party prejudice in a case like this, when on the broad principle there is nothing to be said against it, is unfair.
  Sir L. SCOTT: I intervene only because of what has been said by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Law-son). He has been down a pit and so have

  1289
  I. The real object of this Clause is to allow for the cost of ascertaining the rents payable. As he and most Members know, in order to ascertain what rents are payable it is necessary to measure up the coal got, every three months or six months as the case may be. It is that expenditure which in the main is involved in this concession. In reference to the statement about house property, there is a perfect analogy to this particular allowance in Rule 8 of the rules applicable to Schedule A. At the present time there is a limit to the class of property in regard to which the allowance is made, but under Clause 21 of the present Bill that limit is being altered because of the obvious justice—I repeat this, as the word "plausible" has been used by my hon. Friend opposite—of not taxing a man on the income which he does not get. That is the real point of this Amendment. I ask the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street to accept the assurance that I really mean what I say.
  6.0 p.m.
  Sir G. COLLINS: The Solicitor-General's argument is that expenses necessarily incurred by royalty owners should be deducted from the amount which is subject to Income Tax. If he were a royalty owner during the last five or ten years would he not in fixing the amount of his royalties have taken into consideration the fact that to secure them, he would have to incur certain expenses? I think any reasonable man in determining the amount of royalties would take into account the expenses necessarily incurred in securing them. If my contention is sound—and I think the Chancellor will have difficulty in refuting it—
  Sir R. HORNE: No difficulty whatever.
  Sir G. COLLINS:—then this Clause should not be proceeded with. Let me put this further case to the Chancellor. During the Committee stage Amendment after Amendment was refused on the ground that they would involve alterations in the Income Tax law. The Committee accepted the Chancellor's advice on that matter and these Amendments were negatived. This afternoon an Amendment is introduced by the Chancellor himself which is a, direct alteration of the Income Tax law. Why apply one principle on the Committee stage of the
  1290
  Bill and another on the Report stage? The Solicitor-General informed the House that this concession would cost the Exchequer £50,000.
  Sir L. SCOTT: That is for next year. It will be £15,000 this year.
  Sir G. COLLINS: In a full year it will be £50,000, and that at the 5s. rate of Income Tax implies that the owners of royalties are incurring expenses at the rate of £200,000 a year. Surely these royalty owners in determining the price they shall charge—holding, as they do, a monopoly—have taken the very last figure of expenses into consideration. In view of this very large amount, I suggest that every royalty owner in fixing the rate, whether it should be 5d., 7d., or 8d. a ton, would say to himself, "The main question in which I must interest myself is how much I am going to receive after I have paid all expenses." The Mineral Rights Duty to-day brings in about £400,000, and this concession is going to wipe out a considerable part of that.
  Sir L. SCOTT: This is Income Tax and not Mineral Rights Duty.
  Sir G. COLLINS: I agree, but we are dealing with a matter affecting mineral rights. I was hoping we might have had present here the champion of the Mineral Rights Duty. I was not myself in the House of Commons when the present Prime Minister introduced these duties, but I now see them little by little being whittled away. This afternoon a further concession is being granted to the owners which is contrary to the Income Tax law. On these several grounds, and in view of the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Committee stage, that the Income Tax law should not be altered, I hope the House will reject the Clause.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I am tempted to ask, after some of the speeches we have heard, whether the policy of the Labour party, and of the other party which sits above the Gangway, is to assess Income Tax on gross receipts without deduction of expenses. If a man's gross profits come to £50, and if it costs £20 to get that sum, according to the Labour party, instead of being assessed on the £.30 difference which he actually receives, he will have to pay on the gross receipts of £50. It is a nice prospect for many

  1291
  people to think that if that party should come into power the first thing they might do would be to assess Income Tax on gross receipts without allowing any deductions for expenses. I am not speaking on this matter as one who is receiving mine royalties, but as one who has paid a considerable amount in mining royalties, and I am astounded at the ignorance of the subject displayed by some of the hon. Members who spoke on behalf of the Labour party. Those hon. Members who know the real facts of the case will support me in my view. We all know that in the calculations which are necessary in connection with royalties it is essential to have engineers of great experience. The person who works the coal has one engineer and the owner of the mining royalty has another. Engineers are required to go down into the pits for many days—not one chance day—and to make measurements not only of the area, but of the various thicknesses, in order to be able to make an accurate calculation. According to what we have heard to-day, the owner of the royalty is to put his hand into his own pocket for the payments so incurred, and is not to make a deduction from his receipts. The House will agree that that is an absurd proposition. I know mining royalty owners who spend from £1,000 to £2,000 a year on the survey of mines for the necessary calculations. Speaking as one who has paid mining royalties, I am only too glad that they should get what they are entitled to. When a man spends money in collecting sums which are really for the State he should be allowed his expenses and thus have assessed, honestly and properly, the Income Tax which he is entitled to pay.
  Mr. ADAMSON: The last speaker has asked if it was the policy of the Labour party to follow a certain line, and expressed the opinion that in the event of their following that line, it would not be best for the general public of this country that the Labour party should come into power. What the Labour party is attempting to do is to get the same fair play measured out to one section of the community as is being measured out to the other. During the Committee stage of this Bill we asked the Chancellor to excuse a certain number of men from Income Tax on the very same ground that the Solicitor-General has put forward for
  1292
  this concession today. We asked that these men should not be assessed on income which they did not get We asked that a workman who was required to pay away a certain amount of money in travel ling to and from his work, should have an allowance in that respect. The money paid in travelling made inroads upon his income. It was a part of his income which he did not get. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and others not that part of his income which he spent in travelling. When we asked that these men should be excused, we were told that it could not be done. Now we have the Government this afternoon, calmly suggesting that the same principle, the same concession which was refused to the workman, should be granted to the royalty owners of the country. In these circumstances the Chancellor cannot look for anything else being said to him from these benches, than that he is prepared to give concessions to the wealthy section of the community which he is not prepared to give to the poorer section of the community. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO parallel."] Hon. Members need not say there is no parallel. The two cases are on exactly the same footing. It is the case of the one man being assessed on income which he does not actually receive and the other being excused on the very ground that he does not receive a part of his income. It is meting out to the one section of the community treatment of an entirely different character from that which is meted out to the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) expressed surprise at the royalty owners asking for concessions of this kind, considering the fact that they are taking out of the maning industry of this country at least £8,000,000 a year in royalties. The vested interests in this House provide an object lesson to everyone of us on these benches. They never scruple in asking for concessions, whether those concessions amount to £15,000 or £50,000. Indeed, we look for them coming along and asking for such concessions, but what we object to is, that when they do come along, the Chancellor lends them a ready ear and grants their requests without much trouble at all. ["HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] Well, the royalty-owners have got their concession on this occasion without very much trouble. The hon. Member for Faversham (Lieut.-

  1293
  Colonel Wheler) said this was the only type of property that had been called upon to bear the original impost and was, therefore, entitled to the concession. We have asked for concession after concession and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has excused himself, either on the ground that he could not afford the money, or that the Royal Commission on Income Tax had not recommended such a thing. In this case may I remind him that the Royal Commission on Income Tax has not said that this type of property was to be excused.
  Sir L. SCOTT: They did.
  Mr. ADAMSON: We shall hear the Chancellor quoting from the Report.
  Sir L. SCOTT: I have already quoted it, and I quoted the exact words signed by three Members of the Labour party.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I did not know that, in his reply, the learned Solicitor-General quoted from the Royal Commission's Report in regard to this particular matter.
  Sir L. SCOTT: It was in my opening speech I did so, because I thought the House was entitled to know the general character of the support for the Clause.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I did not hear all the hon. and learned Gentleman's opening speech. I have already pointed out two of the ways in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer excuses himself when these claims are made by us. His third excuse is that if he were to make the particular concession asked for, he would be rapidly taken out of his bearings and there would be no knowing where he would end with concessions. In granting concessions the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to deal impartially with all sections of the community. We claim that he is not doing that, and that in making concession of this kind he is giving to one section what he has already refused to another. When we discuss the matter further on I hope we will get the same generous consideration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this other section of the community has got. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we think that this is a section of the community that really docs not require the concession that has been given by the Chancellor. Already they are taking out of a heavily burdened industry what has been
  1294
  stated in this House. As my hon. Friend below the Gangway in an intervention a few minutes ago intimated, he is one of the parties who have had to contribute to the heavy burden that is imposed upon the mining industry by this other section of the community. Consider £8,000,000! So grievous a burden do the Government consider the mining royalties upon the mining industry that they have promised, as has been pointed out, that they were going to nationalise the royalties and so lift the burden from the shoulders of the industry. So we have this first step in that direction by the present of another £15,000 or thereabouts to the royalty owners! They are to be freed from the cost of collection on the ground that they arc not to be taxed on income they do not receive, while other sections of the community are being taxed on a similar amount and are refused a concession. We on these benches will not be consenting parties to treating in a partial way any section of the community. We shall oppose it even to the Division Lobby unless the Chancellor sees his way either to withdraw his proposed new Clause or to grant other sections of the community exactly the same concession.
  Mr. INSKIP: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has laid down principles which I would like to examine for a few moments, and see exactly what they mean. He has suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has departed from what the Labour party advocates, namely, the equal treatment of all classes. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by that? Does he mean that there is to be, for instance, no graduation in the Income Tax? Does he mean that precisely the same measure of taxation is to be given to the rich as well as the poor, or does he mean merely this, that when a concession is made to one section of the community that the same concession must be made to the other section? The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about the owners of mineral royalties as if they were a very favoured class of the community who receive and keep all that they ever get, and as if they were monopolists with whom nobody could interfere.
  In the first place, the owners of mineral rights retain only a very small portion of what they receive. I happen to be trustee for the gentleman who, two or

  1295
  three years ago, at all events, received in royalties £9,800. I was lately examining the accounts, and I found that after the various deductions were made the owner retained for his own benefit just over £1,100, and that was not for his own benefit either, as in similar instances is often the case. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the class against whom he declaims are favoured, and are drawing large profits, but the right hon. Gentleman can himself invest some of the sums which he controls, perhaps as trustee for his trade union, in this form of investment. There is no monopoly in it. I do not doubt that there are owners of mineral rights who would be very glad to sell those rights for a few years' purchase if my right hon. Friend wishes to become a member of that privileged class. He suggests they are a privileged class. Let him enter that privileged class, and he will receive the same treatment as members of that class to-day are receiving.
  The stock case, of course, put up against this proposal is the expenses of railway travelling in connection with the earning of wages. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that that was a concession which ought to be granted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in that way compensate for the concession that is here proposed to the owners of mineral rights. If that concession were made it would affect everybody equally. I should enjoy the concession. Hon. Members who travel from London to Edinburgh would enjoy it. Supposing one went to the North for a directors' meeting, he would enjoy the concession. My right hon. Friend and his Friends really are guilty of confusion of thought when they are considering these matters, and when they suggest that a concession is being refused to one class of the community. The concession is one which has to be dealt with on its merits. What it really comes to is this: My right hon. Friend and his allies are attempting to discredit this proposal, which I think will commend itself to most reasonable persons, by suggesting that it is treating one class of the community by putting them in a privileged position. My right hon. Friend perhaps would allow me to suggest that he should do a little thinking over this, and make up his own mind as to what he means when he says that the Labour party stand for
  1296
  equal treatment of all classes. If that means anything, it means that all classes are to be taxed on the same basis, and not proportionate to their receipts.
  Sir F. BANBURY: So they ought to be!
  Mr. INSKIP: My right hon. Friend thinks they ought to be, but most of us have got beyond that stage. We recognise that larger incomes ought to pay a larger contribution. That, however, is a different proposition from the suggestion put forward here.
  Mr. PENRY WILLIAMS: I only desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he comes to reply, to tell us what is the position under this new Clause of the owner of way-leaves. I believe that way-leaves and the mineral duties are lumped together, but what about the way-leaves? What is the owner entitled to under this new Clause? Is he entitled to take any allowance for the expenses of collecting the way-leaves? This Clause was rather sprung upon the Committee at an early hour in the morning. I believe the Chancellor gave some indication that it was likely to cost something like £25,000. Between the Committee and the Report stage the Chancellor entirely altered the form of the Clause, and it is now estimated that it will cost £50,000. The Solicitor-General has told us that this is not a concession to the royalty owners, but that argument will not, I think, hold water for one moment. This Mineral Rights Duty is a tax of very recent institution, and the amount was fixed on the assumption that Income Tax was to be paid on the gross receipts of the royalty without deduction of expenses at all. If, now, £50,000 is to be allowed to the owners of royalties than they are getting something to which they were not entitled before when the duty was fixed.
  Sir L. SCOTT: That is a question of Income Tax, and has nothing whatever to do with the Mineral Rights Duty fixed by this House.
  Mr. P. WILLIAMS: That is so. But when the Mineral Rights Duty was fixed it was fixed for a certain amount, with the knowledge that when Income Tax came to be paid on the proceeds of it, that Income Tax would be paid on the gross amount received from royalties. Therefore this is a concession to the

  1297
  owners of royalties. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has £50,000 to give away, although the owners of royalties may have a just claim, I think that there are other sections of the community which are harder pressed, and the right hon. Gentleman can find a more deserving home for the money.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: The concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer-is making to the royalty owners justifies the attitude the Labour party have taken up from the outset of the Finance Bill in calling it a "Rich man's Budget." This latest concession is an added proof that we have been correct in calling it so. We have had excuses such as those we have heard from the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip), who twitted the Labour party, as he thought, with wanting this concession taken away from the royalty owners because it had not been conceded in regard to their travelling expenses to the wage earners. He pointed out that we wanted equal taxation laid upon all people. Let me suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that our proposal is to lay taxation upon the people who can best pay it. That can only be done by a graduated tax upon income. That is assessing all equally, because the higher pay or income received the proportionately greater advantage by those who receive it is derived from the community, and they should pay the community more for the greater advantage!; they receive. That surely is the essence of taxation The hon. Gentleman recommends the Labour party to try and cure themselves of confused thinking; but I would suggest to him to read again the four canons of taxation laid down by Adam Smith and then come to the next Budget with a fresh mind upon the subject.
  We have been asking for concessions right from the commencement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has met us upon every occasion by saying that he has no money, and that the country requires everything he can raise. Yet concession after concession has been made to the wealthy classes of the community. The farmer, the landowner, have been relieved of the taxation put on during war time; they have gone back to their pre-War taxation. Here you are giving concessions to the royalty owner. Who
  1298
  are the royalty owners? They are the men who claim to own the minerals in the earth. They have no right to claim that these minerals are theirs. If the right to property is that a man can show that he has worked for it then the royalty owners cannot show that they have worked to put the minerals into the bowels of the earth! If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of giving a concession to these people, had come forward with a Bill to demand that they should produce their title deeds to the ownership of the minerals, it would have been something more in the way of justice to the community. Here is a class of people taking £8,000,000 from the community. The miner goes down the pit and works and he is starving to-day in the mining villages of Wales and Scotland. Yet these people are going off with £8,000,000 for which they have never worked. These are not the workers, but the shirkers and they live well on their shirking. They fully justify the Biblical adage, "To him that hath shall be given." The poor miner has very little and he is not given anything, although no less than £15,000 is to he given to the mineral right owners in the remaining period of the present financial year. We were told when we made a similar claim for the exemption of travelling expenses that it was not a parallel ease. We have been told about the director who travelled to Edinburgh and paid his own fare, but he enters that as expenses, and he does not pay any tax upon it.
  Mr. INSKIP: He has to pay upon what he draws as director's fees.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Railway directors get free tickets. It is the same with companies who pay the travelling expenses of their directors, and they do not pay Income Tax upon that. Therefore the argument against the workman paying his fare and receiving exemption falls to the ground. The workmen are as much in the position of employing the engineer who drives the train when they are travelling as the mineral owner employs a surveyor to go down the coal mines. If you give this concession to the mineral owner, you are in duty bound to consider the arguments put forward by the Labour party, demanding that the cost of travelling borne by working men and women, going to and from their work, ought to be relieved from taxation. I

  1299
  hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while he has listened to everything that has come from the Benches below the Gangway and behind him regarding concessions, while he has yielded to the clamour of the rich men in this House and sealed up his ears against the claims of the poor, will realise that on account of this concession, added to those already given, despite the fact that you have had to bring forward an Unemployment Bill to give a four weeks' dole where they are supposed to give five weeks', you will have the country burning against the Government on the ground that this is a rich man's Government, merely representing rich men and passing legislation in their favour, and it is only when they are forced by the extreme urgency of the situation that they concede anything to the workers.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The reasons which have been given by the Solicitor-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for granting this concession do not appeal to me, because this proposal puts mineowners and the owners of mineral rights in a favoured position in comparison with the position held by houseowners. Yon are going to allow the owner of mineral rights to deduct a certain amount for expenses from his gross receipts when he pays Income Tax. I have in mind a case of a provincial shop let at £250. Assume that I am the trustee, and that I cannot look after the property myself. I employ a man to collect the rents of that property, for which he charges me £10 a year, and consequently I receive £240. I have tried to get an assessment for Income Tax at £240, but it has not been allowed. If you arc going to give this concession in relation to the cost of measuring up coal to the owner of mineral rights, I think you should allow a man who own6 a house let for £250 a year, who has to pay £10 for someone to collect the rent and look after the property's condition, to be assessed on £240. In the case I have alluded to the lease will fall in, and I shall have to say to an auctioneer or an estate agent, "Go to this property, value it, tell me what is required to be done by way of restoration, and how much the tenant ought to pay in rent for a new lease." That valuer may charge me £20 or £25, and I shall not be allowed to deduct that
  1300
  amount in relation to Income Tax. I think this concession is an act of favouritism, and you can put yourselves into a consistent position only by giving a similar allowance to those who own house property.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: One of my colleagues has described accurately what is really taking place with regard to the work underground and the amount got, and I want to point out that there is no question with regard to the days spent underground in measuring the thickness of the seams and the amount of the ground. I have had some experience as a checkweighman, and I know that these facts are taken from the colliery weigh books and the check weighman gives the weight every week fortnight, month, or quarter. The only thing that takes place is that the surveyor or engineer sometimes goes down once a quarter or every six months. The danger that will arise with regard to this concession will be that the general supervision mentioned in this Clause as to collection and everything else will be used by the mineral right owners in the payment of the expenses of their general office and looking after their general estate, and not with regard to mining royalties. I want to point out that there was a concession made with regard to the-rental of houses where a deduction of one-sixth was allowed but that was for repairs, and when that Income Tax was laid upon the owners in 1910 or 1911 all things were taken into consideration at that time.
  Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: The hon. and gallant Member must not forget that there is also an allowance for maintenance.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: All that has to be done as far as rents of houses are concerned. When this imposition was made by Parliament some years ago, everything was taken into consideration, and if hon. Members will consider the report of the Guest, Keen, and Nettlefold Company they will find there that they state that they have been mining coal and have made only a profit of 6d. per ton for the last 20 years, while the royalty owners have taken 1s. 8d. per ton during the whole of that 20 years. That is a burden placed upon the industry. In that way some £8,000,000

  1301
  are taken annually from the industry, and it should not be forgotten that mineral light owners pay no rates at all to the local authorities. A great deal of discontent has been caused owing to the greatly increased amount paid in this way during the period of high prices, when all this money was taken by the owners without a single penny being contributed by them to assist the rates.
  Colonel Sir J. GREIG: It has been suggested in this Debate that no concessions have been made to the wage earners. May I be allowed to quote what the Royal Commission says on this point?
  "During the course of our inquiry we received many complaints that certain items should be allowed for Income Tax purposes which are not allowed at the present time."
  They give a certain number of them, and then they proceed in their Report:
  "The wage earner gets a flat rate allowance for tools, clothing and other expenses under an arrangement made with the Board of Inland Revenue, and we think this arrangement with weekly wage earners should he continued."
  They proceed to deal with other items, and in dealing with minerals or mineral rights they say that the owner should be allowed the expenses of management or supervision. That is what this Clause does, The Royal Commission also considered the suggestion which has been put forward by Members of the Labour party, and they say in their Report:
  "Allowances for travelling expenses incurred by a taxpayer in going from his place of residence to his business should not, in our view be allowed. The question of travelling expenses re-acts upon other expenses which are necessarily incurred in order to earn the income. We all know that the general allowance for travelling expenses would result in very grave inequality."
  That Report is signed by C. W. Bower-man William Brace and William Graham. Let me add one word in conclusion. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) suggests that this is an unfair concession. Surely he is the last Member of the House who should complain of the concession. He is closely connected with, and has represented for many years, a certain section of the community to which this House has given special privileges in the way of exemption from Income Tax. He should be the last to object to this proposal when we know that the co-operative
  1302
  society with which he is connected is exempt from both Income Tax and Corporation Profits Tax.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is the sort of argument one is always hearing from the other side of the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who used it does not appear to understand that by the exemption of the Co-operative movement from Income Tax the whole community is benefited, because cheaper food thereby becomes available. But this remission of taxation to the mining industry does not benefit any class of the community. Coal will not be one farthing cheaper. People interested in the coal trade and in the use of coal will not benefit in any way. The only people who will benefit will be the individuals who now happen to be sucking the life blood out of the coal industry. These people in the days when the coal trade is suffering worse than any other industry in the community are going to get more relief.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I have only risen for the purpose of trying to remove a misapprehension which the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew (Sir J. Greig) appears to have fallen into. When he quoted from the Report of the Income Tax Commission he evidently was trying to bring a certain amount of prejudice against workmen on account of concessions made to them. The reasons why those concessions were granted were that the workmen because of the industry in which they were employed had their clothing destroyed by the work they were performing. For instance, men working in chemical works find their boots and shirts destroyed and eaten away by the chemicals. The same thing applies to glass furnace workers and also to gas workers. The men employed have to don a different garb to the one in which they travel to and from their home. The reason why these concessions were made to particular classes of workmen was to help them meet the extraordinary expenditure which they had to incur for clothing.
  Mr. SWAN: When this tax was introduced 10 or 12 years ago there was nothing more popular in the country. Nothing was ever better accepted. The only objection raised to it was that it was too small. I would have liked to have seen the Prime Minister here to-day, as

  1303
  he was such an urgent advocate of the tax which is now to be whittled away. I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Law Officers of the Crown what is the pecuniary status of the people to whom this concession is made. The hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew (Sir J. Greig) tried to draw a comparison between these people and the case of the Co-operative movement. But there is no analogy possible between the two. These people have done nothing for the public good. There has been no enterprise on their part. Their gains are due entirely to the enterprise of industrial workers. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would refer to the Report of the Coal Commission which sat in 1919. He will find there that the people who are going to have this concession are in a very good financial position; some even are in receipt of £13 per hour for 24 hours of the day, seven days to the week, and 52 weeks to the year. Others are getting £9 per hour throughout the year. An hon. Member who spoke just now said he was glad, as a coalowner, that this burden of royalties had been put on the industry. I think he is the first coalowner who has ever expressed such a view.
  The data on which the royalty owner is enabled to base his claim are supplied by the coalowners themselves, and to-day they are groaning under the burden which is laid on them, with the result that many mines are being closed down. The royalties are in fact handicapping the mining industry, and when we suggested proposals last week to secure some amenities for the people who labour in the mines under terrible conditions— men who to-day are getting a bare living wage—the concession was refused, whereas these people who, by mere good fortune, are able to draw from £6,000,000 to £8,000,000 a year of unearned income are now to be granted a further concession for which, I submit, there is no justification. These people have already had Is. taken off their Income Tax, and the public will say, in consequence, and will have a right to say, that this Budget has been considered, not from the standpoint of the nation's needs, but according to the pleasure of the rich people in this country and in response to the coercion which they have brought to bear on the Chancellor of the
  1304
  Exchequer, both inside and outside this House, pressure which has enabled them to secure concessions they can well afford to do without. Bear in mind the burdens which are placed on local authorities to the alleviation of which these people contribute nothing. They arc themselves responsible for an enormous amount of the unemployment which exists at the present time in the County of Durham. Mines arc being closed down owing to the extortionate charges they are insisting upon, and that in itself is adding enormously to the burden of the local ratepayers.
  Why, then, should they get this benefit? In the first three months of this year they have drawn out of the County of Durham alone £234,776. and they have not contributed one farthing towards the cost of producing it. Surely they ought to be taxed to assist unemployment. We understand that a Measure is to be passed to assist those now unemployed by reducing the interval during which the unemployment benefit cannot be drawn from five weeks to one week hut the people responsible for that unemployment are to have a reduction of the burden which they are called upon to pay I hope this matter will be further considered by the Government. We should have preferred to see the tax extended instead of being whittled away. These people are put to no expense in gathering their royalties. I have had 15 years' experience as a check weighman, and I know how the returns are made, both to the owners and to the nation. The Secretary for Mines gets all the returns sent to him, and the same sources of information are equally open to the royalty owners. If this concession goes through, it will simply assist men who really ought not to be relieved of any further financial obligations.
  Mr. WATERSON: My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir J. Greig) admitted in his opening remark that he was not a defender of mineral rights. Evidently, judging by his speech, he does not know exactly where he stands, but, at any rate, we can claim for him that he is a loyal defender of the Government, as, when the crack of the whip is heard and the pistol is discharged, the hon. and gallant Gentleman places himself at their disposal every time. I am exceedingly sorry the Prime Minister is not in his place

  1305
  to-day. I think that, in view of the importance of this concession, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might well have requested his presence this afternoon, so that he might listen to some of the remarks that have been made by past supporters of his in regard to these particular taxes. I am reminded of a speech delivered by the Prime Minister a considerable time back—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is going far beyond the matter in hand. As to the absence of the Prime Minister, that argument has already been used by other hon. Members.
  Mr. WATERSON: I am sorry the procedure of the House does not permit me to read this quotation from the Prime Minister's speech, because it would have conveyed to the House and the public at large very definite expressions of opinion showing how people argue according to the company they keep. I have, however, no desire to depart from the ruling of the Chair, although I hope the time will come when I shall be able to give the House the benefit of the quotation. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir J. Greig) referred to the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean.) I am not here to defend the hon. Member for Govan. He is well able to do that himself, but I want to disclaim at once the suggestion that he speaks as the official representative of the movement to which the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew has referred. I wart to say very definitely, and I hope my statement will be accepted. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman read another portion of the report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax?
  Sir J. GREIG: Is the hon. Member referring to the statement which suggests that the Corporation Profits Tax should be put on the co-operative societies?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We often discuss the question of the co-operative societies, but that is not the subject now before the House.
  Mr. WATERSON: Surely when an hon. Member makes a statement containing certain inaccuracies it is only right that someone should get up and give the House the real facts.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is the very reason I gave the hon. Member why it was not in order for him to reply. It is a matter of argument on a question which is not-relevant.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. WATERSON: I am much obliged, Sir. What I wanted to refer to was the fact that the statement of the Royal Commission on Income Tax puts a different complexion on the situation from that given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I only regret that he should have used that opportunity to endeavour to delude the House as to the real issue. The hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) spoke of the difficulties and the terrible troubles with which these owners of mineral rights are now being confronted, but would he suggest that they should relieve themselves of the burden by the Government accepting the principles incorporated in the Report of the Sankey Commission, which suggested that these mineral rights should be nationalised? If these people are so exceedingly poor under the present conditions, there is ample opportunity for them to come within the purview of the decision of that Commission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is usually very loyal to the decisions of Commissions. During the whole of the Budget Debate he was telling us of his loyalty to the Royal Commission on Income Tax. Is he now loyal to the Sankey Commission? It is exceedingly apparent that he has departed from that principle. I venture to submit to the House that, if it is fair to stand loyally by the decisions of one Royal Commission, it is equally fair to stand loyally by the decisions which have been arrived at by other Royal Commissions. The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) dealt with the fact that many vital principles are being gradually but effectively whittled away. May I remind the House that it was only last year that the Land Values Duty went? The Land Values Duty was established as the result of a great land campaign in this country, the head of which was the Prime Minister. That was repealed last year—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We shall spend all day on this subject if we widen it in that way.

  1307
  The hon. Member must really keep closely to the matters in hand.
  Mr. WATERSON: I think you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty in which a Member is sometimes placed in endeavouring to reply to many of the speeches that have been made without some reiteration of what has gone before, and who, at any rate, endeavours to do his best under somewhat difficult circumstances. I want to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is going to carry out this Clause and give this concession to the owners of mineral rights, to insist also on subjecting these people to local rates. Why should they be liberated from those rates? Why should they be able to stand on one side and refuse to pay their quota towards the local expenses that are incurred? I do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will review the situation with a view, at any rate, to giving greater justice to all in the community who are concerned.
  Mr. HAYWARD: I understood that the Solicitor-General, speaking a few minutes ago on behalf of the Government, gave his assent to a very simple and very definite principle of taxation, namely, that, so far as the Income Tax is concerned, the subject should not be taxed upon income which he does not get—and by that, I presume, the hon. and learned Gentleman means income which the subject does not enjoy. That is a principle to which I, for one, am quite ready to give general assent, and my object in rising is to ask the Solicitor-General if the Government intend to give general application to that simple principle. Upon the answer to that question will depend the vote which I, for one, shall give in this particular Division. Already in the course of the Debate two cases have been mentioned where that principle is not in operation at the moment, and I understand that with regard to one of them an Amendment will be brought before the House later, namely, the Amendment dealing with the question of allowances in respect of railway fares to workmen. I should like to ask the Solicitor-General if, before we go to a Division, he would tell us what is to be the attitude of the Government upon that matter, because, if he is going to give general application to his principle, then,
  1308
  I, for one, should be quite disposed to support this new Clause; but if we have to make a choice between the concession in this new Clause on the one hand and the concession in respect of railway travelling to workers on the other. I should certainly support the concession with respect to railway travelling rather than this concession.
  Mr. SEXTON: I confess to considerable embarrassment in dealing with this Clause, owing to your inclination, Mr. Speaker, to dissociate and distinctly separate it from any reference tee to land. I have the utmost respect for your rulings, which are always right, and I am the more prepared to accept them because they are given in so courteous and firm a manner that no Member of the House would dare to refuse to do so. I only want to say that I urn pleased to be in a very different atmosphere from that in which I have been during the past week. My difficulty here is that we are dealing with minerals, with the very bowels of the earth itself, and how to dissect the bowels of the earth without dealing with the earth is my difficulty. However, I do not propose to go into the intricacies of the case, and I am not going to labour the question very long. I am afraid I should be transgressing if I went as far as my inclination would lead me. I could go much farther back then the Prime Minister. I could go back to Genesis if I liked.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry that I am obliged to rule Genesis out of order.
  Mr. SEXTON: Here are gentlemen of England, "who toil not, neither do they spin," and who claim the right, not only to the surface of the earth, but to the bowels of the earth as well.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I see that the hon. Member's trouble is that, having been otherwise engaged, he has not heard the Debate, and, therefore, does not, perhaps. quite appreciate the relevance of the matter. I think he had better wait for another opportunity.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time"
  The House divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 91.

  Division No. 217.]

  AYES.

  [7.5 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Pratt, John William

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Archer-Shce, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Harris, Sir Henry Percy

  Purchase, H. G.

  Armitage, Robert

  Haslam, Lewis

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Asthury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

  Hinds, John

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Atkey, A. R.

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

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  Bagley, Captain E. Ashton,

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Hope, J. D, (Berwick & Haddington)

  Remer, J. R.

  Ballour, George (Hampstead)

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Renwick, Sir George

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Barrand, A, R,

  Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

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

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

  Hurd. Percy A.

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  ? Rodger, A. K.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

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

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Roundel!, Colonel R. F.

  Bird. Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

  Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

  Blair, Sir Reginald

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Kidd, James

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Bruton, Sir James

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

  Seager, Sir William

  Burdon, Colonel Rowland

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Seddon, J. A.

  Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Lorden, John William

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Casey, T. W.

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Simm, M. T.

  Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Chamberlain. N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H, H. spenoer

  Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Clough, Sir Robert

  McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

  Starkey, Captain John Ralph

  Cobb Sir Cyril

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Conway, Sir w. Martin

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  Cope, Major William

  Maitland, sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henie)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Daizlel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Martin, A. E,

  Tickler, Thomas George

  Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

  Matthews, David

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

  Mitchell, Sir William Lane

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Morrison, Hugh

  Waddington, R.

  Dockreil, Sir Maurice

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Evans, Ernest

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

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

  Eyres Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Murchison, C. K.

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

  Falle. Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Fildes. Henry

  Neal, Arthur

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  FitzRoy, Captain Hon, Edward A.

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

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Flannory, Sir James Fortescue

  Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

  Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Forrest, Walter

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

  Frece, Sir Walter de !

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

  Gee, Captain Robert

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Wilson. Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Windsor, Viscount

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Winterton, Earl

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Wise, Frederick

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

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

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Pain, Brig,-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

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

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Woolcock, William James U.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Parker, James

  Yes. sir Alfred William

  Greig, Colonel Sir James William

  Pearce, Sir William

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Younger, Sir George

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)

  Gauthrle, Thomas Maule

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Perring, William George !

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  McCurdy.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  1310

  1311

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

  Gregory, Holman

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Adamson, Fit. Hon. William

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Poison, Sir Thomas A.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Amnion, Charles George

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Banton, George

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

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

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

  Royce, William Stapleton.

  Barnes, Major H (Newcastle, E-)

  Hallas, Eldred

  Sexton, James

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Halls, Walter

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hayward, Evan

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

  Spoor, B. G.

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Sutton, John Edward

  Briant, Frank

  Hirst, G, H.

  Swan, J. E.

  Bromfield, William

  Hogge, James Myles

  Taylor, J.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Cairns, John

  Irving, Dan

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Cape, Thomas

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Waterson, A. E.

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

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut-Col. D.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Kenworthy, Lieut-Commander J. M.

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Wignall, James

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Lunn, William

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

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

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

  Foot, Isaac

  Mosley, Oswald

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

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

  Gillis, William

  Myers, Thomas

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Raffan and Mr. Lawson.

  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 91.

  Division No. 218.]

  AYES.

  [7.19 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sr. James Tynte

  : Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Atkey, A. R.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

  Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Balrd, Sir John Lawrence

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

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

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Dockrell, Sir Maurice

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

  Barrand, A. R,

  Evans, Ernest

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Kidd, James

  Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase

  Fildes, Henry

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

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

  FltzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

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

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Forrest, Walter

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Blair, Sir Reginald

  Gee, Captain Robert

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Berwick, Major G. O.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Lorden, John William

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Briggs, Harold

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camiachle)

  Bruton, Sir James

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

  McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

  Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Burdon, Colonel Rowland

  Grelg, Colonel Sir James William

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

  Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Macpherson Rt. Hon. James I.

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Maitland. Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

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

  Casey, T. W.

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Martin, A. E.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harris, Sir Henry Percy

  Matthews. David

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Haslam, Lewis

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Clough, Sir Robert

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Mitchell, Sir William Lane

  Cobb. Sir Cyril

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Morden, Col. W, Grant

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hinds, John

  Morrison, Hugh

  Calvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

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

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

  Murchison, C. K.

  Cope, Major William

  Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

  Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)

  Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Neal, Arthur

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

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

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

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

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

  Tickler, Thomas George

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Rodger, A. K.

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Waddington, R.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

  Walters, Rt. Hon, Sir John Tudor

  Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

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

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

  Parker, James

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

  Pearce, Sir William

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  White, Col. G. D (Southport)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Seager, Sir William

  Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.

  Perring, William George

  Seddon, J. A.

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Windsor, Viscount.

  Pratt, John William

  Simm, M. T.

  Winterton, Earl

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Wise, Frederick

  Purchase, H. G.

  Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

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

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

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

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Woolcock, William James U.

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Starkey, Captain John Ralph

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick feel

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Younger, Sir George

  Remer, J. R.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Remnant, Sir James

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Renwick, Sir George

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. MeCurdy.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis O.

  Gregory, Holman

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Grundy, T. W.

  Poison, Sir Thomas A.

  Banton, George

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

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

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Hallas, Eldred

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Halls. Walter

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sexton, James

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hayward, Evan

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon A. (Widnes)

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Spoor, B. G.

  Briant, Frank

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sutton, John Edward

  Bromfield, William

  Hogge, James Myles

  Swan, J. E.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Cairns, John

  Irving, Dan

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Cape, Thomas

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Wallace, J.

  Carter, W. (Nottingham. Mansfield)

  Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Waterson, A. E.

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

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

  dynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Wignall, James

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Lunn, William

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

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

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

  Foot, Isaac

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Mosley, Oswald

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

  Gillis, William

  Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Myers, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Raffan and Mr. Lawson.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Sir D. MACLEAN: I suggest that it would be very much to the convenience of the House if you, Mr. Speaker, would very kindly give an intimation now as to which of the new Clauses you propose to take, or, at any rate, the next three or four of them. If I might, with great respect, put that suggestion to you, I think it would be to the general convenience.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We still have the Government Clauses to dispose of. Then, coming to the other Clauses on the Paper, I propose to take, first, the new Clause (Deduction in respect of daughter acting as housekeeper to widower)standing in the name of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes). Next, I shall call upon the Hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) to

  1315
  move his Clause (Repayment of duty improperly collected under 11 and 12 Geo. V., c.47). Following that, I proposed to call on the Clause (Reciprocal exemption of foreign shipping) standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. A. Shaw).

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Allowances in respect of contributions towards expenses of superannuation benefits.)
  (1) Where, in pursuance of any public general Act of Parliament, superannuation allowances or gratuities are payable to individuals holding an office or employment on their retirement or to their legal personal representatives on their death, and such individuals are by any such Act required to make contributions towards the expenses of providing the allowances and gratuities, the sums so contributed by any such individual for any year may be deducted from the amount of his emoluments to be assessed to Income Tax for that year:
  Provided that where any such sums are to be repaid to any individual under the authority of any such Act as aforesaid, the person by or through whom the sums are to be repaid shall deduct from those sums an amount equal to the total amount of the Income Tax which would have been paid in respect of those sums if they had not bee;) allowed as deductions under the authority of this Section, and if those sums are repaid with any interest thereon, shall also deduct therefrom an amount equal to the total amount of the Income Tax which would have been paid in respect of that interest if it bad actually been paid to the individual in the several years in respect of which it is paid, and the provisions of paragraph (2) of Rule twenty-one of the General Rules shall apply in regard to the accounting for and recovery of the amounts so deducted.
  (2) Any person having the custody of the books containing the assessments to Income Tax on any individual for the several years in respect of which sums are repayable to him as aforesaid shall, notwithstanding any thing contained in any declaration made by that person in pursuance of Section eighty- nine of the Income Tax Act, 1918, on application by the person by or through whom the sums are repayable, furnish to him such particulars as may be necessary to enable him to compute the appropriate amount of Income Tax to be deducted and paid over by him as aforesaid.—[Sir L. Scott.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir L. SCOTT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time"
  This Clause is one designed to fill a gap left by Clause 32 of the Finance Act of last year. The House will remember that last year a Clause was introduced into the Finance Bill providing that contribu-
  1316
  tions to superannuation funds should be free from Income Tax, and that the income of the funds also should be free. Certain conditions were attached to that concession, one being that a fund had to be approved by the Board of Inland Revenue so as to make certain it was not a bogus fund, but was a real superannuation fund. Since last year it has become clear that there is a similar type of case which requires to be met—the cost of contributions made, under statutory authority and obligation, toward pensions and superannuation allowance as, for instance, under the Police Pensions Act, 1921. A similar case will arise when the Bill now before the House providing for superannuation of teachers, under which the teachers are to make contributions, becomes law. In neither of those two cases is there any fund, and, therefore. Section 32 of the Act of last year does not cover it, but, in principle, there is no difference between a contribution to a fund by arrangement between employers and employed and a contribution made under statutory obligation for an exactly identical purpose. For that reason it was thought necessary that the gap should be filled. The beneficiaries of this provision are a class of the community which, I should like to say, for the benefit of members of the Labour party, are many of them representatives of the working classes or similar classes in this country. On the last Clause the Government were accused—and accused vindictively and viciously—of class legislation. This is another case of class legislation, but in this particular case the class concerned is the working class, and I wish to point out to hon. Members opposite in particular that the Government metes out even-handed justice to all classes of the community, and favours no class at the expense of others, or one more than another.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I can assure my hon. and learned Friend I do not approach this in any spirit of controversy,. but a question was raised in the Standing Committee dealing with the Teachers' Superannuation Bill to-day which was regarded there as a matter of some importance to the teachers. It was proposed to relieve the teachers from Income Tax on contributions deducted under the Teachers' Superannuation Bill, and with that I am in entire agreement, but

  1317
  in many cases the teacher, if he retires, will be able to secure a return of his contributions. It was pointed out that if you impose Income Tax upon him in the year in which he withdraws the sum, it may boar more hardly than if he paid Income Tax year by year, because he would draw a considerable sum which might, in some cases, put him in the position of being unable to secure exemption. So that, as a matter of fact, this provision might put such person in a worse position. I do not say that is the desire of the right hon. Gentleman, but if he can give any assurance to-day, or, if the matter be entirely new to him, any assurance that he will give the matter consideration, I am quite sure it will be greatly appreciated by many members of the teaching profession.
  Sir L. SCOTT: I think that in the case of contributions being returned, so that the Income Tax on them would become automatically payable on the ordinary principle, it: would be on the same footing as if it had been paid originally— that the person who received back his contributions would be put in no worse position by reason of the return.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduction of amount of composition for Stamp Duties in certain cases.)
  The Stamp Duty chargeable by way of composition for Stamp Duty under Section one hundred and fourteen of the Stamp Act, 1891, as extended or amended by Section thirty-nine of the Finance Act, 1894, Section five of the Finance Act, 1898, and Section thirty-seven of the Finance Act, 1920, shall, in the cases hereinafter mentioned, be reduced so as to be—

  (a) when the period within which the stock is to be redeemed or paid off, or during which annual or other payments in respect of the redemption or payment off of the stock are required to be made, does not exceed twenty years from the date of the composition, one shilling for every ten pounds and any fraction of ten pounds of the nominal amount of the stock inscribed at the date of the composition; and

  (b) when the said period exceeds twenty years but does not exceed forty years from the said date, two shillings for every such ton pounds or fraction of ten pounds.—[Sir R. Horne.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This was a question which was raised by the High Commissioner for the Commonwealth It was pointed out that in connection with loans for a short period the Stamp Duty was unduly heavy. The Stamp Duty began previously at the rate of 25s. for loans for anything up to 60 years. What we propose in this Clause is to make a graduated Stamp Duty, so that you begin at 10s. for shorter periods, rising gradually to the higher figures which were previously imposed upon the longer-dated loans. It is a matter of expediency, in which we were very glad to meet the desires of the Australian Commonwealth, who are finding it necessary, like other people, to issue short-dated loans at the present time. I hope the House will readily agree to adopt this new Clause.
  Sir G. COLLINS: I merely rise to ask whether this Clause will only operate so far as loans for Overeass Dominions are concerned, or will cover a much wider range than the right hon. Gentleman forecasted?
  Sir R. HORNE: It applies to the Colonial loans, which were included in the previous Statute.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Allowances to War widows in respect of children.)
  Allowances granted by the Minister of Pensions under a Royal Warrant, Order in Council, or Order administered by him to widows of members of the naval, military, or air forces of the Crown in respect of their children shall not be reckoned in computing the income of such widows for any of the purposes of the. Income Tax Acts.—(Sir R. Home.)
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This deals with a matter which was much discussed in Committee. I was seriously pressed from all quarters of the House, not less from the benches opposite than from those behind me, to do something to mitigate what was regarded as a hardship upon the widows of soldiers who fell in the War. The ease is one of widows with children, whose pensions are

  1319
  paid to the mother, and have formed, up till now, under the Royal Warrant, part of her income, so that the whole income has been assessed for Income Tax. I undertook to consider the matter on the Committee stage, and I have come to the conclusion that this is a concession which I ought to make. Accordingly, I bring forward this Clause, which will have the effect of leaving out, from what is computed as the income of the widow for purposes of Income Tax, that which she gets by way of pension in respect of her children.
  Mr. RENDALL: We have been pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer for months on this particular matter, and I am very glad we have convinced him. I thank him very much for having seen the force of our contention, that He was getting revenue to which he had not right. I am quite certain that the widows and others who get benefit from this alteration will be very grateful to him.
  Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is it only to go to widows of men who were in the late War?
  Sir R. HORNE: As my hon. and gallant Friend will see, it only applies to those pensions which are paid by the Minister of Pensions, and, therefore, necessarily applies to the late War.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what it will cost?
  Sir R. HORNE: £50,000.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Sir G. COLLINS: May I ask if it will be permissible to discuss the Clause standing in the name of several hon. Members dealing with the Sugar Duties, in view of the very heavy increase in the Sugar Duties in comparison with pre-War times, and the short time during which these duties were discussed in Committee?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have considered that carefully this morning. I find that sugar had a very substantial amount of discussion in Committee, and, indeed, made 36 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am clearly of opinion that it is not a Clause which I should allow to be moved.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Deduction in respect of daughter acting as housekeeper to widower.)
  If the claimant proves that he is a widower and that a daughter over sixteen years of age gives her full time to the duties of housekeeper, he shall, subject to the other provisions of Section nineteen, Sub-section (1), of the Finance Act, 1920, be entitled to a deduction of ninety pounds in respect of that daughter.—[Mr. Holmes.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. HOLMES: I be to move, That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The object of this Clause is to provide, that where a man is a widower and finds himself compelled to arrange for a daughter to act as housekeeper, he shall still be able to claim the same deduction for Income Tax purposes as if his wife were still living. As I said in Committee, this is not an infrequent case. A considerable amount of hardship is caused when a man finds that, on the death of his wife, he is compelled to take his daughter from work to subscribe to her maintenance at home, and, at the same time, has his Income Tax allowance reduced from £225 to £135. We discussed this at some length in Committee, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after refusing in any way to accept the Clause, as the result, I think, of the Debate and the expressions of opinion from all parts of the Committee, agreed to re-consider the matter before the Report stage. The ease has been brought up for three years before the House, and there is no need for me to dwell upon it. I hope, after his consideration, the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks with as much favour on it as he has on a number of other cases where he himself has put down new Clauses.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I rise only to anticipate the argument which has been used against us on many occasions in the past, when we have supported this Clause. On almost all occasions the Government have replied that they were bound to give attention to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and that, as they had introduced various changes in Income Tax allowances and abatements, they could not properly make the concession which my hon. Friend has just recommended. May I reply to that argument to-night, that I do hope on this occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer will meet us by saying at once, that,

  1321
  obviously, within the limit of one year, and pressed as it was for the publication of its report, the Royal Commission could not. go into all these details of individual cases of hardship? We recommended certain broad concessions which, I am glad to acknowledge, the Government, in the main, adopted, but I think that many members of the Royal Commission feel that this was one of the hardships which we did not touch, and it is the duty of the Government, in common fairness, to put the widower in these circumstances in the position which he would occupy if his wife had been spared. It is a very great Hardship and one which is not confined to any particular section of the community. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this occasion will remember that we were pressed to publish our Report for a certain date in order that our recommendations might be incorporated in the Finance Bill of that year, and that he will give us the benefit of this very small concession.
  Sir R. HORNE: I should always be very ready to assent, if it were in my power, to a proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) in regard to a matter with which he is so cognisant, and on which he always exercises so fair-minded a judgment. It is true that it is our duty to give independent consideration to matters which experience since the Royal Commission reported may have shown have been treated by them in a way not entirely in consonance with the facts as we now know them; but I would remind my hon. Friend that the Royal Commission gave special attention to this class of case, and reported specifically upon it. In paragraph 278 of their Report they say:
  "We sec no reason for proposing an increase of the housekeeper allowance and we suggest that it should be confined to (a widower (or a widow) with children; and (b)an unmarried person who maintains a widowed mother or other female relative to look after his young brothers and sisters or adopted children."
  On the other hand, they did provide for the case of a widower who is infirm, or a widower with children. They provided that if a. widower is infirm an allowance of £25 should be given if he is compelled to depend upon the services of a daughter, resident with him and maintained by him. Similarly, in the case where a
  1322
  widower has children, an allowance is made of £45 for a daughter who acts as housekeeper and looks after the children. These are two very serious cases, and for these the Royal Commission provided, and the Government adopted the proposals which they made.
  Where are you going to stop if once you start upon this road? I see no halting place. Supposing the widower has an orphan niece staying with him as housekeeper. She would be ruled out by my hon. Friend's Amendment. What is the case for a daughter whom the widower is bound to support which cannot be made also for the niece?
  Mr. HOLMES: In most cases where a man gets his niece to keep house for him the niece has been living previously with her own father, and, therefore, has not contributed to the household of the widower.
  Sir R. HORNE: It makes absolutely no difference so far as the widower is concerned. The expense to which he is put is the same whatever the relationship of the girl who remains with him. Once you go as far as the niece, the sister has a case. Why should not the granddaughter be equally considered in a matter of this kind 2 If you once begin upon this road there is no point at which you can stop. One could put in a plea for the bachelor who finds himself bound to have somebody look after his house. Why, in those circumstances, should he not be equally favoured with the widower? He has precisely the same difficulties to meet, so far as maintenance is concerned, upon an income which he does not enjoy in any greater measure than the widower. [HON. MEMBERS: "He should get married!"] There is the spinster. Her case is worthy of equal consideration. The result of my reflection since the Debate in Committee is that I have come to the conclusion that this is a concession which I cannot make. Even in the narrow and restricted form of my hon. Friend's Amendment it would cost £140,000. In these circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: The pathetic and moving claim which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made for the bachelor is one which he is peculiarly entitled to make; but there is a very easy remedy for that position, which has been suggested by all

  1323
  the married Members of the House, and we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will follow the scriptural precept: "Go thou and do likewise." The argument which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has addressed to the House, as to the point at which we could stop, is very familiar, but the proposal here is strictly limited to a relative so near in blood as the daughter. Let us take the other question as to the daughter being properly maintainable, in any event, by the father. That is disposed of to some extent by the limitation to the age of 16. It might very easily be raised to the age of 18. That would be a further mitigation of the loss to the revenue which, no doubt, my right hon. Friend would be glad to accept. If the man marries, he immediately gets an allowance for the wife. Why, if he chooses to remain single, and his daughter keeps house for him, a young woman of 18 years of age, should he not receive this concession? I should be quite willing to raise the age even further than 18, so as to entirely eliminate the question as to the father's moral liability to maintain his daughter. That being the case, and
  seeing that the father could at once get exemption by marrying again, surely this. concession ought to be allowed in the case indicated.
  Mr. T. THOMSON: In regard to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the niece, the sister and the granddaughter are comparable cases, I suggest that whereas the daughter who is housekeeper has been adding to the income of the widower, neither his niece nor his sister nor his granddaughter would in any circumstances have been adding to the income of that particular family. Therefore, there is a considerable difference between the case raised by this Amendment and the case which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. That is a good reason why he should grant this concession. Because you cannot redress all grievances, that is no reason why you should not redress the more pressing ones.
  Sir J. REMNANT: What about the rating of machinery?
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes. 92; Noes, 190.

  Division No. 219.]

  AYES.

  [7.58 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Grundy, T. W.

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Ammon, Charles George

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

  Sexton, James

  Banton, George

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

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hallas, Eidred

  Simm, M. T.

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Halls, Walter

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Hayward, Evan

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

  Spoor, B. G.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sutton, John Edward

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Hogge, James Myles

  Swan, J. E.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Taylor, J.

  Bromfield, William

  Irving, Dan

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Cairns, John

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Cape, Thomas

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Waddington. R

  Carter. W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Waterson, A. E

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

  Kenyon. Barnet

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)

  Lawson, John James

  Willey, Lieut-Colonel F. V.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lunn, William

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Davison, J, E. (Smethwick)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow. Govan)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

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

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Foot, Isaac

  Myers. Thomas

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

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Gillis, William

  Poison, Sir Thomas A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wignall.

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Atkey, A. R.

  Barrand, A. R.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Bird. Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

  Blair, Sir Reginald

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

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

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

  Pratt, John William

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Purchase, H. G.

  Briggs, Harold

  Hopkinton, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Houtton, John Plowright

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Bruton, sir James

  Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Ayimer

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Hurd. Percy A.

  Remer, J. R.

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Renwick, Sir George

  Casey, T. W.

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Clough, Sir Robert

  Jones. Sir Evan (Pembroke)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Rodger, A. K.

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

  Cope, Major William

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Davidson,J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

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

  Seager, Sir William

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lorden, John William

  Seddon, J. A.

  Dockrell, Sir Maurice

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Evans, Ernest

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Starkey, Captain John Ralph

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H K.

  Forrest, Walter

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Frece, Sir Walter de

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

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  Gee, Captain Robert

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Martin, A. E.

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Matthews, David

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Glyn. Major Ralph

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Gray. Major Ernest (Accrington)

  Mitchell, Sir William Lane

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Molson, Major John Eisdale

  Tickler, Thomas George

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

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

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

  Gregory, Holman

  Murchison, C. K.

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Greig, Colonel Sir James William

  Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E

  Murray. John (Leeds, West)

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Neal, Arthur

  Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

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

  Windsor, Viscount

  Hallwood, Augustine

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Wise, Frederick

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

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

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Woolcock, William James U.

  Harris, Sir Henry Percy

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Worsfold, T. Cato

  Haslam, Lewis

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)

  Parker, James

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Pearce, Sir William

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hills. Major John Waller

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

  Hinds, John

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Dudley Ward.

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Repayment of duty improperly collected under 11 and 12 Geo. V., c. 47.)
  In any cases where duty has been charged under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, as respects any article which has afterwards been held not liable to duty under that Act, the Treasury may, after consultation with the Board of Trade, repay to the importer who has paid the duty the amount so collected.—[Mr. Kilcy.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. KILEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I want the House, if it will, to assist me in helping His Majesty's Treasury out of the very difficult and embarrassing
  1326
  position, due, I think, to no fault of their own. They have been found guilty by a competent authority of having improperly demanded and received sums of money to which they had no right, but I may say, on their behalf, that His Majesty's Treasury were not altogether to blame. They were asked some 12 months back if it were possible for them to collect duty on some 40 or 50 articles specified in a certain bill. His Majesty's Customs did not foresee any difficulty in collecting duties on this limited number of commodities, but one morning they, like many others, received a shock. They were furnished with a list from the Board

  1327
  of Trade, not of 40 or 50 commodities, but of over 6,000 different articles. These 6,000 articles, had they been specified, would have been a sufficient shock, but the Board of Trade had evidently received a surprise themselves at the lengthy list, because they had proceeded to put titles in such as "lampblown ware," but all the articles under that process—hundreds, or even thousands of them—were left undefined. When the Board of Customs were called upon to deal with 6,000 odd items without any pre-arrangement, it was found to be very difficult, especially when inquiries were made as to the basis on which the list was compiled by the Board of Trade. The staff of the Board of Trade, we were told, got to work with scissors and numerous trade catalogues, with the result that they compiled many columns of chemicals alone on which they decided duties should be levied. Some of the authorities did not even know what the articles were. In one instance, that of a proprietary article of which they had no idea what the substance was, they thought it must be dutiable because it appeared in a trade catalogue.
  In passing the Bill, Members, I believe, were under the impression that articles of food were exempted altogether. That was clearly specified in Part II of the Act, but it was not so specified in Part I, because all commodities were not mentioned. It was thought generally that articles of food were outside the Act altogether. Apparently this is not the case, as when a well-known firm of chemical food manufacturers imported certain ingredients required for a well-known brand of infants' food, it was held up by the Customs, and a sum of something like £3,000 had to be paid by this firm for duty. The firm protested and lodged an appeal. At the end of something like six months the competent authority decided that the Board of Customs had no right to collect the £3,000. The firm naturally applied to the Customs for a refund, and was told that they could not have it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in addition to being Chancellor, is, I believe, a very able lawyer, and if he can tell us under what part of the Act he has the power to refund the money, I and many others will
  1328
  be grateful to him. I have been through the Bill, but not being a lawyer, only an ordinary business man, it, is not surprising that I find the legal part somewhat difficult to understand. This firm, despite the fact that the duty has been improperly collected, that they have spent a large sum of money in obtaining a decision, are still without the money. I have heard, however, they have one way, apparently, in which they can obtain a refund, and that is they must pack up the commodity on which they have paid duty, and reship it, fill up forms, make declarations, and pay fees, and it is quite possible they may get a refund of the money paid. That is sheer nonsense. If the Government, as it has been declared, have improperly collected the money, it is their duty to return it to the people from whom they collected it, without putting them to the trouble of shipping the goods out and then getting them back again. There is no sense, rhyme, or reason in it. I have no doubt that His Majesty's Treasury have no desire to retain this money which they have improperly collected, and in that expectation I will conclude my remarks by moving the Clause be accepted.
  Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I beg to second the Motion.
  This new Clause raises a question brought to the notice of the Government at Question Time during the past few months. Every time we have pressed it on the Board of Trade we have been told that they had no power to grant us the relief asked for. At no time, so far as I can remember, has the Board of Trade ever claimed that they had a fair or equitable right to retain the duties which we asked should be repaid. Here is an Act of Parliament passed to put a duty on certain classes of articles. The Board of Trade bring out a long list of articles, which they say are included in these classes, and charge duties on them. The referee comes along, on being appealed to, and says that the Board of Trade is wrong. There are a number of articles which should not have been on the list at all, and he directs that they should be taken off. In the meantime, however, the duties have been paid on these articles, and they Have been paid wrongly, but the Government, in

  1329
  spite of the fact that the duty should never have been collected, come and say, "We arc not in a position to pay the money back to the importer, because we have not express power to do so." This Amendment is intended to give the Government that express power which they say they did not have before. If I interpret the answer correctly, they would have been very glad to pay the money back. Consider the present position. Take any particular article which has been on the list and was removed after duties had been paid. Some of the importers of such articles have paid the duty and others have not, and yet they are both in this position, that they have to compete with one another, although one is at a great disadvantage as compared with his competitor. The case that we are urging seems to me so complete that I do not think for a moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to retain these duties, which everyone must admit were collected by mistake and would not have been collected at all had the Board of Trade been right in their interpretation of the Act. What possible reason can there be for refusing to take power to pay this money back? I can quite understand the Board of Trade might say some of these importers who have paid the duty may already have resold the goods and passed on the duty which they have paid to the buyers, but we do not ask that the Board of Trade should be compelled in all instances to pay it back, because we are going to give discretionary power to the Treasury, in consultation with the Board of Trade. They will be entitled to ask the importer who claims a refund to prove what he has done with the commodities, to whom he has sold them, and the price he got for them. That seems to me to dispose of any objection there might be on these lines. This is a fair and equitable Clause, and to refuse it is really for the Government to stick to money which they have no right to and which they would never have had if it had not been for their mistake, and which they are now in duty bound to return to the importer as soon as they can.
  Sir R. HORNE: The two hon. Members who have moved this Clause are enthusiasts on this topic and there is not a single aspect of the subject with which they are not familiar and eager to enter into controversy with anyone who will
  1330
  stand up and take the opposite view. I therefore quite understand my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Major M. Wood) when he says he cannot appreciate any reason contrary to that which he has been arguing. I am afraid, however, I cannot meet him quite in the spirit he seems to expect. The argument starts from the fallacious assumption that the Board of Trade had no original right to put the duty on these articles at all, but that is not the framework of the Statute. The provision is that the Board of Trade has not only the right but the duty to put any article in the schedule which they regard as properly coming within the purview of the Statute. They are not, on the construction of the Statute, wrong but perfectly right in taking what seems to them the proper course to follow. Thereafter no doubt the case may be presented to the Referee, and the Referee decides whether the article in question should find its place in the schedule or not. There may also be an appeal on the ground that the Board of Trade has improperly excluded from the schedule articles which ought to have been included and that case has happened like the other, as my hon. Friend who watches all these operations with the eye of a lynx no doubt knows. Take, first of all, the equitable case which is put. They say it is entirely wrong to deprive a man of money which he has paid away in the shape of a duty for an article which ought never to have been in the schedule. That is how they put the case. Where is this equity to cease? A man who has paid duty upon an article which he has imported in most cases has sold it before the case comes to be tried. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen recognises, as a logical Scotsman, that he must follow this matter through more ramifications than only the hands of the immediate importer. If the importer has sold the commodity he will have sold it, in 99 cases out of 100, with a recompense for himself in respect of the duty he has paid. Is my hon. Friend going to find the man who ultimately ought to be repaid the duty? Is it the customer 10 degrees distant from the original seller?
  Mr. KILEY: I dealt with that.
  Sir R. HORNE: I heard the hon. Member deal with it, but I did not hear any solution of the problem.
  Mr. KILEY: In the case of chemical food it is sold at a fixed price and the seller will not be able to obtain the extra amount.
  Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I am not following the effect of that suggestion upon the hon. Member's argument because, whether it is a chemical food or a patented article or a parcel of some quite ordinary commodity, in each case it would be absolutely futile and impossible to follow the transaction to the extent of discovering the person who in the end has paid the duty. It has always been the contention of hon. Members opposite that the only system to be adopted was the Free Trade system because the ultimate customer paid the duty, but my hon. Friends propose by this Clause that we should give back the duty to the man who by that time has recompensed himself by sale to a customer. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Aberdeen imperfectly realises the inequity of the Clause and suggests something quite different—that we should discover someone at a remote distance from the original importer and pay him the money.
  Major WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Clause gives the Treasury a discretion to pay back the money if they think fit, and they need not pay back a penny until they are satisfied that the person to whom they are paying it has really had to pay the money out of his own pocket?
  Sir R. HORNE: I realise all that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman supplies me with more ammunition the oftener he speaks on the subject. His national gifts have not carried him far enough in this argument. We are to repay the importer who, as he agrees, in most cases is not the man who is entitled to get the money. If that be true, he says, your discretion is to pay, but only to the importer, and it is only where we find that the importer is the man who has suffered that payment is to be made. If there is a great grievance in this case it is only remedied in the most infinitesmal degree by the proposal that is here made, because the number of cases in which you would find the actual importer was the man who in the end suffered the duty would be very few indeed. Either the Clause is absolutely unworkable or it is workable in only the most infinitesimal degree.
  1332
  Let me take the other side of the matter. If we are to repay these very few people who can be discovered to have suffered we ought to exact from the people who ought to have been included in the Schedule—
  Mr. KILEY: You do.
  Sir R. HORNE: On the contrary, we do nothing of the kind. The cases of people who have imported articles which ultimately are found by the Referee to have been subjects which ought to have been included in the Schedule are not investigated, and they arc not asked to pay duty on articles which they imported long ago. Such a proceeding would be futile and impossible, and nothing of the kind is done. In fact, the wisdom of Parliament realised the absolute impracticability of the proposal which my hon. Friends make. What did they do at the time they passed the Act. knowing that this kind of thing would come up at the instance of someone who was an enthusiast on these topics, and realising that such cases must be provided against by wise and sane measures? Parliament said the decision of the Referee should be final and conclusive;
  "without prejudice however, to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
  Therefore Parliament closed the door on just the kind of impracticable suggestion which has come this evening from my hon. Friends opposite. So far as I am concerned, I think that concludes the argument. The last part of it answers the question put by my right hon. Friend who moved the Clause, because it shows, not merely that it is proper for the Board of Trade to refuse to pay back the money until some alteration is made in the law, but that Parliament does not allow them to pay it back.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer made some reference to what he called the wisdom of Parliament in this matter. I think that the folly of legislation of this kind was never more clearly exemplified than by the operation of the Act and the experience of the trading community of the Act. The defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is simply this, that the Board of Trade unjustly exacts money from the subject by the duty levied on these things, money proved to be unjustly exacted by

  1333
  the decision of the Referee, a decision that the article ought not to have been included in the Schedule—
  Sir R. HORNE: You are too good a lawyer to think that.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: All lawyers arc liable to make mistakes, but that is the case here. It has been wrongfully held liable to duty, and if that is the case why should not the subject get back the duty it wrongfully paid? One defence is that you cannot trace it, but there may be some cases which I do not know of—1 cannot imagine them at the moment—but suppose there are, it is fair that he should get it back, and in any case it should be repaid to the importer. He has paid it. He is the only man who can get it, and if there are circumstances in connection with them, according to which he should not be paid, under the proposal of my hon. Friend the Board of Trade may refuse to pay him, but, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "the wisdom of Parliament foreseeing this expressly provided that where an order has been found by reference to the appropriate authorities to have been wrongfully made it should not affect the validity of it." This ingenious defence does not hold. The intention was to protect the officials from actions for damages for all sorts of commercial damnification which might happen owing to the operation of the order. 'Certainly it was never in the mind of Parliament to say that that should mean that duty wrongfully exacted from the subject should not be returned to him. Here is an instance which shows that Parliament expressly contemplated a return of the duty. I refer to Section 4 of the Act. The side note is:
  "Remission and repayment of duty in certain cases."
  The second Section says:
  "If any person by whom any duty has been paid proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the goods were on the first sale thereof within the United Kingdom sold at a price which was not less than the cost of production of the goods or"—
  I hope that the House will see the complications of this matter and how determined Parliament was that where injustice was done it should be righted—
  "where he shows that there has been a change in the market conditions in the country of manufacture not less than the amount which would on the date of sale
  1334
  have been the cost of production in this country of similar goods he shall be entitled to repayment of the duty so paid."
  That is what the wisdom of Parliament decided, that where duty had been wrongfully exacted, where the importer proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the conditions contemplated had not be fulfilled, he was entitled to get his money hack. The very reasonable proposal of my hon. Friend, soundly based on ethical considerations, is that where the referee finds that duty has been paid on an article on which it ought not to have been paid he ought to get his money back. Of course he ought. If you get money back under Section 4, why not get money back in the conditions contemplated in the proposed Clause? The defence against this Clause is ingenious but not soundly founded on the precedent set in the Act itself. All that my hon. Friend is doing is bringing to the notice of Parliament an injustice in the operation of the Act. That is what Parliament is for. It is for testing the administration of Acts passed by itself, and, where it is proved that injustice has been done, we are here to remedy these injustices. Here is a clear case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer evades the issue. His arguments are not consistent with the framework of particular Sections of the Act which we are here discussing. Neither are they just to the importer. The truth is that this ridiculous Act is so full of injustices and inconsistencies that he knows that if you begin to allow Amendments of wrong it will lead to the abolition of the whole thing, which is exactly what should happen.
  Dr. MURRAY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer twitted the hon. and gallant Member for Central Aberdeen (Major M. Wood) with showing some of the qualities of the Scotsman, but the right hon. Gentleman has shown in this case an alleged characteristic of the Scotsman, that he keeps the Sabbath and everything else that he can lay hands on, whether he has got it honestly or otherwise. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got a purse with money and he does not know to whom it belongs-it may belong to any one of half-a-dozen people—he cannot take the trouble to find out, and therefore he keeps the money. That is not an unfair representation of the attitude of the Chancellor of the Ex-

  1335
  chequer. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got money which the law says he ought not to have taken it is his duty to apply his mind to finding out to whom the money belongs. If he finds out that it belongs to the importer he should give it to the importer. If he cannot find out to whom it belongs that is a reason for his keeping that part of the money, at any rate, until the owner turns up. But in a large proportion of these cases the man who paid the money can be found. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer, according to the Act, and certainly according to the ethics of honesty, is bound to find out, if he can, to whom the money belongs and to disgorge his ill-gotten gains. The Solicitor-General may, by legal ingenuity, appear to get over the legal difficulty, but he cannot escape the ethical considerations in the matter.
  Mr. FOOT: The position is quite plain to anyone except those who sit on the Treasury Bench. One is glad to think that we have been helped in the matter by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a lawyer, and that his place is now occupied by the Solicitor-General. I suppose they would assent to what is a plain proposition in English law—that if money has been paid under a mistake of fact, that money can be recovered. If I paid money under a mistake of fact, and could prove that the money had been so paid, on proving that, I am entitled to recover the money. That fact governs this situation. Here in an Act of Parliament a certain list is thrown together in so slovenly a fashion that when the list comes to be scrutinised later on it is agreed by the Board of Trade or by the referee, and sometimes by both, that there are certain items which are included in the list improperly. That is a matter of fact. It has then been found that by reason of that mistake of fact money has been paid, and the question has arisen, to whom does that money belong? It is quite clear that it does not not belong to those who made the blunder. It cannot belong to them. The retention of the money would never be argued by any counsel in a Court of law, but, apparently, what no counsel would attempt to argue is put forward with effrontery by those who sit on the Treasury Bench. They do not deny that they are possessed
  1336
  of money which does not: belong to them, but they say it is difficult to pay it back. That has very often been argued. I have no doubt that the Solicitor-General has heard many persons in the dock use that argument. I suppose that the only reluctance which the Government has in paying back money which is not their money, but which is in their pocket owing to their own mistake, is that they would have to come down from the pedestal which they have constantly occupied over the Safeguarding of Industries Act. They know, and they admit amongst themselves, that the Act is a mass of intricate complications and stupidities, and the paying back of the money might be a constant confession of the mistake of the Act. Whatever may be said, it is impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even with the very able assistance of the Solicitor-General, to make wrong right.
  Mr. T. THOMSON: The House will have noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stressed points which my hon. Friends did not make. My hon. Friends never suggested that where the goods had been sold and the importer had recovered from the consumer the duty which had been paid on them, there should be a refund. What they did suggest was that where there were stocks which had not been sold and where the duty had not been passed on to the consumer and a charge had been wrongfully made, that sum should be refunded no the importer. Surely it is only just. Suppose you have two business firms. One firm imports a considerable quantity of goods on which duty is wrongfully imposed. They pay that duty and have their goods in stock. Another firm, after the duty has been found to be wrongfully imposed, imports a similar quantity of the same goods, and they pay no duty. When those two importers place those goods on the market, one has paid 33⅓ per cent. more than the other. That is not a position of justice or equity. The question is one to which the House should have some reply from the Treasury Bench. It is an illustration of the fantastic difficulties of carrying out an impossible Act.
  Mr. HAYWARD: If I followed the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer aright, the first ground upon which he opposed this Clause was that it was a mistake to suppose that the articles in

  1337
  question were improperly included in the list from the beginning, and that although the referee may subsequently decide that they should come off the list, yet they were properly included in the first instance. That statement hardly coincides with the wording of the Act. Section 1, Sub-section (5), provides that
  "If within three months after the publication of any such list any person appearing to the Board to be interested delivers to the Board a written notice complaining that any article has been improperly included in, or excluded from, the list …"
  So that the ground of the application is that the articles have been improperly included in or excluded from the list, as the case may be. That is the question which the Referee has to decide. It naturally follows that when the Referee has given his decision, the decision he gives is as to whether the article was improperly included or excluded. On that point the Chancellor of the Exchequer is left only with the defence which he obtains from the very last phrase in that same Sub-section, namely:
  "…the decision of the referee shall be…without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) pointed out, it surely was never in the contemplation of Parliament that those words should prevent any person who had paid duty upon goods improperly included in the list, from obtaining a rebate. If the words can be construed to mean that the subject has no redress in such cases, then Parliament is here, this House is now sitting, to grant that redress if a proper case has been made out. It is for that purpose the Clause has been put down. I now come to a second argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated by one of my hon. Friends who suggested the reply would probably be made that the duties which have been paid, having been placed upon the articles, therefore have passed to other shoulders, and even if the importer did obtain a return of the duty, there was no possibility of the person who ultimately paid it, namely, the purchaser, obtaining a rebate. The Chancellor must have forgotten one very important factor relevant to that argument. He seems to forget that these articles were competing with articles
  1338
  manufactured in this country which did not pay a tax.
  I quite admit where you have an article imported into this country upon which a duty is paid, and there is no similar article produced in this country, or, if there is, there is an Excise duty on it, equal to the import duty, then it is quite true the tax would, in all cases, be passed on to the purchaser. In a case, however, where the imported article which bears the tax is competing with an article manufactured in this country which does not pay a tax, then it is quite impossible to follow the incidence of that tax. Where you get to, ultimately, depends naturally on the price of the home-manufactured article. That is a fact which should be taken into consideration when an argument of that kind is used. Quite obviously, it never was in the contemplation of Parliament that anyone who paid duties, admitted to have been improperly exacted, should not be entitled to a rebate, and if the Government cannot sec their way to con-code the point, I hope the House, on a Division, will grant the justice which the Government does not see fit to extend.
  Sir G. COLLINS: I hope that before the Question is put we may have a reply from the Solicitor-General to the arguments advanced in support of the new Clause. Let me advance one further argument. The Safeguarding of Industries Act, for the first time in British history—at any rate within recent years—placed the responsibility of fixing taxation in the hands of a Government Department. That new principle is the law of the land —how long it may remain the law of the land is another matter—as long as the Safeguarding of Industries Act is on the Statute Book. Surely if taxes are unfairly levied, as between one subject of the Realm and another, the least the Treasury can do is to remit those taxes or grant a rebate. The new Clause gives the Treasury discretionary powers to do so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer advanced just one reason against the new Clause. He argued that by the time the duty was repealed the importers would have sold these articles and have recouped themselves from the consumer, but the Clause, as drafted, meets that point. The Treasury might after consultation with the Board of Trade ask the importers to submit to the Treasury the amount they

  1339
  have in stock at the moment the duty is repealed, so that the particular importer would not have any unfair advantage. I expected the the Government to accept this Clause, because it might have made the Act more workable, and it would have been conducive to its smooth working in the City of London. Another argument employed against it was that there were very few cases such as would be covered by the new Clause. Whether the cases are few or many, if one subject is unfairly taxed in comparison with another, the matter should be considered, and the least the Solicitor-General can do is to treat all alike and remit the duty where it has been improperly levied.
  Mr. REMER: I did not intend to speak on this particular Clause, had it not been for the speeches to which we have just listened. These only show how perfectly hopeless are the minds of hon. Members opposite. They are always thinking of these wretched Cobdenite theories which are as dead as the dodo. Those who sat on these benches through the passage of the Safeguarding of Industries Act remember that there were put into that Act as concessions these very provisions enabling appeals to be made to the referee. Now that the referee has given concessions hon. Members are not satisfied. They want to try to take advantage of the Chancellor, and get this further miserable concession out of him. I hope the Chancellor will present a stony heart to people who come here asking for concessions of this kind, because instead of being whittled away, the Safeguarding of Industries Act ought to be extended and put on a more sound and solid basis.
  Mr. P. WILLIAMS: I am amazed that the Government should refuse the Amendment. It is only a matter of elementary justice that money improperly extracted from the taxpayer should be returned. If an article on which duty has been levied was improperly included in the Schedule on which that duty is levied, there should be a rebate, and I fail to see how the Government have any justification whatever for their attitude. Unfortunately, I have not had the advantage of hearing the whole of this Debate. I heard much of it. I must say that we on this side of the House accept the reproof of the hon. Member
  1340
  for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) with a quite easy mind, remembering it is not so long ago that he introduced a Bill, or tried to introduce a Bill, to repeal the whole of the Safeguarding of Industries Act.
  Mr. REMER: The hon. Member is not quite correct!
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I apologise; it was in connection with dyestuffs. But they are very much the same, being part and parcel of the Government's protective policy. In regard to these duties, however, I can quite understand why the Government should not make their Clause retrospective. But surely the time has come when everything that ought to be included under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and that ought to be scheduled, has been included and scheduled, and, therefore, there cannot be any reason why they should refuse to pay back money which they have improperly collected on articles that have not already been adjudicated upon. If the liability to return this duty to the taxpayer were imposed upon the Department that is scheduling these articles, I think it would make that Department very much more careful. They would not simply put an article in the schedule because somebody thinks it ought to be put there. They would make due inquiry and find out whether the thing was justified and under what terms of the Act that article should be included.
  The Government has been, I believe, during the last few days engaged in a controversy at The Hague in regard to the rights of private property. What have they got to say to their opponents in that discussion if they deliberately annex the money of the taxpayer which has been wrongfully extracted from him. They have not a leg to stand upon. It is not honest. The Solicitor-General ought to make us some reply, but apparently there is going to be no reply from the Government Benches. [An HON. MEMBER: "The reply was made long ago"] Yes, but the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke before the arguments were advanced which have been advanced by my hon. Friends on this proposed new Clause.
  Sir F. YOUNG: It has only been repetition since the reply.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not know that I agree with that. I was here until four o'clock the other morning on this very

  1341
  Bill, but I did not see my hon. Friend here. Certainly we did a very good night's work when hon. Friends behind me, who take an interest in the proceedings, induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to alter his policy in regard to the taxation allowances which were given to War widows and their children. I would like to ask the Solicitor-General to try and justify the action of the Government in seizing and retaining money to which they are not entitled.
  Mr. FRANCE: Before the Solicitor-General replies—and I have no doubt he will, for I believe he is at all times anxious to make a courteous response to appeals—let me say that I do not agree with the observations of those who say that no new argument has been advanced. The Solicitor-General, doubtless, will appreciate that a very important point has been raised which answers the principles of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I understood the Chancellor, he said that the difficulty was that if the goods had been sold and the duty had been passed on to the consumer it would not be fair to repay the money to him or he would have the money twice. As I understood the Mover and Seconder of this proposed Clause, they have answered the Chancellor in speeches that I am afraid that my hon. and gallant Friend did not hear.
  Sir F. YOUNG: All that has been dealt with.
  Mr. FRANCE: I am dealing with two points put forward since the Chancellor left the House, the one that this Clause does not come under that exemption which the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, but only asks that the duty shall be refunded if the goods have not been sold, and the other argument, in answer to the Chancellor, was that it puts the two classes of sellers into two different classes in competition, which is very unfair. The one trader has goods on which duty has been wrongfully paid; the other trader has goods upon which no duty has been paid. The Chancellor admits to the House that the duty ought not to have been paid, therefore he is asked to agree that those people who have wrongfully paid duty have a just case for refunding. The hon Member for Macclesfield who addressed the House, as he usually does, with that air of superiority, fitting singularly and accurately the in-
  1342
  feriority of his arguments, and in view of the long time he has had the opportunity of honouring the House with his presence, said that these arguments to which I have referred and the Debate had proceeded on exploded Cobdenite theories. He could not have heard what the Debate was about. He cannot know what this Clause contains. This Clause has nothing whatever to do with the merits or demerits of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill.
  Mr. REMER: I was only quoting the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean).
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. FRANCE: Either the hon. Gentleman's hearing is not very good, or there in another reflection which I do not care to follow up. This Clause has nothing whatever to do with the merits or the demerits of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. We may all have our views upon that, but we keep them carefully sealed up within our bosoms, and not a word shall we emit which expresses our opinion on that Act. But this question before us is one only of pure honesty, and that is, whether or not the Government admit that these articles are not properly included in the list, and have wrongfully paid duty, shall have a proper chance of having redress. I cannot believe for a moment that the Solicitor-General, who has heard these arguments, and always shows himself most anxious to deal fairly with matters of argument, will not reply to the House.
  Mr. C. WHITE: As has been well said by the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat, this is not a question of law, it is a question of common honesty. Despite his special pleading the Chancellor of the Exchequer can get away from that in no way whatever. Money has been obtained by the Treasury to which we are not entitled. The onus of proving that is on the importer. The Clause provides the means whereby this may be done. Does the Government want a precedent? If so, they established one themselves not very long ago when we had a return of some of the taxes ranging over three years. So if they want a precedent they themselves have established one. As I understand it, the Board of Trade themselves removed from the list articles upon which duty has been paid, and now have turned round and say,

  1343
  "Although duty ought not to have been paid upon these articles we refuse to refund the money which we have obtained by methods which we had no right to use." Speaking as a plain, blunt man, surely the only question that appeals to us is how this money, whether by inadvertence or in any other way, having been obtained, it ought to be returned by the Treasury to the people who have paid it. No Government that at all values their reputation— and sometimes we have professions on the other side that they do—will dare to take a stand upon the position which they have-expressed from the Treasury Bench, and refuse to refund the money to which they have no scrap of entitlement.
  Major BARNES: I am not without hope that, even at this late hour, the Solicitor-General may find some way out of the painful position in which he is placed. I realise the full force of the argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it has happened in some cases that this expropriation of the money which has commenced with the Treasury has continued with the public, and after wrongfully taking this duty from those individuals, they have gone on inadvertently taking it wrongfully from the public. If the Treasury were to pay back to the importers this duty, no doubt the importer would get his money twice over. That is the position in which the Government have placed not only themselves, but the importer. It would be perfectly true to say that we have robbed the importer, and he has gone on and robbed somebody else, and therefore the thing had better stand just as it is. That is a regrettable situation in which the Government should place themselves or any individuals.
  There still is the case of those importers who have paid duty upon goods which they have not yet passed on, and where, if the course suggested by the Amendment were taken, the man would not get twice over the money to which he is entitled. Is the Government going to do anything to meet that case? This Amendment does not say that they shall meet that case, but that they may meet it, and it is a purely permissive power. If the word had been "shall," in view of these circumstances, there might be the faintest shadow of ground for resisting it, but it
  1344
  does not go so far as that. If the Government accepted this Amendment, it would simply give the Treasury power, after consultation with the Board of Trade, to make this refund. Such a consultation would disclose all the facts and it would ascertain whether the importer had parted with the goods and passed them on.
  I take it, if consltation disclosed that, the Treasury would say, "He has got his money, at all events, and it is no good paying him again, and we will do nothing." With this Amendment the Treasury would have the power of dealing with the cases where the importer is still in possession of his goods, and unless this action is taken he is going to compete with the man who has acquired goods upon which he is not paying the duty. That is a very strong case, and I cannot see how the Government can resist taking this permissive power to enable them to make good what, to put it in its best light, has been an error and blunder on their part. We know what has followed the passing of the Act. We know how lengthy the Schedules are, and even those who supported the Act are not altogether surprised that in the application of the Act some mistakes were made, and a Department unused to this procedure, having to compile a Schedule with thousands of articles, should have put in some articles which ought not to have been there.
  When all allowance is made for that, it is difficult to understand how the Government can resist taking this opportunity of making good their blunders. If the Government are adamant and obdurate, the only thing left is for some trader who has the courage and the money to take the thing into the Courts. It is one of the gravest reflections upon the administration of this Government that more than in the case of any other Government of recent times the Courts have had to come in and stand as a protection between the subject and the executive. I hope that course will not be followed in this case, and if the Government will take this power that course reed not be followed. I press upon the very serious attention of the Solicitor-General the question as to whether the Government cannot do something to meet the case which has been presented to the House with overwhelming conviction.
  Sir W. BARTON: In this case my sympathies are entirely with the Solicitor-General for I have never known a case before where a Minister has sat so long without attempting to answer the arguments. No doubt the reason is that they are unanswerable. I hope the career which the right hon. Gentleman has started on the Treasury Bench will be a long and a distinguished one, but I trust that he will never be Chancellor of the Exchequer because he has too kind a heart altogether. I feel sure that he cannot like this thing at all. It has nothing to do with tariff reform or protection and it is merely a question of common honesty. The Government have collected money believing they were entitled to collect it, but now they admit that they have no right to collect it, and yet they refuse to return the money. I have always understood that it was one of the sound tenets of taxation that a tax should be of a kind that it applied equally to all who paid the tax, and that it should not be possible to evade it. Does this tax comply with both those simple tenets of taxation? Anyone having these goods in stock who desires to obtain the return of what he has already paid can do so by re-exporting them to the continent and then importing them into this country, and in that way he obtains relief from taxation. A man who would take that trouble can avoid this taxation as between one taxpayer and another. Surely the arguments which have been put forward in this question are unanswerable. You have a man with these goods in stock and he has paid a tax upon them. Another trader obtains them without the payment of the tax and they are put in a totally unequal position. I am sorry to press the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I ask him to take his courage in both hands. This is not a matter of law or of tactics or of one party attacking the other. It is simply a matter of common honesty. [Laughter..] Hon. Members laugh, but are we going to say we are more honest than you are? If it were a fighting party matter, I might claim that we are superior in our honesty, but I am not going to do that. Surely, however, the time has come when we should get a straight answer to the question we have addressed to the Government—"Are you going to be honest?"
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did not, unfortunately, hear the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it docs not seem to me there should be any difficulty about this Clause. It provides that where the duty has been charged in respect of an article afterwards declared to be not liable to the duty, it shall be repaid. In other words, where a charge has been made and it has afterwards been found that it has been made in error, then the Treasury should be permitted to repay the duty. If that was all that was entailed by the Clause, I should certainly support it, but I could not support it if it went any further and if it provided that where the Board of Trade had come to the conclusion that a class of article on which duty bad been charged in April should not be liable to the duty in May. If it were a case, not of a mistake, but of an alteration in policy, then I should not support the refundment of the money. If, however, the charge has merely been made in error, I really cannot see how the Exchequer can keep the money. I have always supported the Safeguarding of Industries Act, but I do not see that that has anything to do with this particular question. The issue is merely whether the Treasury or the Board of Trade, having taken a certain sum of money wrongly, should not refund it.
  Mr. WALLACE: I thought for once I was going to find myself in agreement with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), but I do not think he has shown his usual acumen in understanding the Clause—the acumen he almost invariably displays in this House. If I may, I want to put this point to him. It is quite axiomatic that if we acquire money wrongfully we ought to return it. But let me give the House an illustration how this particular Amendment would act. Suppose a merchant in the City of London bought £10,000 worth of goods from Germany and had to pay the duty imposed under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. On the delivery of those goods here he would add to the price the duty he had paid, and he would sell them to his customers on that basis. If he has cleared his stock, how is the money to be returned? Is he to go to the people to whom he sold them and tell them he has charged them too much and is going to return the money?
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is not the question. The question is whether the Treasury should retain the money to which they had no right. If the merchant were an honest trader he would send to his customers and tell them that the duty had been returned to him and that he was prepared to hand it hack to them.
  Mr. WALLACE: If that could be done, I would support the Clause, but my contention is that in practice it could not be done.
  Sir W. BARTON: Suppose the goods are not sold.
  Mr. WALLACE: I know cases of hardship are bound to crop up, but let me put this to my right hon. Friend. Take the case of a great store in the City of London which is selling goods for cash every day. They have had goods in stock which they have sold and on which duty-was wrongfully charged. It is quite impossible for them to return the amount of the overcharge to their clients. If any feasible plan could be suggested whereby that could be done I would support the Amendment. I am opposed to the Safeguarding of Industries Act in every form, but I contend that the principles of Free Trade are not involved in this at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a matter of common honesty."] That is a very cheap thing to say. The term has been employed a dozen times to-night. This is really a matter of expediency in business, and in spite of the arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friends I cannot see my way to vote for this Amendment.
  Sir JOSEPH HOOD: I have listened very carefully to the Debate on this subject and I would like to ask the Solicitor-General if he cannot see his way to accept the Clause if it be amended by inserting the words to the effect that such repayment may be made "if the article has not been sold."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr.Wallace) had only been present in the House during the Debate he would have known that every point made by him had been dealt with and dealt with unanswerably. Our contention is that the onus of proof that the duty has not been passed on to the purchaser lies with the merchant, and it is only in those cases
  1348
  that we recommend that the duty be returned. If the hon. Member had had that in mind he would not have delivered his entirely unnecessary speech. His points have in fact already been answered. It is a unique experience for me to hear the hon. Member making such a speech, and I hope he will do better another time. From the purely party point of view, which I never consider, it would be a fine thing for us in the country if the Government did not accept this Clause, with or without Amendment. It is a splendid point for the platform, for Chambers of Commerce, Chambers of Trade and in the trading communities of the country. Fortunately for the country, however, we never think of the purely party point of view—we leave that to the Cabinet. We think of the welfare of British trade, and apparently the Government are intent on putting every sort of obstacle in the way of the wicked man who engages in foreign trade. Their theory is that we should live by taking in each other's washing, and the man who engages in foreign trade—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Edwin Cornwall): The hon. and gallant Member is not now in order in going into the whole question of foreign trade.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry if I rather digressed, and used arguments which are not quite in order. At the present moment I would draw attention to the fact that The Hague Conference has broken down on just this sort of difference of opinion as to the sanctity of bargains; and now we have the Government out-Bolshevising the Bolshevists, seizing money to which they have no possible right at all, and keeping it. It is simply the rule of the strong man doing what he will. The Government happen to be in a strong position at the present moment against these traders, who are mostly small men, without much capital and severely hampered by the present depression, and they are refusing to give them their just rights. I understand that this mostly applies to chemicals, and to a certain extent to infants' food that has been wrongly taxed. It is extraordinary that anything that affects the nursery immediately attracts the attention of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, I dare say, are great child-lovers and very good fathers when happily married. Nevertheless, they go out of their way to

  1349
  tax anything that affects children. This is an absolutely wrong tax on infants' food, and, where the food has not been sold, what argument can there possibly be, when the merchant can prove that the tax has not been passed on, against allowing this criminal who imports infants' food to get his duty back. This Clause has been upheld by speaker after speaker on this side and on the other side of the House. The only attempt that has been made to defend the Government's refusal to give it a Second Reading, apart from the Government Bench, has been that of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, who tried to make points which had been completely answered and disposed of, showing that he really did not understand the case at all. I rose, amongst other reasons, in order to give time for the Solicitor-General to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether he could meet the valuable proposal made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Hood). I hope that he will do that. As you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was out of order in referring to the Government's well-known hostility to the trading community, but it is not question of Free Trade and Protection at all. It is a question of the most elementary decency and honesty to comparatively small business men who have suffered by the gross blunders and mistakes of the Government and the Executive.
  Sir L. SCOTT: Hon. Members opposite, particularly, have had a very happy hour. The Safeguarding of Industries Act might almost have been called an Act for safeguarding the happiness of the Independent Liberals, and I do not grudge them for a moment the enjoyment they have had out of their pleasant attacks upon that Act. Now let me come to the realities of the situation. Of course, obviously, whenever a tax has been exacted upon an article which was supposed to be dutiable and which turns out not to be dutiable, there is a primé facie case, and a strong primé facie case —let us be quite frank about it—in favour of re-payment. But one has in these matters to take a sensible, broad, common-sense view of the position. Hon. Members opposite have referred to the honesty of the lawyer. Let me say at once that I am approaching this matter, not in the least as a lawyer, but trying to appreciate the realities of the position.
  1350
  Before I deal with those realities, I want to make one observation. More than one speaker in the course of this Debate has indicated the view that a discretion to tax or not to tax ought not to be left to a Government Department. With that view, on general lines, I, for one, am in complete agreement, but I want to observe this, that this proposed new Clause necessarily sins against that principle- It leaves to the Treasury, after consultation with another Government Department, a discretion to decide, in effect, whether an individual subject is to remain taxed or not. That is an extremely invidious task to put upon any Government official. It is a task which I frankly would say that it is most undesirable to place upon any Government official. Let us see what the facts are. Where the goods have been sold, it may be across the counter for cash, to customers who have passed out of vision and can never be identified—there are no invoices to trace them—in those cases, it is conceded that it is not practical politics to pay back the tax to the individual customer who has bought the small article in question which includes in its price some element of duty. If you concede that, can you really, as a matter of the practical carrying out the Act, say that you will repay the tax in those cases where goods have not passed into trade to individual customers? In fact, you cannot, and that is exactly where the difficulty arises. In the first place, it is an ad valorem9, duty, and the goods must be identified in respect of which tax has been paid, in order to see what is the ad valorem return that is to be made.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: It is on the record.
  Sir L. SCOTT: Not as regards an individual article, but only as regards a purchase of a large number of articles, and that is where the whole difficulty arises. In practice it would be found, if you attempted to carry out this Clause, that it would be impossible to trace the individual article and to decide which articles had been bought before the decision of the referee exonerating them from duty and which had been bought after. Different stocks would be mixed together, and in practice it would be quite impossible to trace them.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Put the onus on the merchant.
  Sir L. SCOTT: You cannot do it in practice. It is not practical politics.
  Mr. KILEY: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, if these goods are re-shipped out of the country, a refund can then be obtained?
  Sir L. SCOTT: That may be, but where an individual shipment into the country—
  Mr. KILEY: No.
  Sir L. SCOTT: Would the hon. Member be so good as to allow me to finish my sentence? Where an individual shipment into the country has been retained intact, or divided into separate parcels, the whole or some of which are re-exported, the identity of these parcels is clearly preserved, and is shown by the books. But where stocks are not kept separate in that kind of way, in a very great number of cases—and this is the point to be realised—it will be found that it is impossible really to trace the identity of the goods. It cannot be done. That is what the officials have told us whom we have consulted, and consulted very carefully, before to-day, in order to consider the whole position. They say that it cannot be done in practice. In some cases it is conceded that it may be possible, but you cannot apply a tax to some cases and not to all. In those circumstances, and for those very reasons, when Section 1, Sub-section (5) of the Act was passed by this House, the Clause to which the Chancellor of Exchequer referred was added at the end of it, because it was realised in advance that where those mistakes were made it would be impossible in practice to rectify them.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Does not that apply to Section 4, Sub-section (2), where the repayment of duty occurs where it is found that the goods should not have been dutiable?
  Sir L. SCOTT: It is a little difficult offhand to answer the right hon. Gentleman, but I will have it looked into. We have discussed at very considerable length one type of mistake rectified by the referee—the case where a duty has been imposed and the referee decides that it ought not to have been imposed. What about the other case, where a duty has not been imposed and the referee decides that it ought to have been?
  Major BARNES: There has not been any.
  Sir L. SCOTT: The hon. and gallant Member contradicts me flatly, and says there has not been one. I would ask him not to be quite so quick with his flat contradictions. In the case of gas mantles, the ingredient of thorium and cerium oxides and nitrates was treated as a non-dutiable ingredient. The referee decided that it was dutiable, and, consequently, that those mantles came within the scope of the tax. How many more cases of that kind there may be it is impossible to say, but it is perfectly clear that if you are to repay tax in all cases where the duty has been imposed and the referee decides that it ought not to have been imposed, you can only do it if, conversely, you impose a tax on articles that have gone through without duty, when the referee so decides. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?] I fail to see any justice whatever unless you do it alike in both alternatives. The fact of the matter is, that this is an Act which was passed in order to meet an unexampled and unprecedented state of affairs. This is an Ac—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not discuss the Act, otherwise I shall have to allow hon. Members to reply.
  Sir L. SCOTT: Allow me to say, Sir. that I have not the faintest intention of discussing the Act. I bow to your ruling, which I was going to obey had it not been given. You cannot expect perfect justice in the working out of an extremely difficult Act like this. Practical considerations, in our view, show a great balance of advantage to the existing circumstances, and the trade of the country has to accept this kind of comparatively small difficulty, which looms so very large in the eyes of the individual.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I am mainly concerned about the consistency of the attitude of the Government. The Solicitor-General suggests to-night that when you have discovered you have wrongfully imposed the duty then, not merely is it incumbent upon you to retain for the revenue the duty improperly collected, but in the alternative you will be compelled to impose duties upon others who have escaped when you discover that that escape has taken

  1353
  place. When the Government had to deal, not with importers into this country, but with the landed interests, represented by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), they did not act in this manner. What they then said was that when the Courts had found that certain taxes had been improperly imposed, interest and honour dictated that the whole amount improperly paid should be refunded. Not only so, but to make it perfectly certain that nobody should be wronged in the matter, they decided that it was incumbent on them to pay back all the duties paid by anybody, whether properly collected or not.
  The attitude of the Government, when they have to deal with the trading com-munity, is vastly different in regard to these questions of honour and interest than their attitude when they have to do with the landlord party, as represented by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford. It would be impossible to find, amongst all the records of legislation and administrative action in this country, any precedent for the action of the Government. You cannot find in the legislation of this House hitherto any occasion on which, when it has been found that money has been improperly and wrongly paid, that this course, that it should not be returned, has been adopted. I am somewhat afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I am proud to say, is a fellow-countryman of mine, has gone for a precedent to Scotland in the achievement of one whom Wordsworth celebrated as a great Scotsman of his time, and whose rule was that
  "They should take who have the power, And they should keep who can."
  I think, except upon the basis of that simple creed of the freebooter Rob Roy, it is impossible to find any justification whatever for the action of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Really, however, this is the practical point about which I have risen. We have listened to an extremely ingenious defence from the Solicitor-General. I will admit that to some extent he has punctured the exact language of this Amendment. I have said throughout, whenever I have encountered the hon. and learned Gentleman before, that I regard him as one of the most practised debaters in this House. If we were only engaged in a dialectical combat I certainly would never venture to engage with him. We are face to face here, however, with a practical proposition affecting the trade of the country. We have also to deal with questions which involve honesty and integrity on the part of the Government. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Hood), who is not associated with the opposition to the Government, has made an extremely practical proposition, which was not met in the slightest by the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will indicate, if he cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, that he will, at any rate, consider the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wimbledon. It meets the very able arguments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed to the House, and I think meets all the points raised by the Solicitor-General. We ought not to approach this matter merely from the point of view of dialectics. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might consider one of the practical suggestions by one of the Government supporters, and in that way do something to relieve the real anxieties of the business world, and also retain the credit and honour of the Government.
  Sir R. HORNE Sir R. HORNE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 82.

  Division No. 220.]

  AYES.

  [9.45 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

  Bruton, Sir James

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

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

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Burdon, Colonel Rowland

  Atkey, A. R.

  Bird, sir William B. M. (Chichester)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

  Blair, Sir Reginald

  Casey, T. W.

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Briggs, Harold

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Clough, Sir Robert

  Barrand, A. R.

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Brown, Brig-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  Calvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Remer, J. R.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Renwick, Sir George

  Cope, Major William

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

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

  Richardson, Lt.-Col Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Jephcott, A. R.

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

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Jesson, C.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesali)

  Davidson,J.C.C.(Hemel Hempstead)

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Rodger, A. K.

  Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Dockrell, Sir Maurice

  Kidd, James

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

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

  Seager, Sir William

  Evans, Ernest

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Seddon, J. A.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Falle, Major sir Bertram Godfray

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

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Lorden, John William

  Simm, M. T.

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

  Forrest, Walter

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Stanley, Major Hon, G. (Preston)

  Frece, sir Walter de

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Gee, Captain Robert

  McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Sugden, W. H.

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel sir John

  Maddocks, Henry

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Taylor, J.

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

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

  Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

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

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Martin, A. E.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Gregory, Holman

  Matthews, David

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Greig, Colonel Sir James William

  Mitchell, Sir William Lane

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Grenfell, Edward Charles

  Molson, Major John Eisdale

  Townley, Maximilian G

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)

  Waddington, R.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Hallwood, Augustine

  Neal, Arthur

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

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

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

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton;

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Warner. Sir T, Courtenay T.

  Haslam, Lewis

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Warren, Sir Alfred H.

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford,

  Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Willoughby. Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Parker, James

  Wilts. Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

  Hinds, John

  Pearce, Sir William

  Wilson, Col. M. j. (Richmond)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Wise, Frederick

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Wood, Hon. Edward F L. (Ripon)

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

  Perring, William George

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

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

  Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  Hope, J, D (Berwick & Haddington)

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Pratt, John William

  Woolcock, William James U.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Worsfold, T. Cato

  Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Hirst, G. H

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Ammon, Charles George

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Holmes, J Stanley

  Banton, George

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Irving, Dan

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Edwards. G. (Norfolk, South)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Foot, Isaac

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Lawson, John James

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Gillis, William

  Lunn, William

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

  Briant, Frank

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Mosley, Oswald

  Bromfield, William

  Grundy, T. W.

  Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

  Murray, Or. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Cairns, John

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

  Myers, Thomas

  Cape, Thomas

  Halls, Walter

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

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

  Hayward, Evan

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

  Poison, Sir Thomas A.

  1356

  1357

  Ralfan, Peter Wilson

  Swan, J. E.

  Wignall, James

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough E.)

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Sexton, James

  Tillett, Benjamin

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

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Waterson, A. E.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

  Spoor, B. G.

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Sutton, John Edward

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Mr. Kiley and Major Mackenzie Wood.

  Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 208.

  DivisionNo. 221.]

  AYES.

  [9.58 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Griffiths, T, (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  Ainswortb, Captain Charles

  Grundy, T. W.

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Amnion, Charles George

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

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Banton, George

  Halls, Walter

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Rodger, A. K.

  Barrand, A. R.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Wiones)

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Barton. Sir William (Oldham)

  Hinds, John

  Sexton, James

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

  Hogge, James Myles

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavnndish-

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Spoor, B. G.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Briant, Frank

  Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

  Sutton, John Edward

  Bromfield, William

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Swan, J. E.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Irving, Dan

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Cairns, John

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Cape), Thomas

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Tillett, Benjamin

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

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Waterson, A. E.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lawson, John James

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Lunn, William

  Wignall, James

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  Maclean. Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Foot, Isaac

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

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

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

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Mosley, Oswald

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Murray, Hon. A. c. (Aberdeen)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Gillis, William

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Mr. Kiley and Major Mackenzie

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Myers, Thomas

  Wood.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Atkey, A. R.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Greig, Colonel Sir James William

  Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

  Cope, Major William

  Grenfell, Edward Charles

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Dalzlei, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Barrio, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Hallwood, Augustine

  Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Haslam, Lewis

  Blair, Sir Reginald

  Dockreil, Sir Maurice

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Hilder. Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Briggs, Harold

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

  Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Evans, Ernest

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

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

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

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

  Bruton, Sir James

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Hopkins, John W. W.

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

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Forrest, Walter

  Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow. Hillhead)

  Burdon, Colonel Rowland

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Casey, T. W.

  Gee, Captain Robert

  Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Chamberlain. N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Clough, Sir Robert

  Glyn, Major Ralph

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

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Sturrock, J. Long

  Jesson, C.

  Parker, James

  Sugden, W. H.

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Pearce, Sir William

  Surtees, Brigadier General H. C.

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Taylor, J.

  Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

  Perring, William George

  Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Kidd, James

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Pratt. John William

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Lane-Fox, 6. R.

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Townley, Maximilian G.

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

  Purchase, H. G.

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Waddington, R.

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

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

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Lorden, John William

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

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

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Ratclifte, Henry butler

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Renter, J. R.

  Warren, Sir Alfred H.

  McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

  Renwick, Sir George

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Williams. C. (Tavistock)

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Richardson. Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

  Macquisten, F. A.

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

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

  Maddocks, Henry

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Wilson, Col M. J. (Richmond)

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

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecciesall)

  Windsor, Viscount

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Roundel!, Colonel R. F.

  Wise, Frederick

  Martin, A. E.

  Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

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

  Matthews, David

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

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

  Mitchell, Sir William Lane

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Woolcock, William James U.

  Morrison, Hugh

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Worsfold, T. Cato

  Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)

  Seager, Sir William

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Murray, John (Leeds, Watt)

  Seddon, J. A.

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Neal, Arthur

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

  Simm, M. T.

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  McCurdy.

  Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Inhabited house duty.)
  From and after the fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, as respects England, and from and after the twenty-fourth day of May, in the same year, as respects Scotland, the Acts relating to Inhabited House Duty shall not apply to any house of a less annual value than forty-five pounds.—[Mr. Sutton.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. SUTTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I believe that up to the time the Act was passed all houses were exempt under £20 a year, and we are asking now that all houses should be exempt under £45 a year. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer will realise that there are tens of thousands of working people whose rents are very high indeed. Even corporations, under housing schemes, are charging as much as £1 or 25s. a week for houses for the working classes, and we believe on this side of the House that it is unfair that Inhabited House Duty should be paid on so large a rent. We are hoping that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept this Clause. If there is a class of people who are practically crippled financially at the present time on account of unemployment it is the working classes of this
  1360
  country. The Minister of Labour admitted this afternoon that we have about 1½ million people unemployed, and there are tens of thousands working short time. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the interests of these poor people, will accept this Clause.
  Mr. WIGNALL: I beg to second the Motion.
  Sir L. SCOTT: At the present time, in regard to houses on which the lower rate of duty is paid—shops, public houses, hotels, etc.—houses under £20 are exempt, and those between £20 and £40 pay 2d., those over £40 and not exceeding £60 pay 4d. Ordinary dwelling houses stand at 6d. Those are not high rates, and they have not been altered for 30 years. It is not a case in which the rate has been increased at all during the War period, for the purpose of raising extra revenue, and the Treasury do not feel that they can, in this case, make any concession. Of course, as we know, the value of money has gone down, and, consequently, rents, in some cases have risen; in fact, there has been a general rise in rentals corresponding to the decrease in the value of money, but the rate has not been increased at all, and

  1361
  the burden is not really a heavy one. For those reasons the Treasury do not feel that they can make the alteration asked for by the Clause. The question was raised by question and answer in this House, on the 21st March this year, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated quite plainly that he did not see his way to making any alteration in the present rates. The cost would be £550,000.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman says that the inhabited rate has not been increased during the last 30 years. Does he not recognise that owing to the general increase in the rents, and increase in the assessments, the annual sum paid by inhabitants is undoubtedly greater? The right hon. Gentleman seems desirous of having the House believe that they are not paying—
  Sir L. SCOTT: I said the rate had not been increased, though I did admit that in consequence of the decrease in the value of money there had been a rise in the rentals.
  Mr. MACLEAN: And the actual sum paid by the people, therefore, is greater
  than it was before the War. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked how much this would involve, and the answer is about £500,000. Is it not advisable to make a concession of this kind to these people when, earlier this afternoon, it was found necessary to make a concession to the mineral royalty owner? There was no outcry then on the part of the Solicitor-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the country could not afford the sum to be conceded to these poor mineral owners. If people who are taking minerals out of the country without any right are given a concession, there is surely an obligation to make some concession to a portion of the population to whom no concession has been made during the whole passage of the Bill. This is surely a small concession. The hearts of hon. Members having been opened this afternoon, I hope, now that they have dined, and arrived at that warmth which comes from dining, that they will grant this concession.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 206.

  Division No. 222.]

  AYES.

  [10.15 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Banton, George

  Grundy, T. W.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

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

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring)

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

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

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Halls, Walter

  Sexton, James

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Spoor, B. G.

  Briant, Frank

  Hogge, James Myles

  Swan, J. E.

  Bromfield, William

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Irving, Dan

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Cairns, John

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Waterson, A. E.

  Cape, Thomas

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander I. M.

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

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

  Lawson, John James

  Wignall, James

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lunn, William

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

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

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Foot, Isaac

  Myers, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Gaibraith. Samuel

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  Mr. Sutton and Mr. T. Griffiths.

  Gillis, William

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Bruton, Sir James

  Atkey, A. R.

  Birchall, J. Dearman

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

  Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

  Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Blair, Sir Reginald

  Burdon, Colonel Rowland

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Casey, T. W.

  Barrand, A. R.

  Briggs, Harold

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

  Churchill, Ht. Hon. Winston S.

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Renter, J. R.

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Renwick, Sir George

  Clough, Sir Robert

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

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend,

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Jesson, C.

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

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Rodger, A. K.

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Kidd, James

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Seddon, J. A.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

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

  Shaw, Hon, Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Lorden, John William

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Simm, M. T.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  McConnell, Thomas Edward

  Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

  Forrest, Walter

  Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Foxcroft. Captain Charles Talbot

  McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Sugden, W. H.

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  Gee, Captain Robert

  Macqulsten, F. A.

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Taylor, J.

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Martin, A. E.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Matthews, David

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Morrison, Hugh

  Tryon, Major George Clement

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

  Murchison, C. K.

  Waddington, R.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)

  Wallace, J.

  Grelg, Colonel Sir James William

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Grenfell, Edward Charles

  Neal, Arthur

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

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

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

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

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

  Hallwood, Augustine

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Warren, Sir Alfred H.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Parker, James

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

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Pearce, Sir William

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

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Hohier, Geraid Fitzroy

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Windsor, Viscount

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Wise, Frederick

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

  Perring, William George

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

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

  Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

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

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Pratt, John William

  Wood. Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Worsfold. T. Cato

  Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

  Purchase, H. G.

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Hunter. General Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Ratcliffe Henry Butler

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Reciprocal exemption of foreign shipping.)
  There shall be exempted from Income Tax the income of a non-resident alien or foreign corporation which consists exclusively in earnings derived from the operation of a ship or ships documented under the laws of a foreign country which grants an equivalent exemption in respect of shipping registered in the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Alexander Shaw.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. A. SHAW: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The short effect of this Clause is to exempt from Income Tax in this country the shipping to foreign countries which
  1364
  grant the same exemption to Great Britain. The wording of the Clause follows almost in exact terms that of a Clause which was inserted in the United States Finance Act last year, and which became law in November. As this is a somewhat new matter perhaps the House will forgive me if I indicate what its history has been. The practice of all the nations in the world for long was in effect that the profits made by ships were earned not in any country or in any port, but on the high seas outside territorial waters, and that therefore the sound rule of taxation to apply was that each country should tax its own shipping and no country should try to tax the

  1365
  shipping of other countries. As long as that rule was adhered to it was the same for everybody and we had the freedom of the seas. But in 1916, under the stress of war conditions, unfortunately we in Great Britain reached out our hands beyond our own shipping and began to tax the shipping of foreign countries which put into our ports. That lasted without retaliation only for a very short time. Presently the United States retaliated and levied upon British shipping in the United States taxation of a character which was very formidable indeed. Unfortunately, visà vis the United States, we have this position: that some of their ships are owned by the Government and we do not tax foreign Governments they are exempt. Others of their ships, unfortunately for them and perhaps unfortunately for the world, are making a loss. In fact the United States shipping as a whole is making a loss. So that Great Britain gains nothing; yet Great Britain, by being taxed in the ports of the United States, loses enormously. So visàvis the United States, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lose nothing by accepting this Clause.
  But that is not all. The Norwegians— I think diplomatic representations have been made, or are being made, on the subject—bitterly resented the new system of taxation which we set up. Norway has taken the power to retaliate and to levy Income Tax upon British ships. The other Scandinavian countries are considering following suit in the very near future. In fact, it is only too likely that we are within measurable distance of a time when every country in the world will not only tax its own shipping, but will place a tax on the shipping of every other country which uses its ports. The House will see that in that situation there will be a very formidable menace indeed to British trade, because in the sharp-shooting with which we are threatened, the British Mercantile Marine will offer by far the largest target and will suffer by far the most. There is, in fact, something like a tax warfare threatened, a new form of warfare in the history of the world. Take the case of a ship which touches at six or seven ports in different countries in the course of a voyage. It will find a tax-gatherer waiting for it in every port, a tax- gather who will have to adminis-
  1366
  ter the complex Regulations of his own country. Things will soon reach such a pitch that they will be grave danger of ships being delayed, if not, indeed, seized, because of the ignorance of the-master of the complicated regulations of Income Tax in the different countries with which he trades.
  Personally, I find it very difficult to understand the intricacies of our own Income Tax laws. I was told the other day by an eminent barrister that he did not understand them, and he said that there were only two men at the English bar who did. What is to be the position of the master of a British ship who is anxious to carry on his voyage? If this sort of thing springs up the masters of British ships will have to be chosen entirely from the ranks of the law. That might be a very good thing for the Bar, but I am not sure that it would be a good thing for ships. At any rate, apart from the difficulty of complying with a network of complicated and varying regulations from country to country, there will be in all this a very serious burden. The burden will not consist entirely of the deduction from the profits actually made. It is obvious a considerable sum would have to be paid in certain countries on account of profits made, or presumed to have been made, there, while if that voyage were taken as a whole, it might be found, that the voyage had resulted in a very serious loss. A voyage may result in an actual loss and yet during that voyage the ship owner may become liable for considerable sums by way of Income Tax.
  There is another aspect of the question. There are countries whose Income Tax law presumes that if you are in trade at all, you are making a profit. Unfortunately no presumption could be wider of the mark in these days. Our own Dominion of Australia is an example of that because there, whether you make a profit or loss, they simply look at the amount of the earnings of a British ship; they presume that 10 per cent. of that is profit, and they assess Income Tax on that 10 per cent. whether a profit has been made or not. One might remark in passing that their own Government's ships are not subject to taxation in this country and that they have other immunities which do not belong to private shipowners, either of Great Britain or of

  1367
  foreign lands. Here we have a new and very serious burden falling upon international trade. It is a burden not entirely borne by the shipowner. It is inevitably a burden upon the cargoes carried and therefore it becomes a burden upon the food and materials used by the consumer in this country. That is not all. At the same time, there is a great risk of loss to the Exchequer, arising from the effect upon the general trade of the country of such a system of tax warfare. It would sap the vitality of British trade generally, as well as inflicting loss of a more direct character. The operation of a system of tax warfare at this time will add seriously to the cost of carrying on shipping business, and as it inflates the cost of carrying on the business, so it will decrease the amount of income susceptible to British Income Tax. If the system develops far enough, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find that he cannot gain anything by continuing the taxation of foreign ships, and that in fact the taxation involves a loss which, in time to come, may be very heavy. The total result of continuing this system is that no Government would, in the long run, be advantaged, and international trade would be seriously handicapped and disputes would be inevitable. We cannot conceal from ourselves the fact that the disputes which would arise from inflamed irritation in every port might cause exceedingly serious international friction. Disputes of a constant character between the nationals of various countries inevitably lead to serious friction between the Governments, and that has been one of the most fruitful causes of wars in the past. The prospect is not alluring, and the formidable risks and difficulties ahead of us have been engaging the earnest attention of thoughtful people in every maritime country in the world. May I read a resolution passed, not by a national, but by an international shipping conference that met in November of last year? There were delegates present from America, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Great Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "And Russia !"] Unfortunately, Russia was not represented, but if Russian shipping were run at a profit I am quite sure Russians would not be willing to
  1368
  part with any part of their profit to the Government of this country. The resolution which the delegates of these different-countries passed unanimously was as follows:
  "Whilst the shipping industry recognises its obligations to bear its full share of taxation it is economically impossible for the individual shipowner to bear that burden in each of the countries to which his vessels sail. It is, therefore, desirable in the interests of international trade that legislation be encouraged in every maritime country in the world giving immunity from taxation in respect of the earnings of foreign shipping in all cases where similar immunity is reciprocally given.
  This resolution has already been acted upon by the United States. Its terms have been embodied in the law of the States. The Americans have held out the hand of friendship to us in this matter, and I cannot help thinking that it would greatly tend to improve our relations with America at a somewhat critical time if we, with our maritime trade, could see our way, through the Chancellor, to accept this proposition. The moment that this rule of reciprocity in exemption is applied, the prospect— and indeed certainty—of international friction and the complications and expenses of this added burden on the cargo disappears in a moment.
  The United States have already acted in the sense of this resolution, and have offered us reciprocity. Is it too much to hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept that offer? It is not put forward as a request from shipowners alone. It comes from the Chambers of Commerce all over the country. This has not been pressed on this Government alone. It has been pressed on every Government in the world. I would remind the Chancellor of this, that we alone among the countries actually levy taxation upon foreign shipping without this provision for exemption, and if we pass this Clause to-night, we shall have ended a menace which is causing very great anxiety not only to shipowners but to traders in all parts of the world.
  Mr. HANNON: I beg to second the Motion. May I say at once that this proposal to establish reciprocal relations with the United States, and, indeed, with the other countries throughout the world is not merely brought forward on the part of the shipping industry of this country,

  1369
  but by the whole commercial community. I do not think there has ever been a time when it was more necessary to give the fullest effect to the opportunity of developing British shipping than it is to-day. Our shipping industry has suffered a serious set-back for several months past. This Clause, embodied in the Finance Bill, and receiving sympathetic treatment at the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would give an impetus to British shipping in the near future. We are desiring a closer relationship with America and here is an opportunity for a reciprocal arrangement which will commend itself to them. The shipping industry of this country in the past has been one of our greatest assets, and we should not lose any opportunity of giving it a chance in the future of retaining that position. The hon. Member who has just sat down has so completely covered this case, and his speech has been so cogent and full of facts and thought that I feel sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to meet the proposal embodied in this Clause and accept it.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I earnestly trust that, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers the arguments which have been put forward in favour of this proposal, he will keep the important points in mind which have been discussed at great length in recent times. I entirely agree with every proposal which could be put forward to render international trade as free as possible, but the fundamental fact which we have to keep in mind in this connection is that here we have a very large volume of international commerce which, if Resolutions of this kind were adopted, would be automatically exempted from taxation. That may be right or wrong, but under existing conditions the various Governments of the world have to raise money somehow, and they have to be certain that they are raising it on a broad and comprehensive basis as regards trade carried on upon the high seas and outside and as regards trade within the country itself. That is a preliminary consideration in this respect.
  There are other preliminary considerations we might mention, but as there is not time it will be better now to pass at once to the other part of my hon. Friend's argument. He cited the case of the United States of America, and of course
  1370
  what we have in mind is the recent experience of the United States Shipping Board. The taxation of oversea commerce was considered by the Royal Commission on the Income Tax, and having made certain observations upon it I think they indicated that this was a very large problem which must be considered as a whole, and they were not in a position to lay down any immediate recommendations for the Government of this country. Since that time the matter has been considered by another smaller and, I think, on the whole, an expert Committee. The Report of that Committee has not been published, and therefore I cannot discuss it here to-night, but there are certain broad considerations with which we are all familiar.
  As regards the United States Shipping Board, the problem arises in this form that we have to distinguish between what we might call the trade activity of people enjoying diplomatic immunities and trade by Governments in competition with ordinary trade. That is a very important difficulty. I am bound to say at once if we start to try and solve this problem by pushing into the Finance Act of this year the Clause which my hon. Friend has proposed, we shall land ourselves in very serious difficulties indeed. There are certain courses we must adopt. I think personally as a result of the inquiries which were made, the solution will be found along these lines. First we have to try to arrive at a common goal within the Empire itself. That may be a matter for the Imperial Conference or any other kind of organisation within the Empire appropriate to deal with it. And then if the Empire chooses to be a leader in the matter, we can appeal with greater force to other nations. It might become an appropriate problem for the economic side of the League of Nations itself, but in any case we could not solve it by the mere plea of reciprocity contained in the Clause.
  If my hon. Friend will look a little more closely at the Clause, he will agree in practice it might not give reciprocity at all. I understand by that something which works out a rough equality as regards the sacrifice which each country makes. A very great deal depends on the volume of trade in different countries, and much also depends on the incidence of taxation in these countries imposing

  1371
  the tax, and it may work out that there will be a very considerable sacrifice on the part of some countries and very little sacrifice on the part of others. All these things must be considered. Broadly, the problem is that we have not separated yet the immunities which displomatists enjoy from the taxation which it has been the practice in many cases of late to impose on purely trading undertakings. I hope the Government will share our convictions on this point. I am going to appeal to my hon. Friend not to press the Clause for this reason, that first we must make the further inquiries the Royal Commission recommends, and, in the second place, this House is entitled to see at the earliest possible moment, the Report of the small Committee—the very representative Committee—which for a considerable time made anxious investigation into this matter, and on whose Report the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not yet been in a position to act. Until we have that information, and until the House has had an opportunity of considering the Report, I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Clause, which, I believe, so far from securing the object he has in view, will actually delay it.
  Mr. WISE: I am sure we all agree that we should have all the information possible before passing this Clause, and I cannot help thinking there should be no delay in accepting the suggestion put forward by the last speaker, because shipping is, I suppose, our greatest asset. The War proved to us that it was the life-blood of the country, and when we consider we have more ships than any other country, we must be most careful to maintain the position we have held in the past.
  My hon. Friend referred to Income Tax exemption of shipping within the Empire. I am in favour of that, but, at the same time, we must remember that our Colonies have not a great number of ships. The action that is being taken by other Powers is well worth considering, and I have here a circular stating exactly what other Powers are doing in reference to the Clause which is put forward by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. Australia and New Zealand, which would come within the Empire scheme referred to by the
  1372
  hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), charge Income Tax on the profits earned by shipping, including ships registered in the United Kingdom, both within and without those countries. Norway has been referred to. In Holland, which has a great deal of shipping, foreign shipping is free from Income Tax; and the same prevails in Denmark In France, up to the present time, the French Treasury have not followed up the recovery of this tax on foreign shipping undertakings. In Germany, where we want all the taxation possible, no Income Tax is charged on the earnings of foreign ships, shipping companies, and shipowners not domiciled in Germany. In Belgium there is no tax levied In Canada, British and foreign steamship companies incorporated elsewhere than in Canada, and whose steamers are not registered in Canada, are not liable to taxation, provided that the companies' business is limited to carrying articles to and from Canada. In Finland there is no taxation. I think that that shows plainly the essential point with regard to shipping companies. One letter that I had from a big firm informed me that the United States Government were not satisfied with the taxation charged in New York on this particular firm, and they actually sent a man over to London to check the figures. I cannot help thinking that, in the light of what I have endeavoured to show is being done by other countries, a Clause of this sort should have the sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. A. Shaw) has raised what is probably the most important question with which we have been confronted in the course of these Debates, and has made a speech upon the topic which, if I may be allowed to say so, must have commended itself to the House, both by its lucidity and cogency and by the eloquence with which he argued tie point. Before, however, I go on to deal with the precise merits of the question, I should like just to refer to one or two matters on which I think my hon. Friend rather dropped into error. He suggested that the taxation upon shipping profits and upon shipping companies registered in other countries only began in 1916, and that prior to that date there was complete immunity from taxation in the case

  1373
  of foreign shipping companies in this country. That statement is, I am afraid, not entirely accurate. In point of fact, shipping companies, like all other foreign companies carrying on business in this country, have been taxed since 1842. Wherever a shipping company had an agency in this country, where the agent took the profits and gains of the operations of his company in this country, he was subject to the same taxation as everyone else in this country who obtained profits and gains from commercial transactions. The only difference that was made in 1916 was that there was included in that category, not merely the agent who took profits and gains from the company, but also any agent who carried out the transaction. That was the only difference that was made. Accordingly, I hope the House will keep it clearly in view that foreign shipping companies have been regularly taxed in this country, like any other foreign company carrying on business here, ever since 1842, and that it is no new thing with which we are dealing this evening. One might have gathered from my hon. Friend's speech that every tramp steamer calling at an occasional port would immediately become subject to taxation in this country.
  Mr. A. SHAW: Not an occasional tramp.
  Sir R. HORNE: I am sorry if I misapprehended the statement of the hon. Gentleman. It is perfectly plain that that does not take place. It is only in the case of the steamers regularly trading with this country, and of some of the shipping and regular agencies that any taxation is imposed at all. There is one other point for comment. The hon. Gentleman rather suggested that we alone, of all countries in the world, gave no exemption in taxation to shipping companies trading to this country. The list read by the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise) shows that that is not quite accurate, either, and that there are in many other countries of the world—our Dominions amongst others—arrangements by which taxation is imposed on shipping companies carrying on business with their countries.
  I want it to be perfectly clear that we are not doing anything exceptional compared with what other countries are
  1374
  doing—though some countries do not follow our example—nor are we doing anything we have not done since the beginning of our Income Tax procedure.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: What about the change in 1916?
  Sir R. HORNE: The change effected in 1916 only made the agent, who carried out the contract and did not actually handle the money, bring his company equally within the ambit of our Income Tax law. It appears that when foreign companies discovered that only those agents brought them under the Income Tax law who handled profits, they immediately said that those agents should not touch money, but should only carry out their contracts. In that way they evaded the law. That was put right by the arrangement of 1916, whereby the agent who simply carried out the contract equally brought his company within the region of our law.
  I pass to some of the other considerations. I agree at once that, primá facie, you might say Britain stood to gain a great advantage from the proposal of my hon. Friend. We have the greatest mercantile marine in the world, and, therefore, taking the case of the United States of America alone, we have more ships to do business in the United States than they send here. Obviously, on the face of it, it would be to our advantage to enter into some such reciprocial arrangement as is suggested in this Clause. Once you have said that, however, I think you have exhausted the merits of this proposal. There are many considerations on the other side of which you have to take note. In the first place, it is difficult to decide whether you could stop this arrangement at one industry.
  11.0 P.M.
  Shipping is not the only industry which is carried on by other countries in our territory. There are many cases of other industries being carried on in this country, on whose behalf it might very well be said that their profits should be immune from the Income Tax law of this country, and if we start upon this process, be it good or bad, we may very readily have proposals made to obtain reciprocal arrangements, not merely with regard to agents carrying on one trade, but with regard to agents carrying on many other trades. I do not at the present moment dare to

  1375
  say with any confidence that it is a good plan or a bad plan—whether that system, if developed, might be advantageous or, on the other hand, disadvantageous. I do not think anyone at present is able to make up his mind, because you would be opening a vista of problems by embarking on this great question. All that you can say is that it makes a complete reversal of our Income Tax policy. We seek to obtain Income Tax upon profits made by everyone who is carrying on business in this country. If you make an exception in favour of one particular trade, it is very difficult to say that you will stop it at that trade. I only throw that out for the moment for the consideration of the House, because I do not pretend to offer the House any advice as to the judgment to which we should ultimately come upon that topic. It is obviously a very grave and far-reaching question, which requires a great deal more consideration than we have yet given it.
  There are other reasons which make me hesitate to give the House any guidance upon this question to-night. It is obviously a question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh has said, which affects the whole of the Dominions of the Crown. It would be, for example, an exceedingly awkward situation if the Americans asked for some reciprocal arrangement for their ships to come into our ports under more advantageous terms than ships of the Dominions. Obviously, therefore, this question requires serious consideration between the Mother country and the Dominions before arriving at any settled conclusion on the subject. There is another consideration which has not been mentioned, but which is worth noting. The United States of America at the present time is initiating legislation upon the shipping question, which has very, very far-reaching effects, and which is causing extreme anxiety to many shipowners of this country. I think the House will be in agreement with me, that before we come to a conclusion upon this particular topic, we should see, and be able to estimate, the full effect of all that is going to be done by our neighbours with regard to this very important matter. Finally, I would venture to suggest to the House, while not expressing any disagreement at all with the proposal that is put forward,
  1376
  that this is a topic of such large importance, that we should be very ill-advised at the present time to come to a settled conviction upon the matter, and, while willing to give it every attention in the future, with a view of arriving at a solution, after consultation with all concerned in it, we should to-night not press a decision upon this matter.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: It is quite clear from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the House is not fully possessed of the necessary information to come to a decision upon this important matter. In so far as this Clause would uproot the Income Tax machinery established in 1842, and continuing down to 1916, I am certain the hon. Member who moved the Clause would not desire to do that. As I understand it, it was the change in 1916 to which he draws attention. I presume the change in 1916 arose out of the fact that foreign shipping here were enabled to escape Income Tax by shifting the titular form of their agents, and as they were earning, very largely at our expense, immense sums, and in carrying in neutral bottoms cargoes to and from this country, naturally, our authorities desired to bring them within the scope of the taxation of this country. That was a perfectly right and proper thing to do: but in so far as the carrying on of that change affects—and my hon. Friend made out a case of real importance—the power of hitting our shipping in all parts of the world, it is a matter for very serious consideration by His Majesty's Government as to how that can be met. As I understood the speech made by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), the question is engaging the attention of the Committee which is considering the financial effect of the Income Tax laws and their general operation. I hoped my hon. Friend would press the matter to a Division, after I had heard his speech, but after hearing what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said I agree with him that the matter ought not to be decided by the House to-night.
  Mr. INSKIP: This subject excites great interest in the city which I represent, but I intervene not only on that account, but because it is a matter of the greatest importance. I do not quite follow the right hon. Member for Peebles

  1377
  (Sir D. Maclean) when he says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reasons, weighty though they were, have converted him to the postponement of this important decision. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) suggested that because the House is shortly to be in possession of the decision of the Committee of which he is a member, the House should wait for further information. As I understand the matter, that Committee has nothing whatever to do with this question of Income Tax. It is considering a question with which lawyers have been very familiar in the Courts for the last few years, as to what are called public ships.
  Sir R. HORNE: It is a matter of very great importance relevant to this question. One of the difficulties under the present condition is this, that the Government ships of other nations are allowed to come in here without being subject to taxation, and that is one of the matters complained about by shipowners. If that fact were absent, it is possible that a change of view might take place. I do not say it is certain that it would, but it would have some effect. That is one of the matters upon which the Committee is reporting.
  Mr. INSKIP: The question of the immunity of Government ships, or public ships as we call them in the Courts, is really distinct from this question. It is an absolutely separate question, whether Government or public ships are to have certain immunities in future. It is a class of vessel much more in vogue than it was a few years ago, when the only Government ships were warships and ships of that kind. The Committee may or may not recommend their immunity from Income Tax. This is one of those questions which every House is inclined to postpone because it is difficult, and until it has more information, in the hope that at some future date it will be in a better position to come to a decision. It is one of those questions upon which the House some day will look back and regret that they were not ready to come to a decision. As to the Dominions, I cannot anticipate that there will be any difficulty. Does anybody imagine that if we indicate that we are prepared to give reciprocity there will be any difficulty in meeting the Dominions and getting from them the
  1378
  reciprocity we are prepared to give to foreign countries?
  Sir R. HORNE: Is my hon. and learned Friend qualified to speak for Australia?
  Mr. INSKIP: I am not qualified to speak for anyone except myself. I am only expressing an opinion. We ought to know what the position will be in respect to these foreign countries. Legislation recently introduced by the United States has caused great apprehension in this country, but I cannot admit that it will increase the likelihood that that legislation will be passed against this country if we show willingness to reduce the rigour, and the best way of doing that is by showing a peaceable disposition in such matters as this, in which we can come to an agreement. The United States has made an offer and it has been embodied in legislation. Are we prepared to accept it or not'? There is no other country except the United States where this form of taxation is in vogue. The question is no bigger yet than a cloud on the horizon, but we see how the cloud is likely to grow in seriousness. It would be much the better course to accept the offer made. I hope my right hon. Friend will not postpone the matter. It has been for some months under the consideration of the Treasury and some other Government Departments. It has not been sprung on the House. If they are not in a position to come to a decision now, they will not be in a position to do so in some months or in a year's time. Now is the time.
  Mr. A. SHAW: I had hoped that in view of the feeling on both sides of the House the Chancellor would have accepted the Clause. But as he has not, then in response to what he has said I ask leave to withdraw.
  HON. MEMBERS: No.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Income Tax on employments, etc.)
  Where the profits or gains chargeable under Schedule E are of a fluctuating character owing to the person charged or to be charged being paid otherwise than by a fixed annual remuneration, the assessment upon such person shall, if he so elect, be based on the total income arising or accruing to him in respect of his office or employ-

  1379
  ment for the year preceding the year of assessment.—[Mr. G. Locker-Lampson]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The object of the Clause is to enable persons with fluctuating incomes who are assessed under Schedule E to be assessed on their previous year's income, and not on the actual income of the present year. This has become a much more serious question than it was a few years ago. Under the present Bill the number of people coming under Schedule E has been very largely increased. Up to the present the only persons under Schedule E have been Government employés and persons employed by companies and large corporations. As a matter of fact, not all the employés of corporations came under Schedule E. It only applied to the chief employés. Now all persons employed by private firms are going to come under Schedule E and they are going to be obliged to have their incomes assessed on the actual year's income. How on earth are you going to say at the beginning of any particular year what the income is going to be if it is of a fluctuating character? A great many of these people who are now-going to come under Schedule E are commercial travellers and bank clerks. Part of their income is in the shape of bonuses which go up and down with the cost of living, which make their income to a certain extent fluctuating. Part of their income is in the shape of commission, which may increase or diminish from year to year. How are they going to say at the beginning of a year what their actual income is going to be? The Inland Revenue have lately issued a form to say that where the income is fluctuating, in certain cases the person may have his income assessed on the previous year's income, and I hold in my hand a notice that the Inland Revenue lately issued which uses those words.
  "In the case of commission, bonus, or other fluctuating emoluments, the amount of which for that year is unknown, it will be sufficient for the purposes of this return to state the amount for the preceding year."
  So that in certain districts and in certain cases they are giving the very concession I am asking for as a statutory right. On a previous occasion I begged the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  1380
  to do away with the whole of these concessions as concessions and to put them into an Act of Parliament. It is impossible for Income Taxpayers to know where they are if in addition to their statutory rights they are told if they hunt about they may possibly find there is some concession issued by the Inland Revenue to meet their case. I cannot really see any reason why this concession as it now is, and which I do not believe one man in a million knows, should not be turned into a statutory right. Let us try to make the Income Tax law a little more comprehensible than it is at present. An hon. Member said just now it is impossible even for people who have studied the Income Tax all their lives to know really what all these concessions amount to. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make this concession a statutory right.
  Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: I support this Amendment in the hope that it may be taken as a step towards putting the assessment under Schedule E permanently on the basis of the preceding year. Under the change brought about this year I know one case in which the secretary of a company had to make a return the previous year in respect of ten persons, and in consequence of the change brought about by the Bill this year he had to make returns in the case of 600 people, and in the majority of these cases the returns will prove to be incorrect because the persons are paid by a fluctuating bonus or emolument. The result will be that fresh returns will have to be made, and there will be continual correspondence and interviews between the officers of the Inland Revenue and the officials of the company. The whole thing is in a continual state of confusion, and will entail unnecessary expense. As a step towards putting the assessment under Schedule E permanently on the basis of the income of the preceding year, I trust that the Government will accept this proposal.
  Sir L. SCOTT: The question as to whether the present or the preceding year is the fairer basis for Schedule E deserves and requires very careful consideration, and upon that if in the Finance Bill of next year there be a motion that Schedule E should always be put or. the basis of the preceding year, that proposal will get the

  1381
  consideration which it deserves. There is a great deal to be said for it in cases where the income is of a fluctuating character. But the present law is that the basis of assessment is the income in the year of assessment. In committee the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson) moved an Amendment not giving the taxpayer the right of election but putting him on to the. previous year in all eases. That was out of order because in many cases it might have resulted in the taxpayer having his taxation increased. On this occasion he has avoided tripping up over the rules of order by putting in the four little words, "if he so elect." But these words mean that where the year of assessment shows a lower income than the preceding year the discreet taxpayer not only in Scotland but even in England will elect to be taxed on the year of assessment, and conversely where in the year of assessment the income is obviously going to be larger than in the previous year that discreet person will elect to be taxed on the income of the previous year, with the necessary result that heads the taxpayer wins and tails the Chancellor of the Exchequer loses.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I point out that the Inland Revenue have issued a paper giving as a concession the option which I am asking as a statutory right. My point is, why not turn this concession into a statutory right?
  Sir L. SCOTT: I do not think the piece of paper to which the hon. Member referred gives an option. At any rate if it purports to give an option, it is not what the law permits. Under the existing practice, where the profession or business is one which essentially leads to fluctuate of income from year after year, the assessment is made, for the purpose of getting at the income of the year of assessment, by reference to the actuality of the preceding year, taking that as a fair test for the year in question. That it is strictly law I do not suggest, but it is a practicable way of acting. That has been the practice for a very considerable time. The words on the piece of paper to which the hon. Member referred are as follows:
  "In the case of commission, bonus, or ether fluctuating emoluments, the amount of which for the year is unknown, it will he
  1382
  sufficient for the purpose of this return to state the amount in the preceding year."
  That is not an option. It is an indication of what I have said is the ordinary practice. The practice may be legally defensible or it may not. I am rather inclined to say that it is not in accordance with the law. But it is practical good sense. You try to get at the year of assessment by reference to the actual figure of the preceding year. That is not giving an option to the taxpayer and enabling him to say "my income this year is lower than that of last year, and I will therefore be taxed on my income of this year" nor does it enable him to say, "I do not like my income this year because it is bigger than last year's income. I shall be taxed on last year's income." Such election would cost the Exchequer £1,000,000 sterling at least. and the Government is not in a position to accept the Amendment.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSK.—(Deduction from income in assessing super tax.)
  Any individual carrying on a trade or business by himself or in partnership shall he entitled to deduct such proportion of the profits or gains derived from such trade or business from the profits or gains assessable for super tax as shall appear to be reasonably required as capital in such trade or business or has been actually utilised as capital in such trade or business throughout the year of assessment to that tax.—[Mr. Holmes.]
  Brought up, and read the First Time.
  Mr. HOLMES: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second Time."
  A limited company at the present time pays Income Tax on the whole of its profit, but the members of the company only pay Super-tax on such amount of the profit as is distributed in dividends In other words the company can put aside the. whole or a large part or any part of its profit for the development of its business and the Inland Revenue does not get Super-tax on that amount, but in the case of an individual or partnership not only is the whole profit assessed for Income Tax but the individual or the partners are assessed for Super-tax so far as their proportion of the profit is concerned, even though the proportion may not be drawn out of the business but put to reserve. The object of the Clause is to ensure that

  1383
  where people are carrying on business as a partnership or a man is carrying on business in his own name Super-tax cannot be charged on such portion of profits as are put aside for the development of business. It may be said that the limited companies on the other hand pays Corporation Profits Tax. That, at the moment, is a fair argument to use, but the Chancellor told us on the Committee stage that the Corporation Profits Tax was a bad tax, that he did not regard it as a permanent instrument of our taxation system and he hoped it would be withdrawn as soon as possible. If that is done we shall be where we were two or three years ago, and a private firm or individual will be taxed on reserves as far as Super-tax is concerned, whereas a company will not. This has been a vexed question for many years. The reason for putting the Clause down this year is because of the Chancellor himself, having put down a new Clause dealing with the Super-tax of private companies so far as undistributed profits were concerned. If it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say what is reasonable and proper for a private company to put aside for the purpose of reserve, and then tax the balance as far as super-tax is concerned, it is equally possible, so far as an individual or private partnership is concerned, to say how much they should be allowed to put aside for the purpose of reserve and on which they should not be charged on Super-tax.
  Mr. HANNON: I beg to second the Motion.
  The case made out by my hon. Friend is perfectly sound. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given great care and thought to the new Clause which is to safeguard the Treasury against the avoidance of Super-tax in the case of what are known as one-man companies. The private individual or partnership carrying on business in the manner indicated by the Mover is entitled to at least some measure of consideration from the Chancellor and the new Clause merely suggests that that consideration should be extended to them in order that they may be able to expand and enlarge their businesses and invest a reasonable share of their profits in the development of that business. After all they are entitled to every opportunity of expanding and if
  1384
  they are limited and crippled under existing conditions of Super-tax special consideration should be given to the circumstances.
  Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I hope this Clause will not be accepted by the House, for the reason that words here speak of deducting such amount as shall appear to be "reasonably" required as capital in such trade or business. I submit to the House that those words have absolutely no definite meaning. How on earth can any income tax authority, or even a man himself, say what is reasonably necessary as capital in a business? I speak in this matter from personal experience of a one-man business. I know perfectly well how galling it is when large sums which really ought to be set aside as fresh capital are taken year by year in income tax and super-tax. But whatever the hardships of the one-man business, they are certainly not to be mitigated by putting into an Act of Parliament a Clause which has no meaning whatsover. it is perfectly ridiculous for anyone to have to decide what is reasonably necessary in the way of fresh capital. It may be possible by increasing the capital invested in a business largely to increase the turnover of that business but is such capital reasonably or unreasonably invested in that business? It may be said that any capital necessary to replace and maintain the existing output and turnover in a business is reasonable, but everyone knows perfectly well that if there is considerable new capital available for a business the owner of that business can take the risks of fair speculation with a view to largely increasing the turnover, though without any certainty of adequate return.
  Mr. HOLMES: Will the hon. Gentleman direct his criticism to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has done the very thing against which he is protesting in Clause 17?
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I opposed the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that matter, but it was the enormous pressure of the hon. Gentlemen opposite which persuaded him to accept that Clause. But because the right hon. Gentleman was forced to accept a Clause on a former occasion it is no argument for proceeding to put an equally absurd and inadequate Clause into another part of the Bill. It is not the least use by putting two mistakes into a Bill to think that you

  1385
  are improving it. In this particular instance this is going to give rise to an enormous amount of evasion. You have here two sorts of people to deal with. You have the man who means honestly to pay as far as he can what is due from him, and you have the other man who intends, at any cost, to evade his fair share of the burden of taxation. In this particular instance the man who means to evade his taxation will be put, if this Clause be inserted, into a position of extremely unfair advantage in regard to his neighbour who intends to deal honestly and fairly.
  Sir L. SCOTT: The cost of this suggested alteration would amount to £5,000,000. Let me add the reason why in principle this is, in my opinion, utterly wrong. The Exchequer has nothing what-to do with what the income tax payer does with his income after he has earned it. If you have earned your income you may save it or you may "blue" it. The Exchequer is not- concerned with investments or any capital purposes, and it is simply and solely a form of investing the income after it has been earned, and whether it be a company or an individual who out of profits puts money aside for reserve to be used as capital, that is an investment of the profits and gains, and in Income Tax law it becomes taxable. The suggestion that there is any difference between the principles applicable to companies and to an individual has nothing in it. In the case of the Income Tax a company pays at a higher rate in most cases than the individual. A company always pays at a flat rate of 5s., whereas individual shareholders

  Where the payment, excluding the amount or the duty does not exceed 3½d.

  …

  a halfpenny.

  Exceeds 3½d., but does not exceed 5d.

  …

  a penny.

  Exceeds 5d., but does not exceed 8d.

  …

  three halfpence.

  Exceeds 8d., but does not exceed 1s.

  …

  twopence.

  Exceeds 1s., but does not exceed 1s. 3½d.

  …

  twopence halfpenny.

  Exceeds 1s. 3½d., but does not exceed 1s. 9d.

  …

  threepence.

  Exceeds 1s. 9d., but does not exceed 2s. 2d.

  …

  fourpence.

  Exceeds 2s. 2d., but does not exceed 2s. 7½d.

  …

  fourpence halfpenny.

  Exceeds 2s. 7½d., but does not exceed 3s.

  …

  sixpence.

  Exceeds 3s., but does not exceed 5s.

  …

  ninepence.

  Exceeds 5s, but does not exceed 7s. 6d.

  …

  one shilling.

  Exceeds 7s. 6d., but does not exceed 10 s. 6d.

  …

  one shilling and sixpence

  Exceeds 10 s. 6d., but does not exceed 15 s.

  …

  two shillings.

  Exceeds 15 s. two shillings for the first 15 s. and sixpence for ever 5s. or part of 5s. over 15 s.

  —[Sir Walter de Frece.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir WALTER de FRECE: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  in a company very likely are paying at a lower rate in order that they may have the initial exemption. A company has to pay Income Tax on its profits, although it puts them to reserve, just as it pays a tax on the dividends which it distributes to its shareholders, and it pays on the whole of its income. In the case of a one-man company controlled by not more than five persons, the very gist of the proposal is to strip from what is in fact a partnership the cloak of company law which gives it a legal personality to which, from the taxgatherers' point of view, it is not entitled and which puts that company in the position of a private firm. It is only when that company shows, by not distributing a reasonable proportion of its profits amongst the shareholders, that it is not acting really as a separate company, that then it has its company cloak stripped from it and it is put on the same footing as a firm. Because we are treating a company as a firm is no reason why we should treat a firm as a company, and with one hand, so to speak, take from those who are evading the law- the cloak which they have wrongfully assumed and put that cloak in a different form around a number of other people.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Entertainments duty.)
  On and after the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, section one of The Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall have effect as if the following scale of rates of entertainments duty were substituted for the scale set forth in that section as amended by any subsequent enactment.
  I am, by this Clause, moving the adoption of a scale which I hope will meet with sympathetic consideration for several reasons. First of all, it has the

  1387
  good will of every branch of the entertainment world, including the theatres, music halls and cinemas. In the next place, it benefits the cheaper seats, and nothing over 3s. is affected by it. It also enables the managers of places of entertainment to reduce their charges of admission which they claim that they cannot do under the present scale. It also eliminates entirely, or at any rate reduces to a negligible figure, the loss which the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated when the 12i per cent. flat rate was discussed. The slight decrease which I propose in the scale will on the average give 15 per cent. as against the present 21 per cent., but on some seats the Chancellor of the Exchequer will receive, 17 per cent. Simultaneously with this, the prices of seats will be lowered all round in an endeavour to attract the public, which is absolutely necessary if these places of entertainment are to continue to exist at all.
  Hon. Members may ask what is the all-round reduction which under this scale would be made to the public? The reductions will vary from 2d. to 6d. in each case. I do not say that even this reduction would save many concerns which are already on the rocks. but at any rate it would give the industry a chance of tiding over the present depression I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite fail-when he compared this duty with the Beer Duty. The brewer can brew as much beer as he likes and the retailer can buy as much as he likes but if through trade depression he does not sell that beer as quickly as he would like the beer does not deteriorate. In the entertainment world arrangements have to he made for each particular week ahead, and if the people do not patronise the show the manager's loss is irrecoverable. Is there any taxed industry in which it can be said that the value of the article vanishes on the day of production?
  When things were better all round the Chancellor of the Exchequer raised the tax and it was paid, and now in a time of acute depression I think that there might be a little relief given. Places of indoor amusement have cut down their expenses to a very dangerously low level. Staffs have been reduced, theatrical employés have been dismissed wholesale, and those
  1388
  who remain have had their wages reduced. The salaries of musicians are being reduced, the salaries of artistes being under contact cannot be reduced without their consent, and consent is being sought. Advertising and establishment expenses have been cut down, and yet there is hardly a cinema, theatre, or music hall that is paying its way at the present moment. One large group are losing, and have lost since the beginning of the year, at the rate, of £122,000 a year. High rents have nothing to do with it. Cheaply-rented theatres with apparent successes are meeting with disaster. and I am not surprised that the Trade Union Congress are alarmed at the number of unemployed theatrical employés. The stories of out-of-work artistes are, I assure the House, pitiful. The proposal is not drastic. It was not evolved with the idea of meeting the full equity or justice of the case, but in order to save the sinking ship until better nines arrive. The returns from the tax arc falling heavily. The yield of the tax for the year 1920–21 was nearly £11,750,000, for the year 1921– 22 it dropped to £10,250,000, and the returns to date indicate that it will be in the neighbourhood of £8,750,000 in the current year. The amount of duty is falling, and the revenue of the theatres is falling.
  It is obvious that if public patronage, owing to trade depression, is lessened, it must hit the industry extremely hard if the State takes even twenty per cent. of the small sum the public can afford to set aside for amusement. The theatres, to pay, must play to "capacity" houses. A few empty seats makes all the difference, and in my view cheaper popular seats to attract the public are the only hope. To enable us to reduce the prices we ask the Chancellor to reduce the scale. I sincerely hope he will make the concession. I put this scale forward in the belief that it will save the industry for the time being, and also that it will help the State. I venture to suggest that the record of places of amusement in regard to charity and patriotic effort entitles them to a small measure of consideration at the present time. I therefore ask for it on these very real and genuine grounds.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I have very great pleasure in seconding this new Clause.

  1389
  I have not the knowledge of the industry that my hon. Friend possesses, neither have I his quality of humour. I must, therefore, address myself only to a few facts. I support the motion in the main because of the inequity of the levying of these charges. The lower the price of the seat the greater the amount of the tax, and we on these benches are very interested, of course, in the lower-priced seats, particularly in the picture houses.
  I have taken the trouble to find out exactly what is happening in a very poor district in Lancashire, and I will give one or two facts in relation to two picture houses which are an indication of what is transpiring. During the last eight weeks the gross receipts in one small picture house were £459, and of that sum the tax paid amounted to £92 18s. The nett loss on the working of the establishment for these eight weeks amounted to £121 17s. 6d. I know of no business, even in these very bad days, that could give an account like that. I have a further instance from the owner of another place, who tells me that he has held this picture hall for three years. In the first year he made £30 profit. Last year he suffered a loss; of £78, while he had paid during that year £422 in tax. The capital expenditure on this establishment is £4,000, and not a penny-piece has been paid in interest, neither has anything been set aside for depreciation. The Motion we arc making is to try to reduce the duty on the lower prices charged in the cinema theatres. We on these benches are not particularly interested in those people who can afford to pay five or ten shillings for entering a theatre, but we are particularly interested in the lower-priced seats. I think the Chancellor will have to adopt the principle already adopted by municipalities, and in fact, by the Post Office. We heard the Postmaster-General the other day saying he would reduce the charges for postage stamps, apparently believing that if you want to increase revenue, in some cases at any rate, the best way is to reduce your charges. Those connected with municipal life have found that there is a point reached in regard, say, to tramway charges that if you raise the charges too high your income is decreased, and that the best way to increase revenue is to reduce charges. We think that: if the Chancellor wanus to increase his receipts one of the best ways would be to
  1390
  reduce the tax for seats in those places of which we are speaking.
  I have very little sympathy with those people who have entered the business of building picture palaces during the last few years. I consider there are too many of these places, but I have very great sympathy with people who set up in the entertainment business many years ago, particularly in the mining districts. I can speak with some feeling about those districts where I know full well that small men running small entertainment businesses are on the verge of bankruptcy. I trust that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot accept every point in this Clause he will give some sympathy to our views.
  12 M.
  Mr. HANNON: I beg to support this Clause. When this subject was debated in Committee the Chancellor of the Exchequer at first gave indications of a kindly sympathy with the suggestions submitted to him, but as the debate proceeded he somehow or other hardened his heart, and in the end decided that he would make no concession at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who comes from that delightful country where logic is superabundant and supereminent is always quoting to us something from his own country, and I remember the other night he fell back, when he was criticised by some of my pressing friends above the Gangway, on his old friend John Stuart Mill. I am going to fall back on another old friend of his, and I commend to him in relation to this new Clause the first canon of taxation laid down by Adam Smith. Adam Smith, whose memory, no doubt, is warmly cherished by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said this in relation to taxation.
  "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the Government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective ability."
  [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] I thank my hon. Friends above the Gangway for the recognition of that sentence—that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State. I am satisfied to quote this one, because it is quite sufficient for the purpose of my thesis in supporting this new Clause. My hon. Friend pleaded that this tax ought to be equally spread over the people who enter places of entertain-

  1391
  ment, and my main contention is that if we are to have an entertainment duty at all, it should be adjusted proportionately over all the classes of the community. As I submitted to the House the other evening, I think it is most unfair that the poorer classes should pay 41 per cent of the total entrance fee to a house of entertainment, while the classes who are better off are paying as small a proportion as 11 per cent. I think the classes of the community who are better off can pay, and ought to pay, if they wish to enter these places of entertainment and enjoy the better seats; but to the mass of people, to whom the picture theatre is at once a source of amusement and instruction, we ought to make it as easy as possible for them to have this recreation. May I recall to the House the fact that the Entertainments Duty was a War-time measure, and was never intended to be a permanent part of our public system of finance? Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets a considerable revenue out of it, and is, therefore, naturally inclined to make it permanent.
  This tax, unlike other taxes, is not one upon profits, but is a tax upon gross receipts, and it is most unfair that the workman's 5d. seat should be taxed at the rate of 40 per cent., while a gentleman who has a box at a West End theatre should only pay 11 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has always been accessible to suggestions in relation to fair taxation since he went to the Exchequer, and I really think in this matter, where it is a question of dealing out fair play to the different classes of the community, he cannot possibly justify the continuance of the tax on its present basis. My hon. Friend's scale does recognise some relationship between ability to pay on the part of the poorer member of the community and the richer member of the community, and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that he would lose some revenue, nevertheless he would be providing opportunities for great masses of people to have entertainment, enjoyment and instruction, which otherwise these people would be precluded from enjoying. I strongly support the proposal, and the tax should be readjusted on the basis of the new scale.
  Sir R. HORNE: I am sure the House will not expect me to enter upon so elaborate an argument as that which I addressed to the Committee when this question was previously discussed. Upon that occasion I went into the whole field connected with the Entertainments Duty. Upon the present occasion, I hope the House will forgive me if I confine myself to a very few observations regarding the proposal made by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. de Frece). I listened to his speech with great sympathy and consideration, and when I first saw his Amendment on the Paper I thought that at last my hon. Friend had achieved that for which I had been asking for months. What I have always said to those who have supported an amelioration of the Entertainments Duty is that I should be ready to agree to any reasonable graduated scale which would provide the Exchequer with the same revenue as is being supplied at the present time. For a moment, I thought that my hon. Friend had brought about the desired result, but I am afraid that a close and analytical inquiry has produced a certain disappointment.
  The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) has referred me to an ancient document of Adam Smith. I am very ready to accept the principle which he extracted from that great work upon "The Wealth of Nations," but I do not think that Adam Smith would have approved of the theory which the hon. Member enunciated. It is one of the canons of British taxation that you should tax people in proportion to the revenue which they themselves have, and which is protected by the State, but you never can arrive at an accurate conclusion upon that matter by taking one particular and individual tax and contending that that must be directly proportionate to the revenue which the individual enjoys. If you did apply the rule in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, there are innumerable taxes on the one side or the other which would show great discrepancy. Take the case of tea. It is constantly said that the tax upon tea ought to be graduated between the cheaper and the more expensive teas. There are also those who advocate that there should be no tax on tea at all. They are what we call the whole hoggers. I am accurately expressing the opinions of those who, without taking an extreme

  1393
  view, attempt to get graduated taxation on tea. You have to look at your taxation as a whole when you apply the doctrine of Adam Smith. I am afraid, for the reasons I have given, that I cannot accept the Amendment.
  The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made a very moderate speech, and I am sure that every hon. Member would accept his proposal if it were possible to do so under the present circumstances. He has referred to the fact that the produce from the tax has been reducing from year to year. That is true not only of the Entertainments Duty but of most of the other taxes, and for a very obvious reason. We are going through a period of very grave and deep depression, and the yield from every one of our taxes is decreasing. Reference has been made to the lower profits derived from certain entertainment houses, and one hon. Member suggested that very few businesses could show such losses as the entertainment business. If he had my access to the returns of the great staple businesses of this country, upon which the livelihood of the country depends, he. would find even more distressing results than any of those to which he referred. The fact is that profit from entertainments is suffering at present as much as receipts from every industry are suffering. You would expect that entertainments would suffer worst. After all, whatever is to be said in favour of entertainment, it is in the nature of a luxury. It is the first thing that a man would cut off when he finds himself in very straitened circumstances. His expenditure upon food will survive long after his expenditure upon entertainment has gone and, accordingly, you would expect that amongst all the industries which suffer in a time of depression, entertainment would suffer first and worst. Accordingly I am afraid one cannot look at this matter simply from the point of view of the depreciated returns you find now coming from the industry of entertainment.
  I turn now to the other and more important argument of the Mover. He suggested that the Revenue would not suffer by the adoption of this proposal. That is exactly the point at which I was intrigued originally by the Clause when I first saw it, but I was forced to come to the conclusion that the Revenue would suffer to an extent of not less than
  1394
  £2,000,000 in a year. Even assuming that no more will be spent upon entertainment than is being spent at present—and I think that is an optimistic assumption—undoubtedly the depreciation in the Revenue would be not less than £2,000,000. In order to yield a Revenue equal to that which we at present enjoy from the Entertainments Duty it would be necessary that people should spend £10,000,000 more on entertainment than they do to-day. Is there any man who can hope that we are going to have that experience, whatever you do with regard to the Entertainments Duty, looking to the condition in which we find ourselves to-day? I wish it were possible to contemplate a great surge of reviving trade which would put people in a position to spend as much on entertainment as they did in 1920, but I am sure there is no one optimistic enough to suppose that we are going to have that experience, and with all the goodwill in the world towards this industry and with every anxiety to give every member of the community an opportunity of entertainment at the cheapest possible price, our present stringency makes it entirely impossible that I should accept the Clause.
  Mr. HOGGE: I am disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not regarded this tax in the same way that he has looked at a great many other reductions which he has made. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyme (Sir W. de Frece) probably knows the entertainment world from A to Z, better than any member of the House. I have not gone into the figures, but the right hon. Gentleman has told us that if we accept the Table set out by the hon. Member the loss to the Exchequer will be £2,000,000. That is the equivalent of ½d. in the £ in the Income Tax. This scale would bring in between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000, and therefore the loss to the Exchequer is not a big sum to ask for as a concession to the state in which this industry finds itself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not dealt quite fairly with the argument with regard to this being a War tax. This surely is true, that the shareholders or the proprietors of the entertainment industry already pay Income Tax and Super-tax, they paid during the War Excess Profit Duty, and over and above that they have imposed upon them this

  1395
  peculiar tax which was originally a War tax. If the entertainment industry had been a monopoly industry there might have been some reason for retaining a peculiar tax upon that industry, but as a matter of fact this is the only new War tax which has been retained since the Armistice was signed. In every other direction the Chancellor has relieved industry from the taxation imposed during the War. [Interruption.] There was a tax on beer when the War broke out. I am not arguing whether there should be a tax on beer or spirits—whether that is good, bad or indifferent. During the War a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, looking round for new sources of taxation, took the entertainment industry, and for the first time in the history of the country, imposed a tax. It is the only industry on which a new War tax is retained. The Chancellor says if he takes it off he will lose £2,000,000, but, due to the failure of the industry, there is a great loss accruing not only to the people who have their money in the industry. After all, that is not the most important part of it, but the loss of rates to our authorities, the loss to our municipalities in such things as the amount of the electric light that is taken from our great municipal undertakings- every one of these things is creating a loss which is surely equal to the £2.000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman says this claim will produce. There is also the condition of unemployment in the industry. So you have this fact, that while those engaged in the industry pay Income tax, Super-tax and Excess Profit Duty, they cannot get any relief.
  There is a wider question than all this. What right has any Government to penalise the recreation of the people? We talk in this House of Commons about housing conditions. Those people who are interested in temperance reform talk about the value of counter attractions. Everyone who knows our housing conditions knows what the cinema has meant to the densely crowded masses of our industrial centres. It has meant everything to them. Somebody has said that there are too many cinemas in the country. If you take them in relation to the population there are not nearly enough to satisfy the claims of the people to legitimate recreation. No Chancellor of the Exchequer representing a Govern-
  1396
  ment interested in social reform, who believes that the people of the country have a right to legitimate recreation, would at this period after the war retain this tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says let those who pay the tax draw up a scheme and show him how he will obtain the same amount of revenue. What a ridiculous proposal; Does he go to the Income Tax payers of the country and say, "Bring me a scheme by which I shall impose Income Tax on you to get the same revenue"? What is a Chancellor of the Exchequer for if he has not got ideas of his own? He has no right to say to an industry, "You will tax yourselves in such a way that I shall get a certain revenue. After that I do not care." Something has been said by the Chancellor about the depression in trade and the loss of capital in other industries. There is no other business in the country in which the Government interferes with the direction of the business in the same way as it does in the case of the cinema industry. The Government goes inside the doors and interferes in the direction of the business. If it left the business to those who understand it, and if. as was suggested in Committee, it imposed a flat rate percentage on the business it would get a great deal more than the £2,000,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has mentioned. It is unfair, and for financial reasons unwise, to interfere with the social problem as this duty is doing, and I am disappointed that the Chancellor has refused to accept even that suggestion.
  Mr. SEDDON: I desire to support my hon. Friends in this very modest request. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his usual suave appeal to the House, tried to impress upon us, as the custodians of the public purse, that were it not for the exigencies of national claims, he would be very ready to concede this very moderate demand. Then he appealed to the House to meet the public requirements by saying that, despite his sympathy, he could not accept the proposal, because it meant the loss of £2,000,000 to the Treasury. That is a very moving appeal, but I want to call his attention to the position taken up by his predecessor. Whether entertainments are a luxury or a necessity, I am not going to argue, but

  1397
  in a former Budget his predecessor felt that there were certain commodities that must be taxed. Among them were cigars and champagne. He was warned that if he took this position on the taxation of these two luxuries he would not only lose taxation, but would destroy the trade. His predecessor took no notice of the warning. The facts are common knowledge to all Members of the House. Both cigars and champagne became a losing proposition, and last year we had to reverse the decision taken on former occasions. That is the basis of my appeal to-night. I want to say that an entertainment, while it may be a luxury, is a necessity. The great mass of the people of this country, who are more or less cabined and confined in narrow quarters, must have some outlet and means of enjoying the social amenities of life outside their own homes. You either have the public-house or the house of entertainment. The house of entertainment, especially the cinemas [laughter]—hon. Gentlemen who, because of their wealth, can buy tickets to go to the ends of the world, laugh—but I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at this not merely as a source of revenue, but as a social amenity. When he says he is going to lose £2,000,000, what is his authority? It is his advisers. Even civil servants may be wrong in their calculations. They were wrong in regard to cigars and champagne. I take that as my text and I say to my right hon. Friend that, so far as this tax is concerned, it hits the very people who want some outlet from their drab surroundings. It is a very modest request, and, if he does not accede to the request of this House, he is not only doing an injury to the entertainment trade of this country but inflicting a hardship on the poorest that they ought not to bear.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: I want to draw the attention of the House to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in accepting the scale submitted by the hon. Member in whose name the Clause stands he would be losing a matter of £2,000,000 of the revenue. The point he put up against accepting this scale was that these £2,000,000 are necessary in order to permit him to balance his Budget, and he suggested to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment that
  1398
  he should put before the Government a scale that would enable them to win back the £2,000,000 that this scale would lose to them. Then I think he said he would be prepared to accept the proposition. May I submit to him this point? The scale submitted by the hon. Member has gone as far as he dare take it. He has rearranged the scale with regard to the lower-priced seats, but, according to the Rules of this House, it would not be in order for him to place any suggestion of a higher tax in the Amendment he submits. In the scale submitted they have revised the tax to the seats up to three shillings. Where the amount of the duty does not exceed three shillings they put on sixpence as being the tax. They are not in order in going further than that, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government would be in order in placing a higher proportionate tax on the higher-priced seats, and if the right hon. Gentleman feels there is going to be a loss of £2,000,000 upon it he can recoup the £2,000,000 by revising the tax himself, which cannot be done by the Member for Ashton-under-Lyme (Sir W. de Frece). I would go even further than that and point out that just as in the case stated by the Member for Hanley (Mr. Seddon), that of sparkling wines and cigars, where it had been found to be a losing proposition, the Government revised the taxes and came back to what might have been an income derived by the Government prior to the imposition of the heavy tax. I want also to put this issue specially to the Chancellor, which must appeal to every Member of the House. He pointed out that the proposal of the hon. Member for Hanley did not foot the Bill. I agree that Adam Smith's intention of taxation is applicable to this particular tax. This is not a tax upon income, but upon the spending of the people, upon the money they are spending upon an entertainment. It is not within the scope of any of the canons of taxation that Adam Smith wrote upon, and I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be as just and as fair to the people in this country if in taxing the people for their entertainments he placed a tax upon every book that is published and bought by the public
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Very few books are entertaining.
  Mr. MACLEAN: It all depends upon the man who is reading it. He may find a great deal of entertainment in some books and a great deal of entertainment in listening to speeches. Sometimes he considers speeches to be dull. I see the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) raises his eyebrows. That indicates, perhaps, that the shaft has gone home. If one likes to read instead of going to the theatre he can do so, but it is unfair that the smallest child who goes to a matinee performance should have to contribute to the revenue of this country. I suggest, therefore, that as this tax is unfair, undoubtedly the heavy taxation paid by those who go to entertainments is contributory to the reduction. The probabilities are that part of the £2,000,000 that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks he will lose will be made up by accepting this reduction. The other part can be made up by heavier taxation upon the higher priced seats. I suggest it in fairness to the public who have to pay the tax, in fairness to an industry that has grown up in this country and made rapid strides—I mean the cinema industry, which is being faced with a grave situation, as well as the music hall profession and the theatrical profession—I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and this House that something should be done by him and by the Government to relieve this industry from the heavy burden placed upon it, and at the same time confer upon the public who patronise these places a boon in the shape of the revision of this tax.
  Mr. REMER: I would like to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend the great difficulty in which Members who support him are placed over this Clause. As I read it the Entertainments Duty as it is at present framed, provides for a tax of 40 per cent. for the working man, whereas the rich man who goes to a boxing match and pays five guineas or two guineas for a box at the theatre only pays 10 per cent. It is a matter which wants some variation, at any rate, so as to make a more equitable distribution. I do appeal to my right hon. Friend to help those Members who usually support him, otherwise a great many of us will be forced to go in the Lobby against the Government.
  Mr. WATERSON: Many hon. Members seem to condemn the tax simply because it is a War-time tax. I am one of those individuals who feel that the time is not opportune for the tax to be removed, but the object of this Amendment is to remove an inequality in the tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the terms of the Amendment, if accepted, would mean a loss of, roughly speaking, £2,000,000 to him as far as revenue is concerned. Seeing that the feeling of the House is that there is a great inequality, is it not within the province of my right hon. Friend, according to the procedure of this House, to suggest some means whereby he would not lose any revenue, and that would remove the inequality which exists. I put that proposition to him in all sincerity, because of the keenness with which we have to contend as far as our own constituencies are concerned where it is viewed as an inequality as between the rich man and the poor man. It is to me a very important thing. I believe that as far as the abolition of the tax is concerned their opinion ought to come first. There is a strong case against the Chancellor of the Exchequer as far as inequality is concerned, and I would like to ask him if there is any means at his disposal that would give the House an opportunity of reviewing the tax in the light of the facts submitted, with a view to relieving those individuals who have cheaper seats in the cinema theatres and placing the greater burden on those who have the greater ability to pay.
  Mr. SUTTON: I should like to support this Clause. I remember when this tax was first introduced I spoke in the House against it, although certain Members at that time were of opinion that the poor people during the war ought not to go to the cinema theatres. I pointed out that at that time, while all the misery was existing, it was a good thing that those people should have somewhere to spend an hour or two. My hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Mr. Seddon) has spoken of the inequality of this tax. I represent a very poor district where there are thousands of people working short time, and thousands of other people unemployed, and I have spoken to several cinema owners in that district who tell me they are losing money every week. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take into consideration the means of re-

  1401
  ducing this tax in accordance with the scale put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston-under-Lyne (Sir W. de Frece), he would not lose anything at all. Some of us who have served on different Corporations know that when fares have been reduced to a minimum the greater has been the revenue from these undertakings. I am of the opinion that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would only consider this matter seriously and adopt this Clause there would be a greater revenue obtained, even from the poor people who like to have a couple of hours in the cinema theatre, and I believe there would be very little loss to the revenue. I therefore appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let him open his heart and do something for the poor people. He has done something for the rich people to-day; let him do something for the poor people. Do not let it be said that there is class legislation. I hope he will adopt the Clause which has been proposed.
  Lieut-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: As my name has been put down on one of the Amendments which I under stand has been ruled out, I only rise to suggest that if I could take the place of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer I would give an answer to the House that I would meet them halfway. I really had no idea that there was as great a difference as has been stated to-night between what might be called the more expensive seats in the theatre and those of the poorer classes in the cinemas. I do think that that ought to be taken into consideration. I realise the difficulty the Chancellor of the Exchequer is up against, and I have only to-night stated it at a meeting I had had to attend in regard to this and other things, but I do seriously think that some consideration should be given to this matter, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot meet the views which have been expressed to-night in various parts of the House—if he cannot meet them half-way—he might at any rate compromise and make a readjustment. I am perfectly sure that the majority of the people in this country, if they knew the great difference that does exist, would not mind paying the increase on their tickets if the prices could more or less be brought up to a level. No private member can move an increase of a tax at this stage, therefore it is up to
  1402
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devise some mean6. I am sure, if he would do so, he would find himself at next Election with his picture on every cinema and he would be wooed as a bachelor by all the spinsters who attend the cinemas. I do think he might promise to readjust the matter if he possibly can. He will not lose £2,000,000, as he will get the better of the people to pay a little more on their tickets.
  Sir R. HORNE: I have always been willing to adjust this scale if I could get the revenue. I would be very glad to look forward to a relief of this part of the taxation, but I am advised that at this time it cannot be done.
  Major BARNES: That is the whole point. The debate is at a point whore the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not asked to make a concession of revenue but to revise the scale. He is acting the whole time under advice, but he is not taking the advice of anybody in this House He is relying on his advisers. It is surely within the power of his advisers to give him a scale which would not reduce the revenue but would bring the higher and lower priced seats up to a level. It is not too late to do it. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would do something between now and to-morrow, without losing a penny of revenue, to satisfy the House on the point of bringing the higher and lower priced seats more nearly into relation with one another.
  Sir R. HORNE: To reduce the scale in the way my hon. Friend describes would be to place such a burden on certain of the theatres of this country as they could not bear. My hon. Friend has made the best attempt that could be made to draw up such a scale, but nevertheless it cannot be accepted.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: In regard to the scale put forward by the hon. Member for Aston-under-Lyne (Sir W. de Frece) it was obvious that as a private Member he could not suggest a higher tax on the higher priced seats. We are now asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he cannot consider the point. He and the Government only can increase the tax on those seats. Will he take that point into consideration, and I am sure the hon. Member would be prepared in that event to withdraw his Amendment.
  Sir R. HORNE: It has already been considered.
  Mr. MACLEAN: It is really the West End theatres of London which are blocking the way.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 143.

  Division No, 223.]

  AYES.

  [12.48 a.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Grundy, T. W.

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Banton, George

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

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

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

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Halls, Walter

  Poison, Sir Thomas A.

  Barrand, A. R.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Renter, J. R.

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Hayward, Evan

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Blair, Sir Reginald

  Hirst, G. H.

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

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hogge, James Myles

  Sexton, James

  Bromfield, William

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Bruton. Sir James

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Cape, Thomas

  Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Sutton, John Edward

  Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Swan, J. E.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Kidd, James

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawson, John James

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Lort-Williams. J.

  Waterson, A. E.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)

  Lunn, William

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

  Foot, Isaac

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Macqulsten, F. A.

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Gillis, William

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Goff, Sir R. Park

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

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

  Sir Walter de Frece and Mr. Seddon.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Evans, Ernest

  Morrison, Hugh

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Forrest Walter

  Neat, Arthur

  Atkey, A. R.

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Newton. Sir D. G. c. (Cambridge)

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Nicholson, Brig-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gee, Captain Robert

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Barlow, Sir Montague

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Parker, James

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

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

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

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

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Grenfell, Edward Charles

  Raw, Lieutenant Colonel Dr N.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Robinson, $. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Hailwood, Augustine

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanc., Stretford)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

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

  Roundeli, Colonel R. F.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Briggs, Harold

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Hinds, John

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Brown, Major D. C.

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

  Scott. A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l. Exchange)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Burgoyne, Lt.-Col, Sir Alan Hughes

  Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Houfton, John Plowright

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

  Casey, T. W.

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Starkey, Captain John Ralph

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

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

  Stephenson. Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Lorden, John William

  Sugden, W. H.

  Cope, Major William

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford. Henley)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Macpherson Rt. Hon. James I.

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Ednam, Viscount

  Matthews, David

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

  Wallace, J.

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Winterton, Earl

  Younger, Sir George

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

  Wise, Frederick

  Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

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

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  McCurdy.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to temporary residence.)
  The following Rule shall be substituted for Rule 2 of the miscellaneous rules applicable to Schedule D: —
  A person shall not be charged to tax under this Schedule as a person residing in the United Kingdom in respect of profits or gains received in respect of possessions or securities out of the United Kingdom who is in the United Kingdom for some temporary purpose; only, and not with any view or intent of establishing his residence therein, and who has not actually resided in the United Kingdom at one time or several times for a period equal in the whole to fifteen months in any two consecutive years of assessment, subject nevertheless as follows: —

  (a) in the case of a person who is ordinarily resident in any foreign country and who is in the United Kingdom for any period, or periods, exceeding in the whole twelve months in two consecutive years of assessment the foregoing provision shall not apply for a period of five years from the end of the second consecutive year of assessment as aforesaid. but such person shall not be charged to tax under this Schedule within the said period of five years unless in any year of assessment within that period of five years he resides in the United Kingdom at one time, or several times, for a period exceeding in the whole six months;

  (b) in the case of a person who is ordinarily resident in any of His Majesty's Dominions and who is in the United Kingdom for any period or periods exceeding in the whole twelve months in two consecutive years of assessment the foregoing provision shall not apply for a period of ten years from the end of the second consecutive year of assessment aforesaid. but such person shall not be charged to tax under this Schedule within the said period of ten years unless in any year of assessment within that period of ten years he resides in the United Kingdom at one time or several times for a period exceeding in the whole six months. "His Majesty's Dominions" means any British possession or any territory which is under His Majesty's protection, or in respect of which a mandate is being exercised by the Government or any part of His Majesty's Dominions.—[Lieut.-Colonel Areher-Shee.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  1.0 A.M.
  This Clause is directed to relieving certain visitors to this country from being assessed for Income Tax here. Under the present law, if they come to this country and stay for more than six months they are subject to Income Tax. I suggest that in doing this we are in a great many cases depriving the country of a lot of now money which we badly want. Large numbers of Americans come over here with large sums of money to spend, but directly they find that if they stay more than six months they will be subject to Income Tax they go off to France and other countries and spend the money there. That does not apply only to Americans; it applies to our fellow British subjects who may be residents in Australia, Canada or other parts of the Empire. I know concrete cases of people coming to this country with more than thousands of pounds, with tens of thousands of pounds, to spend, on a holiday of, perhaps, two years. People are not going to come to this country from Australia—a month's journey here and a month's journey back—and stay for six months only. They come over with the intention of spending a year or two in the country, and, being well-to-do people, they bring over large sums of money to spend. In a particular case that I know, the people immediately went off and spent all their money on the Continent and this country was deprived of it. In the case of people who wish to spend, perhaps, £10,000 or £20,000 in this country we are cutting off our nose to spite our face in charging them Income Tax. The money was not made in this country: it does not belong to this country in any way, and if people like to come here to spend it, it is a very good thing for those who live here, and that money in circulation is probably worth many times the amount which is actually brought in. The quick turnover from different trades and the spending of money in this country bring increased prosperity to the people of the country. At present the

  1407
  law is that if they stay here for six months they are subject to Income Tax. I believe Somerset House does take a lenient view in certain cases and allows certain exemptions and so on to people who only bring capital to this country and not income. At the same time, strictly according to law, if a man spends one day here over the six months he is subject to Income Tax. I suggest we are driving people away who would otherwise spend money here. Americans go to France far more than they come to this country— there may be other reasons for their going to France—but a very strong reason for their not coming here is that they are subject to Income Tax. I know it is so in many cases of which I have personal knowledge. Far too many of our own people go abroad and spend their money there. We want not only to keep our own people in this country and to circulate their money here, but we also want to encourage foreigners to come here.
  Mr. KILEY: I beg to second the Motion.
  The reason I do so, is that I think the policy we are pursuing at the present time is not one in the best interests of this country. I have in my mind of a well to do Argentine family, who maintained a considerable establishment in this country and while the taxation was at the rate of one shilling in the pound or thereabouts they paid it gladly and cheerfully. But with Income Tax as it is now and with income not made in this country in any shape or form they found it so heavy that they decided to give up their establishment in this country and to live abroad. Whenever they desired to come to this country they proposed to do that by taking a furnished establishment for a few months in a year. In my judgment, that is not a good policy as far as we are concerned. If these people were able to live in this country, maintain a large establishment and spend substantial sums of money out of money, not made in this country but received from abroad, then we should encourage them to come instead of under present conditions driving them away.
  Sir L. SCOTT: I want the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Clause, if he will oblige me, to answer a question with the consent of the House. The Clause says that instead of the six months
  1408
  as the criterion of the period of any person who is a foreigner from the point of view of residence to come within assessment, you are to take fifteen months. It is obvious you cannot get fifteen months in the year of assessment, and it follows you are to take two years.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: It says so.
  Sir L. SCOTT: The Clause says so. What I want to know is this. There are two ways in which this Clause can be interpreted. I want to know which is the way the Mover of it intends. Supposing that a person coming to this country spends five months in the first of the two years and ten months in the second of the two years, is it proposed that he should be taxed at all in respect of the first year I suppose not, and, in consequence, the proposal is that he should only be taxed in regard to the second year; or am I to understand that, supposing a foreigner comes to this country and spends the whole of the first year in this country, he is not to be taxed at all, although he is here for the whole year of assessment. Would the hon. and gallant Member be so good as to answer that?
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: May I say that the suggestion in this Clause is that until he has been more than fifteen months in this country he shall not be assessed to Income Tax at all. Therefore the first year does not apply at all, and in the second year he would not be taxed until he has actually spent fifteen months in this country in the aggregate and not ten months in the second year.
  Sir L. SCOTT: I am much obliged. So that in the case where a man spends six months in the first year and nine months in the second year (whereas to-day he would be taxed in respect of both years) the proposal is that he should be taxed only for one year—the second year.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: My suggestion is that he should not be taxed at all until after he has spent 15 months in the country.
  Sir L. SCOTT: If he spends six months in the first year and he goes on and spends another nine months in the next year, then I understand he will be taxed in the second year. [How. MEMBERS: "No !"] Then the proposal is that where to-day a

  1409
  person resides beyond the jurisdiction ordinarily and comes into this country and draws an income in this country from his foreign possessions or securities, he should escape tax which he does not escape to-day. Quite frankly, the Exchequer is not prepared to make this concession in regard to income in such circumstances. I venture to surmise that the effect of Income Tax in this country, at as high a rate as it is to-day, does result in keeping a certain number of people away, but this deterrent effect is not likely to be seriously permanent in the days which I hope may come before very long when taxation gets down to a reasonable level.
  Sir FREDERICK YOUNG: I think the principle underlying this Clause, apart from the actual wording of it and the difficulties which I freely confess arise with the wording such as it is—the principle behind it is thoroughly sound and for the benefit of this country and, as regards a certain portion of the proposition, very much to the benefit of the Empire concerning people coming from foreign countries, who realise in the main that the Income Tax is almost prohibitive for foreign people to come to this country for a certain length of time and pay the heavy double taxation on income which they have to pay in this country. I think we should face facts and realise that the heavy Income Tax is likely to prevail for many years. There is a great deal more lost in indirect taxation than the Exchequer would lose in direct taxation. As far as the Dominions are concerned, it may be said that the position has been met by the concessions already made on the principle announced by the learned Solicitor-General as the basis in this country. While the concession is a very valuable and a very helpful one for the people who are here for a considerable length of time, it does not really help the people who are here for a period of 18 months, two years or even 2½ years, because of the very difficult administrative troubles that arise in adjusting the taxation between this country and the particular part of the Dominions from which a person comes. The trouble that necessarily arises out of that concession is so great that it is an almost equal deterrent for the person coming over for a limited period. I confirm, from personal knowledge, the state-
  1410
  ment made that the deterrent does exist, and that people come for as limited a period as they can to avoid taxation. Were it not from the trouble arising from the Income Tax arrangement there is a great number of people from the Dominions who would come over for periods of 18 months and two years, and during these periods spend money very freely in this country, to the great advantage of industry throughout the Kingdom. I think that the spending of this money freely, as it would be spent by a great number of these people over a greater period, would prove of far greater value to this country than the taxation which is derived, because I am bound to say that a great number of these people avoid that taxation, either by making periodical trips to other parts and then coming back here so that their stay here is interrupted, or by the fact that their presence in this country is really not known, and they cannot always be traced. The result is that when the Income Tax falls to be paid it is never paid at all. None the less, the fact of having to avoid it keeps people away. Although it may not be possible to accept the wording as submitted, I hope the Government will give closer and deeper consideration to the Clause than one might imagine they had given from the answer supplied to-night by the learned Solicitor-General. There is a great deal more underlying this Clause from the Empire point of view which deserves consideration equal to that given by the Government to the other question of double Income Tax.
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I am rather sorry the Government turned this down so definitely, and I should be interested to know if we could be told how much the Government would expect to lose if they were to agree to this Clause.
  Sir L. SCOTT: It is very difficult to tell, but approximately a quarter of a million sterling.
  Mr. HERBERT: That only confirms my view that the amount collected is comparatively trifling—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—What I mean is that very few of these wealthy foreigners and colonials who come over to this country come over here in such a way as to render themselves liable to the tax. A quarter of a million means tax on about a million, and to tell me that a million represents anything like

  1411
  the money which is spent in this country by Americans alone, is more than anybody who has experience of them can believe, because immense numbers of them come over. What I want to point out is that the longer it goes on the smaller will become the quarter of a million, because it is only since taxation became higher within the last two years that it has become generally known to these foreigners how they can escape it.
  What happens at the present time when wealthy people come over and want to stay for six months is that they have no income remitted to them at all. They accumulate their income in America and have a certain number of bonds sent over to this country which are sold, and they live in this country on the bond capital. They get outside the tax in this way and this is passed by the Revenue. The result is, therefore, that dealing with the class with which you are dealing, and the amount of money represented by these people and spent in this country, you are getting the tax in a very small proportion indeed. There are others who avoid it in the other way, by staying here just a day under six months, and then going abroad. If you can get these people to stay here anything like twelve months they do contribute something to the Exchequer in several other ways. They enjoy themselves, and they pay motor-car taxes and other similar taxes. I seriously suggest that if we cannot do anything on it this year, it should be a matter of consideration whether in future some Clause of this sort could not be introduced. I shall support it in the hope that it will benefit the Exchequer.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Definition of trading stock.)
  For the purpose of removing doubts it is hereby declared that the term "Trading stock" as used in the Second Schedule of The Finance Act, 1921, includes all stocks which when consumed are allowable as a deduction in computing the amount of the profits or gains for Income Tax purposes. —[Mr. Holmes.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. HOLMES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  1412
  Clauses have been moved to-night asking for concessions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All I am asking for now is an explanation. Under the Finance Act of last year there was certain relief afforded in respect of trading stock in hand in any trade or business at the end of the last accounting period. Apparently, the Inland Revenue are interpreting trading stocks as actual stocks which have been purchased for re-sale, whether they are manufactured or raw material. The object of this Clause is to ascertain from the learned Solicitor-General whether the words "trading stock" should not also apply to stocks used for the purpose of turning the raw material into manufactured goods. I will give the House an example which will show my meaning at once. Take a steel works. Iron ore is turned into steel for re-sale, therefore iron ore is allowed as trading stock. Everyone knows that you cannot turn iron ore into steel without coal, but the Inland Revenue say that coal has not been bought for re-sale, but for processes of manufacture. Though steel works must have a very large stock of coal, and though coal may have fallen in value in the days succeeding the last accounting period, it is not allowed under the Act. I submit the intention, when the Act was passed last year, was that stocks such as coal and stocks kept for the purpose of repairs were intended to come within the phrase, and that relief should be extended as suggested in the new Clause to all consumable stocks just as in the same way the Inland Revenue admit it applies to stocks for re-sale.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I beg to second the Motion.
  Sir L. SCOTT: I venture to doubt a little the very innocuous description which has been given by the hon. Member of his Amendment, It seems to me to want a little more explanation. My impression is that if he got the Clause adopted the result would be very expensive indeed in point of money. When Excess Profits Duty was coming to an end, it will be in the recollection of the House that we were in a position of extreme depression and that a great number of concerns were in grave financial danger, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after prolonged negotiations with representatives of those indus-

  1413
  tries and others, made a concession in regard to trading stocks which was of very great magnitude, amounting in all to some eighty millions sterling. Concessions were made at that time to firms who during the War had paid very large sums in Excess Profits Duty really to meet the extraordinary financial position of the country, when the coal strike was on and the position was as serious as it could be. That concession was made purely on national grounds to meet what was almost an unpredented national emergency. It was considered very carefully, and its exact scope, so far as this Amendment is concerned, was this, that those firms which had come within Excess Profits Duty should be given not merely the value of their stocks as at the end of their last accounting period, but that the further depreciation between that period and the end of the financial year should be accounted as part of the loss of the last accounting period. That bargain was based upon commercial trading stocks. The phrase, "trading stocks," was put into the Finance Act as the legal equivalent of stock-in-trade, which was the phrase used in the White Paper which represented the arrangement that was made. Stock-in-trade, of course, means the actual finished articles, partly-finished articles, and raw material for making those articles. If all the deductions allowed to an ordinary business concern in calculating income were allowed as this new Clause asks, everything like coal, oil, and ordinary consumable stores used in the process of manufacture would all come in, and have to be valued as at the end of the last accounting period, and carried forward under that scheme, with the result that a very large additional return of Excess Profits Duty would result.
  This is a concession which has nothing to do with taxation and which has nothing to do with the present taxes. It was a specific concession which was made on the ground of national need, or commercial need from the national point of view, and it is a concession which I regret each Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot make, and which I venture to think that even the hon. Member who moved it, when he understands it in that way, will regard as a concession which there is no present ground for asking.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Re-enactment of Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, c. 83 (4).)
  The facilities granted to the cultivation of tobacco in Great Britain by Sub-section (4) of Section eighty-three of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall be re-enacted, and shall have force and effect as from the passing of this Act.—[Viscount Wolmer.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I am pleading here to-night on behalf of a small, struggling industry in my constituency and in the constituencies of other hon. Members. This industry is the English tobacco trade, and I want to explain to the House very shortly what my proposal is. What I am asking the Government and the House of Commons to do is to return to the wise provisions that were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley and the Liberal Government of that day, and the present Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in granting a rebate of one-third on home-grown British tobacco.
  On the Committee stage of this Bill, I endeavoured, I think, at about 3.30 in the morning, to persuade the Government to treat English-grown tobacco as they are treating English-grown sugar, and exempt it altogether from Excise Duty. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to agree to that proposal, and since then I have had an opportunity of introducing a deputation, which he was kind enough to receive on this subject, and I hope we have convinced him, at any rate, that it is possible to grow tobacco in this country; that tobacco is being grown as a result of the concession which the Liberal Government gave in 1910, and that, if the industry is only given protection for a few years, it will be able to get on its legs.
  I should like to remind the House of Commons that it is an entire delusion to think that tobacco can only be grown in a tropical country. Over thirty-five thousand acres of tobacco are being grown in France, which is cultivated by over thirty thousand individual farmers, and this shows that it is a crop which is

  1415
  particularly suitable for smallholders and small farmers. In Germany at the present time over twenty-five thousand acres of tobacco are being grown, and tobacco is being grown in Norway and Sweden. Therefore it is not a tropical plant although there is an impression to that effect. In Cuba they have to throw awnings over the tobacco plants to prevent the sun scorching the leaves. Tobacco can be grown in this country. When you are establishing a new industry of this sort, it is necessary that it should be given adequate protection for a number of years until it has become fully organised. The House of Commons must remember that tobacco growing had been established in no less than 31 counties in this country when it was abolished by Act of Parliament in 1660. In 1660 it was made illegal to grow tobacco in this country, and from that moment until the Clause which I am now seeking to re-enact was included in the Finance Act, 1910, it was illegal to grow tobacco in this country. The industry had been killed for political reasons—in order to encourage our American Colonies of that period to send their produce to this country in order that we should send them goods in return. When the industry was restarted in 1911, as a result of the concession of the Liberal Government of that day, it had to face the highly-organised American industry, with 250 years of practical monopoly behind it, and it is impossible for any new industry to compete on level terms with an industry in another country which has had a monopoly of 250 years. I venture to ask the House of Commons to grant English-grown tobacco for another. 10 years, a measure of protection which will enable the industry to be founded. It is worth doing. This is a crop which gives an enormous amount of employment to men on the land. Two men are employed for every 3 acres of tobacco grown. It is a crop that can be raised on the lightest soil. It can be grown on the sands round Aldershot, on the sands of Berkshire, on the sands of Norfolk, and other parts of this country where ordinary corn crops cannot be grown. If tobacco growing is made possible you will bring gradually, but only gradually, into cultivation a great many acres which at present are going out of cultivation, and you will
  1416
  therefore be increasing the ultimate food reserves of the country. For a sacrifice on the part of the Exchequer which will be infinitesimal you will restore to agriculture land which is going out of cultivation, you will be giving employment to agricultural workers, and you will be setting on foot an industry which will be of great benefit to the countryside. It will also be a benefit to agriculture in another way, because if tobacco leaf is grown for smoking purposes, the stalk is useful as a by-product. The stalk will make insecticide washes, which will be of value to fruit growers, hop growers and agriculturists generally.
  I plead for the sympathy of the House of Commons in this matter. We cannot command a great number of votes, because this industry is at present in a very small way. When the Liberal Government gave this rebate of 30 per cent. in 1910 there was not a square yard of England under tobacco. By the time the War broke out the acreage had reached 140 acres. As a result of the War, and as a result of the change of policy on the part of the Government, the acreage had declined to 30 or 40 acres at the time of the Armistice. This brings me to the point that I wish to impress on the House —that this Government, which at any rate is more Protectionist than the Liberal Government which preceded it, is killing this industry—has killed it. They have given a preference to Colonial-grown tobacco, which is now admitted on exactly the same terms as tobacco which is grown in England. Colonial tobacco comes into this country at a preference of ⅙th of the duty, and English-grown tobacco has, practically speaking, only the same advantage. The Colonial tobacco industry, if not as ancient as the American, is much older and much more highly developed than the English, which is still in its absolute infancy. The extraordinary paradox in the history of this business is that the tobacco industry was restarted in England and fostered by a Free Trade Government, and is now being killed by the Imperial Preference granted by a Government which hon. Members sitting above the Gangway here are always accusing of being Protectionist. Personally I wish it were a great deal more Protectionist than it is, but it has applied its Protection in an unfortunate manner in this instance. Owing to an oversight,

  1417
  I think, it has regarded Empire-grown tobacco as being on exactly the same plane as English-grown tobacco, whereas it cannot be. The Empire-grown tobacco industry is far more highly organised. There is nothing contrary to the principle of Imperial Preference in giving an extra preference to goods produced within our own shores. The Colonies give a preference to British goods over those of the foreigner, but they give a greater preference to goods produced in their own country, and that is what I am asking for. If we reverted to the policy of the Liberal Government in 1910 home-grown tobacco would get a rebate of 30 per cent., and Colonial tobacco would get a preference of 15 per cent. That would give Colonial tobacco an advantage over American tobacco, but it would give English-grown tobacco a preference over the Colonial, and that is necessary if this industry is to be established and is to grow.
  Agriculture at the present moment is always in a minority in this House. We are an industrial nation, and the great majority of Members sit for industrial constituencies. It is difficult for agriculture to get the same sort of treatment in this country as it receives in France or Germany. But you will never get people to go back to the land until you make it worth their while to live on the land If you persist in making agriculture unprofitable the land can only become the haunt of the idle rich—if there are any such people still. The land bears a heavy burden of rates and taxes which have to be paid before the produce of it can compete with the produce from either the Colonies or America. These facts should be considered, particularly in the ease of an infant industry. I earnestly plead with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show the practical sympathy of the Government towards this interesting and hopeful experiment. It was started by a Liberal and Free Trade Government. Let it not be said that it has been killed by the present Coalition Government.
  Sir THOMAS POLSON: I beg to second the Motion.
  Sir L. SCOTT: I think the House will certainly recognise the sympathy the Government felt towards the subject-matter in the most interesting speech to
  1418
  which we have listened, but I must remind the House, subject to Mr. Speaker's ruling, that the Clause is out of order for the simple reason that it proposes to re-enact a Section of an Act of Parliament on the assumption that that Section has been repealed. The fact is that it has not been repealed and is still law.
  Viscount WOLMER: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether the Government will pursue the policy under this Section?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I asked the Noble Lord the question, and he gave it as his opinion that it has been repealed.
  Viscount WOLMER: I was certainly under the impression that it had been repealed.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It turns out now that it is still law, and cannot be re-enacted. Therefore the new Clause fails.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will not now move the adjournment of the Debate as we have concluded what I think he set out to cover, the new Clauses. I have no desire to-morrow to start any thing like dilatory proceedings, but if he will indicate something which he can deal with in five minutes and let us go home, we can start with something substantial to-morrow.
  Mr. KILEY: I have a Clause which I did not move on the occasion of the Committee stage and the matter which I propose to place before the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not put. Is it not possible for that Clause to be considered?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member refers to the Clause dealing with perfumery. He was absent from Committee, but I noticed the indefatigable Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).
  Mr. KILEY: The matter I wished to put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not placed before him.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now making a reflection on his delegate. There is now no substantial point until Clause 15. There is nothing except drafting Amendments.
  Sir R. HORNE: In answer to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles

  1419
  (Sir D. Maclean) has said, I think he will agree that it would be fitting that we should finish the first 12 Clauses tonight. I think these can be disposed of very rapidly, and that, I hope, will ensure that we shall have a comparatively easy task to-morrow, so as not to be sitting late a second time.
  Mr. MOSLEY: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you rule out my Amendment to Clause 4. It is an entirely new Amendment, which was not moved on the Committee stage?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is passed over. It is not a question of ruling it out.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Private brewers' licences.)
  The following provision shall be substituted for the provision in section six, subsection (1), of the Finance Act, 1919:—
  Provided that where the brewer is the occupier of a house of an annual value of eight pounds or less, he may in any year obtain without payment of duty a licence to brew a quantity not exceeding four bushels of malt, or the equivalent thereof, for his own use.
  Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, to leave out the word "provision"["The following provision shall"], and to insert instead thereof the word "proviso."
  These three Amendments follow together. They are all drafting Amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "provision in"["the provision in section six"], and insert instead thereof the words "proviso to."
  At end of the Clause, insert the words, "In the foregoing provision the expression 'year' means the year ending on the thirtieth day of September."— [Sir R. Home.]

  CLAUSE 12.—(Amendment of S. 9 of the Roads Act, 1920.)
  (3) This section shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and on the rates of duty for general licences prescribed by the section becoming chargeable the rates prescribed for such licences by section nine of the Roads Act, 1920, shall cease to be chargeable.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "the"["prescribed by the section"], and insert instead thereof the word"this."—[Sir R. Home.]

  CLAUSE 13.—(Income Tax and Super-tax for 1922–23.)
  The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HOLMES:
  At the end of the Clause to insert the words
  "Provided that with respect to any such disposition income payable to any such child shall not be deemed to be payable for some period less than the life of such child by reason only that the disposition contains a provision for the payment to some other person of such income in the event of the bankruptcy of such child, or the execution of any assignment of or incumbrance upon such income by such child."
  Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to this Amendment, I am not sure whether it has not been covered by a Government Amendment taken to-day. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would move the Adjournment of the Debate to consider it?
  Ordered, "That the further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Sir R. Home.]
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

  GUARDIANSHIP, ETC., OF INFANTS BILL [Lords.]
  Ordered, "That so much of the Lords Message [4th July] as relates to the appointment of a Select Committee on the Guardianship, etc., of Infants Bill [Lords] be now considered.—[Colonel Gibbs.]
  So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee of Six Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the Guardianship, etc., of Infants Bill [Lords],—[Colonel Gibbs.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith, and to request that their Lordships will be pleased to add a Lord to the said Joint Committee.
  Mr. Cairns, Lieut.-Commander Chilcott, Sir James Greig, Mr. Hailwood, Sir Robert Newman, and Mrs. Wintringham nominated Members of the Select Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Colonel Gibbs.]
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Ten minutes before Two o'clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  ENGINEER OFFICERS.
  ENGINEER OFFICERS.
  H.M. MONITOR "GLATTON."
  H.M. MONITOR "GLATTON."
  ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  SPECIAL DIET.
  SPECIAL DIET.
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCE (W. T. RIMMER).
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCE (W. T. RIMMER).
  DIPHTHERIA (SCHICK TREATMENT).
  DIPHTHERIA (SCHICK TREATMENT).
HOUSING.
  EVICTIONS.
  EVICTIONS.
  ESTIMATED REQUIREMENTS.
  ESTIMATED REQUIREMENTS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IMPORTED OATS.
  IMPORTED OATS.
  WOOL (UNITED STATES TARIFF).
  WOOL (UNITED STATES TARIFF).
  TANGIER.
  TANGIER.
  MEXICO.
  MEXICO.
  GREECE AND TURKEY.
  GREECE AND TURKEY.
  REPARATION (BULGARIA).
  REPARATION (BULGARIA).
  SUPERANNUATION ACTS (OVERTIME).
  SUPERANNUATION ACTS (OVERTIME).
  STAMP SECTION, POST OFFICE (PENSIONS).
  STAMP SECTION, POST OFFICE (PENSIONS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (MR. W. S. G. WEAR).
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (MR. W. S. G. WEAR).
  COST OF LIVING.
  COST OF LIVING.
  LAND PURCHASE, IRELAND.
  LAND PURCHASE, IRELAND.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS PENSIONS.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS PENSIONS.
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (DILAPIDATION).
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (DILAPIDATION).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (EX-INSPECTOR SYME).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (EX-INSPECTOR SYME).
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD TRAFFIC (RULES).
  ROAD TRAFFIC (RULES).
  SHOOTER'S HILL BYEPASS.
  SHOOTER'S HILL BYEPASS.
  ROADS EXPENDITURE.
  ROADS EXPENDITURE.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the order made on the 4th day of May last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 15th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Onslow).
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

IMPORTATION OF CATTLE.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN rose to call attention to the agitation now being promoted by Lord Beaverbrook in the Daily Express, by The Times, and other important newspapers, now in support of the reintroduction of foreign cattle through and from Canada, without the safeguard of slaughter at the port from the reintroduction of pleuro-pneumonia into this country which has now given the cattle in the United Kingdom absolute immunity from that disease for upwards of thirty years; and to move: "That this House declines to remove what is wrongly described as 'the embargo,' on cattle which come to our shores from Canada or from other countries for the following reasons:
"1. The term itself is very misleading, and purports to be used because of its injurious effect on the price of meat. On the other hand to abandon the policy of slaughter at, the port, would reopen the door at once to the risk of the ravages of pleuro - pneumonia from which we have suffered so severely in the past, and compel us to relinquish a safeguard which has given us absolute security against that pestilential disease for upwards of thirty years.

355
"2. There is no embargo on the importation of live cattle for slaughter from any country in the world, Canadian or otherwise, and they have been so imported from Canada and other countries in thousands, and can be so imported now, provided they come from countries which are not suffering from any cattle disease.
"3. Pleuro-pneumonia, unlike many other cattle diseases, can only be conveyed by the immediate contact of one animal with another; therefore, so long as the provision for slaughter remains, and contact is impossible, we are safe."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I make no apology for asking your Lordships' permission to address you on this occasion, for this is a question with which I have been familiar, more or less, for the greater part of my life. I am, unhappily, old enough to remember the terrible disasters which were suffered in agricultural districts from rinder-pest a great many years ago. Indeed, although I was not at that time of age, that was the first occasion on which I ever took part in public business. I joined a farmers' committee in the County of Lincoln, formed for the purpose of doing all that we could to counteract the ravages of that deadly disease, which was then called the cattle plague. Hundreds of such committees were formed at that time all over the country, and at last, the Government doing all they could to help, the disease was, by the mercy of Heaven, extinguished before the whole of the cattle in the country were destroyed, but not before it had brought untold ruin upon thousands of agriculturists in all parts of the country. This was particularly the case in Cheshire, a great dairy country, where they suffered almost untold damage. The devastation in Cheshire at that time was literally appalling. All this I remember.
But how did the disease come here? It was brought here by some foreign cattle, which were infected with it. It was not discovered at the time, and it spread nearly all over the country, extending at one time with the great rapidity which, I believe, is one of the chief features of that horrible disease. That was before the policy of slaughter at the port had been embodied in the law of this country. I heartily hope that that policy will never again be abandoned, and for this reason. Next to rinder-pest, pleuro-pneumonia
356
is the worst and most deadly cattle disease that we have in this country, and, in my opinion, it is the worst disease that you can have in your herds. You hear a great deal about foot-and-mouth disease now, but foot-and-mouth disease is not worth thinking about compared with pleuro-pneumonia. Foot-and-mouth disease can be discovered with the greatest possible ease; it lasts only a very short time; it is not deadly. The animals do not die, although they have been killed in such enormous numbers during the last outbreak in this country that the taxpayers have, I understand, had to pay £1,000,000 sterling for the animals which have been killed.
We never did that in former days, except on two occasions. It was held to be perfectly right when the disease first broke out, and before it reached any very great severity. We killed animals then. Again, when it was approaching the end, and we felt sure that we could extinguish it altogether, we killed again. But, except on those two occasions, either at the very beginning, or to make sure of removing the disease, that was not the practice pursued by the Board of Agriculture, at all events in my time. On one occasion, when I was at a Cabinet I received a message from the head of the Department that foot-and-mouth disease had been discovered in the Metropolitan market, among some cattle from Denmark, which had been there three or four days. He requested to see me immediately. I sent a message that I would see him the moment the Cabinet was over. At the end of the business of the Cabinet, I told my colleagues what had happened, and I begged them to give me carte blanche, to which they agreed at once. I then went to the office and saw all the heads of the Department. A large number of inspectors were summoned to London immediately, and I saw them all. I do not think any Department of Government could possibly have a better and more enthusiastic staff than that of the Board of Agriculture at that time. Although the disease had spread, in spite of everything, to twenty different counties, I was able within five months—or it may have been just over—to show a clean bill of health again. I believe we did not have any return of the disease in this country for five years afterwards.
Pleuro-pneumonia, however, is a totally different thing. Unlike foot-and-mouth disease, it can be conveyed only by the im-

357
mediate contact of one animal with another, and consequently so long as you can prevent that contact you are perfectly safe from pleuro-pneumonia. That is the position in which we stand at this time. The beginning of it, at all events, was accomplished by your humble servant, who at that time had just been asked to become President of the Board of Agriculture. Although the disease was then raging I accepted the position, but on the one condition that the Cabinet agreed that I should be empowered to deal with the question forthwith. Consequently, I introduced a Bill in the House of Commons on February 28, 1890. It met with little opposition in either House, and became law. It was followed, shortly afterwards, by two amending Acts. One dealt mainly with finance and compensation, in which I had the cordial support of Mr. Goschen, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was one of the ablest and most enlightened statesmen it has ever been my good fortune to know. The other, in 1891, was of much more serious importance. That was after I had ceased to be President of the Board of Agriculture, if I remember aright, but I was consulted upon it. That Bill contained this proviso in the Third Schedule, namely, "The animals shall not be moved alive out of the wharf."
It is this proviso which at the present moment is causing all the difference between Canada and ourselves, to which I will refer later. Before doing so, I will consider what would be the cost of abolishing what is called the "embargo." In my Notice I have stated my views about giving it that name. I think it is most misleading, but people must judge about that for themselves. What it did for us was this: Firstly, it largely increased the number of our cattle and our herds; secondly, it gave an increased inducement to the breeders of cattle to embark more than they had done before on the breeding of cattle; thirdly, it added to the value which would be given by purchasers of the stock, by reason merely of the knowledge that in buying stock from us at that time they were certain to be free from pleuro-pneumonia; fourthly, it has added very largely to our own home production of food, and no one knows or recognises the importance of that better than the Prime Minister himself.
It was on February 23, 1917, I think, that the Prime Minister made, in my
358
humble opinion, the most powerful and most helpful speech upon the agricultural interest that it has ever been my good fortune to read. I am going to quote two or three sentences from it to show the enormous importance that he attached at that time to increasing the home production of food. In that speech he said—
"I now come to the third, and perhaps the most important, direction in which by home production we can assist to enable the country to overcome its difficulties, and that is in the production of food supplies."
He continued—
"No doubt the State showed a lamentable indifference to the importance of the agricultural industry and to the very life of the nation, and that is a mistake which must never be repeated."
I hope that the statement of the Prime Minister will be borne in mind and acted upon by himself and his political supporters. The Prime Minister continued—
"It is essential, therefore, for the safety of the nation—for the maintenance of the nation, for the life of the nation—that we should put forth immediately every effort to increase production for this year's harvest and the next, and that we should do it immediately."
That reminds me, of what occurred very shortly afterwards.
The Prime Minister having made that speech, many of us went about the country doing all that we could to support him. It was rather late for spring crops. A speech delivered on February 23 would not reach the farmers very quickly, and would not leave them any great time for the coming harvest. And yet, as he had wound up by saying he hoped the farmers would put their backs into it, what was it they accomplished? Even in that short time they sowed 375,000 more acres with corn than had ever been sowed in this country for I do not know how many years before. Therefore they met him in every way they could, and they did their very best to give him support.
I come now to the provision which has caused all this disturbance between us and Canada. Nobody in either House, of Parliament would regret more than I that anything in the nature of a slur or a stigma should be thrown upon Canada. I believe that Canada has done a very wonderful thing in getting her stock so clear of disease as she has done. I have this advantage in discussing this subject, that many years ago—I dare say before a good many of your Lordships were, born

359
—I travelled through the whole of these great districts in Saskatchewan where these numberless cattle are now bred and reared. When I was there those districts were all occupied by buffaloes. Now, owing to the enterprise of Canada and Canadian farmers, cattle have taken the place of the buffaloes. If I am opposed to them in this matter it certainly is not from any disregard of the feelings of Canada, or because I am unwilling to meet them, but because it is clear to me that my first duty is to see that our own herds in this country are not left open again to the incursions of pleuro-pneumonia.
I am told—and I am not here to deny it—that Canada is perfectly free from that disease. But I was brought up in the Board of Agriculture in my early days, and I was told this—and I believe there was truth in it then, whatever there may be now—that that disease was the most difficult in the world to detect in the living animal; that sometimes it could not be ascertained whether an animal had that disease or not. One difficulty, in particular, was pointed out to me. Whenever an animal had been inoculated against it, if it got the disease in after years it never responded to inoculation again. I am not a veterinary surgeon; I have had no education in those matters; but I have never forgotten that teaching.
More than that, you must consider the enormous extent of the areas in Canada where these cattle are kept. I had to travel over thousands of miles, for I went the whole way from what is now the City of Winnipeg. When I went to Winnipeg it consisted of eight great wooden storehouses and one stone house surrounded by a wooden palisade, and three tribes of Indians were waiting outside to exchange their furs and the other things that they sold for tobacco, flint, steel guns and powder and shot. I rode the whole way from what was then called Fort Garry, the headquarters of the Hudson Bay Company, to within about 130 miles of the Rocky Mountains. That is an enormous distance. I saw the whole country, and how it is possible to examine, or even think of examining, all the cattle reared in a district like that so that it can be said with absolute certainty that they are entirely free from every kind of disease, passes my comprehension.
But I have something stronger than that upon which I rely for the course I have
360
taken in this matter. We have had many debates in this House on this subject. Lord Lee of Fareham spoke on several occasions. In one of those debates he quoted Sir Robert Borden, and it is to that speech I want to call your Lordships' attention. He said—
"For these and other reasons, my Lords, in the view of the Board of Agriculture it would be quite inopportune to consider removing the embargo or altering existing legislation.… Altogether, in view of the changed circumstances since the qualified undertaking was given by the Government in 1917, we are not prepared to introduce legislation and alter the existing law. At the same time—"
and here I join with him most heartily—
"I feel once more bound to dissociate the Government in the most formal way from the reflections upon Canada implied in Lord Strachie's speech, and to renew in the most formal way our withdrawal of the stigma to which the Canadian Government so rightly objects. The matter has now become one simply of—"
What?
"domestic concern, to use Sir Robert Borden's phrase—"
But Sir Robert Borden was Prime Minister. I do not know how we can get away from that. A pure matter of domestic concern!—
"and a matter with regard to which the Government must consider and safeguard British interests to the exclusion of all other considerations"
Why all these attacks should be made upon us by a number of gentlemen, who may have very good reasons for making them and who, I have no doubt, are very largely interested in the success or the failure of what they are trying to carry at the present time, I really do not know.
I am content to take my view of the question from this quotation from Lord Lee and from what I have seen myself. He assures me that it is accurate and I have no doubt that it is so. Although I would rather do anything in the world, if I could honestly do it and do it with the conviction that I was right in doing it, than offend Canada, that is why I adhere, and shall continue to adhere, to the course which I have laid down in the Resolution which I have placed on the Paper. There is a great deal more that I could say upon the subject if I had the strength to say it. It may be that I shall be called upon to reply to some of the speeches that may be made, but for the moment I hope your

361
Lordships will excuse me if, having made the best effort in my power—and a very trying experience it has been, I can assure you—for the time at all events I resume my seat.
Moved, That this House declines to remove what is wrongly described as "the embargo," on cattle which come to our shores from Canada or from other countries for the following reasons—

1. The term itself is very misleading, and purports to be used because of its injurious effect on the price of meat. On the other hand to abandon the policy of slaughter at the port, would reopen the door at once to the risk of the ravages of pleuro-pneumonia from which we have suffered so severely in the past, and compel us to relinquish a safeguard which has given us absolute security against that pestilential disease for upwards of thirty years.

2. There is no embargo on the importation of live cattle for slaughter from any country in the world, Canadian or otherwise, and they have been so imported from Canada and other countries in thousands, and can be so imported now, provided they come from countries which are not suffering from any cattle disease.

3. Pleuro-pneumonia, unlike many other cattle diseases, can only be conveyed by the immediate contact of one animal with another, therefore, so long as the provision for slaughter remains, and contact is impossible, we are safe.—(Viscount Chaplin.)

THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE had given Notice that on the Motion of Viscount Chaplin he would move, That it is incumbent on His Majesty's Government to carry out their pledge made at the Imperial Conference in 1917 to remove the embargo on Canadian cattle. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, my first duty is to congratulate the noble Viscount upon having brought this important subject—a subject of such importance both to ourselves and to the great Dominion of Canada—before your Lordships' House. I should like also to say that we have listened to the noble Viscount's speech, made under sadly difficult circumstances, with great attention, for two reasons. In the first place, it is extremely refreshing in these days of "Go-as-you-please" inside the Cabinet,
362
or out of it, to listen to a man who has the courage of his convictions and is not afraid to state them. We may not agree with what he says, but it is really a great thing once more to be able to listen to a man who has convictions and is not afraid to state them.
Another reason is that the noble Viscount is a member of a most remarkable trio of agricultural experts—himself, Lord Ernie, and Lord Long of Wraxall. Here I hope I may be allowed to express the great regret with which I heard that a very sad family affliction has befallen Lord Ernie in the course of the day. I can assure him how deeply we feel the sense of duty which has prompted him, in such sad circumstances, to be in his place on this occasion. Those three noble Lords form the triumvirate, as I say. It is a great comfort also to think that the services to the State of these distinguished statesmen have been acknowledged by their elevation to seats in your Lordships' House, where they have received so warm a welcome and so much appreciation on the part of the country.
With reference to what we have before us to-day, I hope I may be permitted not in any way to touch upon the merits or demerits of the case. We all know more or less the merits of the case and if we had forgotten anything we have been reminded of it by the eloquent speech to which we have just listened. I should think that all these merits and demerits were thoroughly thrashed out by the Royal Commission of 1921, which sat for Heaven knows how many days, examined a large number of witnesses, and at the end unanimously reported in favour of the removal of the embargo. It seems to me that settles the question. The thing is done. There is an end of it—the evening and the morning of the sixth day. So far as that is concerned it seems to me that it ought to settle it. Therefore, I shall simply confine myself to what is germane to the Motion that I have the honour to move.
Here may I say that I think we ought to take exception to two statements that have been made in the Notice which the noble Viscount has placed on the Paper. The noble Viscount seems to think that all this is a newspaper stunt; that it has been got up—he puts it in black and white—by Lord Beaverbrook and The Times for the purpose of newspaper propaganda. It is nothing of the sort. It is a very vital

363
question, and all that the newspapers have I done is to give expression to what I venture to think is the popular opinion on the subject. Lord Chaplin seems to think that his ideas carry great preponderance with the majority of his fellow countrymen, and, so far as I can make out, it appears I to him that every man who has the brains of a rabbit must naturally agree with his point of view. Is that so? I think that proposition is very much open to question. It is very difficult to get to the bottom of anything, but may I deal for a moment with what I suppose people still call the opinion of the United Kingdom?
In England there are from forty to forty-six millions of people, I suppose, and, thanks to Free Trade, all of them are fairly well fed and most of them are meat eaters; I suppose we might call them by the old English name of beefeaters. Surely, amongst all those millions, living in congested towns sometimes, you would not find a great preponderance of opinion to back up the noble Viscount. There are people who, rightly or wrongly—I offer no opinion on the subject—consider that this Canadian embargo must and does increase the price of meat. The unfortunate Minister of Agriculture has had a reminder of that from the deputations which have bombarded him during the last week in an endeavour to make him see the matter through their eyes. Then we go to Scotland. As a whole—both as regards agriculturists and people who live in the towns—Scotland is against the embargo.
NOBLE LORDS: No.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I speak under correction, but I am informed that the great majority of the people of Scotland, agricultural and urban, are dead against the embargo. As regards Ireland, it is very difficult at present to know what Irish opinion really is on any matter under the sun, but on the subject of the importation of Canadian cattle I am informed by those best qualified to know—those who are Irishmen—that Ireland is understood to be most strongly against the removal of the embargo. But there is a difference of opinion about that. Let me quote what Mr. Prothero, as he was then, said on the Royal Commission to which so many references have been made. About Ireland he said—
"(The Irish Department) may make difficulties, but I do not think that they will, because,
364
as I say, the whole development of Irish farming is in favour of the breaking up of those great ranches on which the cattle were grazed, and from which they were sent over."
Even as regards Ireland there is a great difference of opinion. There is English opinion about Ireland, and there is Irish opinion. When people of that sort disagree, who is to decide?
THE EARL OF MAYO: There is no difference of opinion in Ireland itself.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I take that from the noble Earl, Lord Mayo. How about the three political Parties? May we, for one moment, consider what they think about it? Labour, I believe, is dead against the embargo. I do not think that I shall be contradicted about that. The attitude of the great Unionist Party is, I submit, as difficult to ascertain as Irish opinion.
LORD CARSON: There is no Unionist Party.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I am so glad to hear these interjections, because one lives and learns, and it is a great education. The opinion of that which Lord Carson has said is not the Unionist Party is difficult to ascertain. There used to be three distinct planks in the Tory platform in the good old days when Arthur Balfour, Harry Chaplin and Walter Long were pro-consuls—Consule Planco. There were several planks in the platform, and they are somehow or other, I am afraid, getting rather rotten. The Unionists have torn up the Union of Ireland. The House of Lords, of their own accord, have done away with the supremacy of their veto. The keeping out of Canadian cattle was a third plank in the platform—and a most important plank in the agricultural platform. The embargo, we understand, was introduced by the noble Viscount (who was originally Walter Long) more than twenty years ago, in 1896. That plank, as I understand, is now being pole-axed by the noble Viscount, Lord Long of Wraxall, himself the very man who introduced it. That I think is a double somersault, and one which has been wonderfully well executed. I congratulate the noble Viscount opposite upon landing safely on his legs in this House, for it is an acrobatic performance which might have been rivalled, but certainly could

365
not have been excelled, by the most experienced and daring saltimbanco that ever performed in a European circus.
Then, there is Liberal feeling. What am I to say about that? I think it is clear enough that Liberal feeling, journalistic and political, is entirely in favour of doing away with the embargo. As Free Traders, the Liberal Party naturally refuse to have anything to do with Protection, veiled or otherwise, and so strong is the feeling on the subject that in the great Election of 1906, when the Liberal Party came again into their own, with a majority of 350 over all other Parties in the House of Commons, almost all the leaders publicly stated that they would vote for any Bill for the removal of the embargo. So far as I remember there were Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Asquith, Lord Loreburn, Sir Edward Grey, Lord Tweed-mouth and many others. All were in favour of removing the embargo, and openly expressed their determination to vote in favour of a Bill if it were introduced into either House for the removal of this embargo.
It has been said—I was confronted with it two days ago—"if that be the case why on earth, when you had this greet majority, did you not remove the embargo yourselves?" The answer to that is plain enough. The Ministers were in favour of it, and would have voted for a Bill if it had been brought before them, but there never was any question of a pledge given by Cabinet Ministers collectively or individually on the subject. No pledge of any sort was given to the great Dominion of Canada, but if there had been such a pledge the Liberal Party would not have spent five years postponing it and whittling it away. If we had given a pledge at that time we should have carried it out in exactly the same way as we carried out the pledge that we gave to the great Commonwealth of South Africa. We told them that we would give them self-government. There was tremendous and most determined opposition to it in this country, but in spite of that we brought in a Bill and carried it in both Houses. It is generally recognised now that the action of the statesman, then familiarly known as "C.B.," saved the great Dominion for the British Empire.
I do not think I need detain the House at any greater length. There really seems to me no necessity at all for us on this side
366
of the House to speak. The speeches to which we shall all listen with great attention will be those of the members of the so-called Unionist Party. The situation now is entirely changed. In 1909, or 1910, foot-and-mouth disease, in spite of all precautions, broke out with great virulence and a large number of British cattle had to be slaughtered. The Coalition Government, in 1917, gave the famous pledge to Canada. It was given by Lord Ernle, ratified by Lord Long of Wraxall, who afterwards became Secretary of State for the Colonies, and confirmed in the Commons House of Parliament by Mr. Lloyd George, the Prime Minister, himself on March 10, 1921. There are all sorts of stories and rumours about new that this pledge is going to be whittled away. We are told that live cattle are to be allowed to land if they are quarantined for fourteen days. If that is true any fresh legerdemain of this sort must be most strongly resisted as Canadian irritation will only be increased by the production of such measures as that. Still, I suppose that has been thrust aside. Only this morning we had still more contradictory news.
It is simply a question of broken pledges, and we unfortunate agriculturists on this side of the House know full well what such pledges mean. We know how far we have been able to depend upon Coalition promises. We voted to a man during the war for a Protectionist measure introduced by Lord Ernie, the Food Production Act, as to which Lord Milnerin this House gave us the word of honour of the Government that it was a war measure, and that, in no circumstances could it or would it be introduced in time of peace. The Armistice had no sooner been signed than Lord Lee of Fareham brought in his Agriculture Bill. We fought that as well as we could, but we were beaten. It was a distinct breach of faith. Within six months the promise of 46 s. for wheat to the farmers and the minimum wage to the underpaid agricultural workers were repealed, and the landlords of England, the tenant farmers and the farm labourers, were thrown over and betrayed. I need not remind your Lordships of the fate of Lord Ernle's Act to put soldiers on the land. It is now in the course of being pole-axed on account of the expenditure—an expenditure which the Government realised before they brought it in.
The breaking of faith with one's own countrymen is bad; it is very bad. After

367
all, we have our resource; there is the ballot box in reserve. To break faith with our great Dominions, to break faith with the great Dominion of Canada, which in extent, if you exclude Alaska, is bigger than the whole of the United States and which in the days of England's need sent her sons to fight and die for this country, is unthinkable. For good or evil the Government—I suppose I must call them a Government—has given Canada a solemn pledge and at all costs, at all hazards, and whatever may be the result to certain individuals, that pledge must be kept and the Prime Minister must be made to stand by his words.
Amendment moved—
To leave out all words after ("that") and insert ("it is incumbent on His Majesty's Government to carry out their pledge made at the Imperial Conference in 1917 to remove the embargo on Canadian cattle.")—(The Marquess of Lincolnshire.)
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for the sympathetic reference he has made to the circumstances in which I address your Lordships this afternoon. I agree with him that the methods of a newspaper agitation may be distasteful but that in this case they have done a public service. They have called our attention to the strength of Canadian feeling on a question which has become one of serious gravity and Imperial importance. I do not, however, agree with the noble Marquess in his version of the pledge. There was a pledge undoubtedly given at the Imperial Conference of 1917. The obvious and simple interpretation of that pledge is that which the noble Marquess has placed upon it, but I do not think that that is an accurate interpretation. It is not my meaning. It is not the interpretation I put upon it within a few weeks of the Conference, and I do not believe it is consistent with the line of discussion followed in the Conference. That is the subject to which I shall confine myself; it is the only matter connected with this subject upon which I have that special knowledge which possibly will be of use to your Lordships in the discussion.
The pledge lies in the Resolution before the Conference. At the Conference the Canadian representatives did not ask us to reverse our domestic policy of exclusion. They made no request of that sort; they did not dispute our right to shut their
368
cattle out. They complained, not of exclusion as a fact in itself, but of the grounds on which that exclusion was based, and you will see in the White Paper that Sir Robert Borden says, in effect: "Make it a fiscal question, and it is a matter of domestic concern with which we shall not trouble ourselves." "Decide," says Mr. Rogers, "on a policy of Protection for your livestock industries, and we offer no complaint and make no opposition." The possibility of a reversal of our domestic policy of exclusion was not even raised by the Canadian representative. It was raised by me, for the reasons which I have explained in your Lordships' House, and in my evidence before the Royal Commission. I founded the possibility of a change upon two express conditions. Those two conditions were—first, that there should be a very large extension of tillage in the United Kingdom; and, second, the assent of Ireland. Those two conditions were before the Conference throughout. They were present in the minds of the Canadian representatives at the time that the Resolution was put, and, for that reason, I have always thought, and I believe my successors in office have always thought, that there was no definite pledge to reverse our domestic policy of exclusion.
There was, I admit, a promise, contingent upon a change in our agricultural circumstances, and conditional upon my obtaining an authority the possession of which I, at the time, specifically disclaimed. If that is not the pledge, is there one? I have no doubt whatever that a pledge was given, and the scope and meaning of that pledge must be looked for in the course of the discussion and in the context of time and circumstances. In 1917 the Canadian representatives did not, as I have said, complain of our shutting out their cattle. The reason is obvious. They had at that time complete command of the United States market, and they had used it to such an extent that, in the autumn of 1916, the chief livestock officer of the Dominion had been instructed by his Minister to recover some of the breeders and stockers with which they had parted It was my knowledge of that fact, with other reasons, that impelled me to give Canada a timely warning that, in certain circumstances, we might want every store that Canada could send to this country. But, though the Canadian representatives did not complain of the fact of exclusion, they complained of the ground upon which it

369
was based. Canada was justly proud of the exceptional health of her cattle, and she considered that a grave injustice had been done when they were excluded from this country on the score of disease. The slur, the stigma, created a sore, which rankled and festered. There was a grievance bitterly and widely felt. It was strongly resented in that country. That was the point upon which the Canadian representatives insisted, and the removal of the slur was the point for which the Canadian representatives pressed us.
If I might use a very homely illustration, I think I can bring before your Lordships the feeling of Canada upon that subject. Supposing the wife of a London artisan, justly proud of the cleanliness of her house and the wholesomeness of her children, took her son to a board school, and asked for his admission. If the manager said to her: "My school is overcrowded; you must go elsewhere," she would probably grumble at the inconvenience, but if the manager said to her: "Your son is suffering from ringworm, and I cannot, have him in the school, lest he infect the school," she would furiously resent the insult. I do not claim that my illustration is a dignified one, but this, mutatis mutandis, was the position of Canada. She did not feel the practical difficulty, because she had this large market at her doors. It was the sentimental grievance which created the sore, and, right away through the Conference, that was the point made by the Canadian representatives. In the few sentences which precede the Resolution, you will see that that is the point to which Mr. Rogers recurs. He says: "Remove this stigma against us; cure the old sore and the old grievance." The removal of that slur was demanded by the Canadian representative, not as a concession, not as a favour, not as a term in any bargain, but as a bare act of justice, and the reparation of a wrong done by the Mother Country to the Dominion.
Years ago I had come to the conclusion that the Canadian case was right. I thought that the original case on which our action was taken was wrongly diagnosed. I thought that there was a quite honest divergence of opinion between our country and theirs. I thought that we were, in 1896, horrified by the shambles of the Argentine cattle ships, and I thought that, with perfect sincerity of purpose
370
and on the advice of honest and competent experts, we were not unwilling to find evidence which should justify a policy that should prevent for all time the recurrence of those horrors. It was a happy mistake for us, but it was a mistake all the same. In normal times, I do not deny that I might, in my official sense of expediency, have allowed it to overrule my personal sense of justice. I might have returned the stereotyped official answer.
But in 1917 the request for the removal of that slur was made in exceptional circumstances. I do not know if the noble Viscount who, as Colonial Secretary, took the chair at the Conference, may be able to enlarge upon those circumstances. I do not feel myself able to do so. I can only put the matter thus. We met at that Conference with that desire to remove misunderstanding which was naturally engendered by close comradeship in a life and death struggle for the nation and the Empire. I wished to give the Canadian representatives everything that they asked, to do it fully, to do it unconditionally. I wished to sweep away, so far as the machinery of our policy of exclusion went, all the allegations of disease, to admit to the full the doubtfulness of the original case. That is the thing to which I pledged myself, and that is the pledge which was given at the Conference. It is a pledge, to abandon all the allegations of disease, and the restrictions and grounds of the embargo, that are founded on disease, and to recognise in the fullest and frankest manner possible the health of Canadian cattle. I did throw out a suggestion that we might best emphasise our sense of the cleanliness of Canadian cattle, and best repair the wrong of which Canada complained, and do her the act of justice for which she asked, by introducing into this country for a limited time a limited number of Canadian stores.
I am one of those—I regret that I differ in that respect from the noble Viscount—who think that Canadian cattle could be admitted into this country with reasonable safety. I do not say the same absolute safety that you get from absolute exclusion, but reasonable safety. But at the Conference I took care not to pledge myself on that subject. I said quite definitely: "If we do take action in that respect then something or other is going to happen." I should not be honest with your Lordships if I did not say that I came to the con-

371
clusion within the next two years that it was the best way to do it —that we should in that way satisfy Canadian feeling, and yet be able to retain our domestic policy—and if I had remained in office I should have tried to bring in a measure of that sort, probably have failed, and then resigned. That was my feeling.
All through the period while I remained in office, however, I could not have done that, and for an obvious reason. There was not enough food in the country to keep our own cattle alive, and it was a miracle of resourcefulness on the part of our farmers that they were kept alive during the war. Therefore, when I was asked whether I would do anything of the sort, I always said that it was inopportune. If I was asked to reverse our domestic policy and bring in Canadian cattle I replied that the agricultural circumstances had never arisen on which my promise was based, and I venture to think that in that matter I was perfectly consistent.
I think, and I do not hesitate to say, that I made a serious mistake at the Conference in giving silent consent to the Resolution. I have not the haziest recollection of what was in my mind at the time, but I think what I ought to have said was this: "That Resolution, so far as it relates to the removal of the slur, I accept all along the line, and absolutely unconditionally, but so far as it relates to the removal of the embargo—I hate that word and think it is thoroughly misleading—so far as it relates to the reversal of our domestic policy of exclusion, I can only agree to it on the two conditions I have specified." If I had only said that all this misunderstanding would not have occurred. The point of my speech simply conies to this: I do not agree with the noble Marquess that, in discussing this question, we are bound to honour reluctantly a disputed pledge, alleged to have been given by an unauthorised Minister. I do not think that is the case. I think that we are bound by what passed at that Conference to honour the pledge I have indicated to you, and I very much regret that we have done nothing beyond a verbal expression now and then to remove the slur.
Meanwhile, not only our own position but the position of Canada has profoundly altered. Our own position has altered since the Royal Commission ceased its sittings. Southern Ireland is now in the same
372
position, whatever she may be technically and legally, as the free Dominion of Canada. She is a free State, and although I can imagine that it might be held at law that Ireland is still entitled to be in the position in which she was in 1896, I confess that I doubt whether you would convince many Canadians of the truth of that argument. We have changed in another way. I cannot conceive, for instance, that Lord Lee of Fareham could ever with any show of consistency have reversed our domestic policy of exclusion. I do not think he could, nor do I think I could, because first I and then he were bent on making this country more self-supporting, and to take away from the stock-breeder what you were on the other hand giving to the arable farmer would have been too inconsistent even for the Coalition Government.
Canada also has changed profoundly. She has abandoned her policy of 1917, which was to develop the chilled and frozen meat trade, and for that purpose to keep up her head of cattle. The Western States of Canada, which are the cattle-rearing States, have asserted their political influence. She is in danger of losing the markets which she had in 1917, owing to the fiscal policy of the United States. She has indefinitely postponed the policy of finishing her own cattle, and to-day she asks us to reverse our domestic policy and take in her cattle as stores. She asks it, as the noble Marquess reminds us, on the faith of the plain and obvious meaning, detached from its context, of the Resolution of the Conference, and the mischief that I think we have done by not taking some action in this matter is that for five years we have allowed that Resolution to stand before the Canadian people, without its context, and probably, I imagine, with phrases that might have been taken out of my own language and without the safeguards contained in the context. We have stood by while Canadian feeling has been strengthened and has risen to a height which I seriously think we must, in the consideration of our domestic industry, look at carefully and decide upon very deliberately, in view not merely of our own national interests but in the interests of the Empire.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKEXHEAB): My Lords, I rise for the briefest possible space of time, not so much to indicate the attitude of the Government—because the attitude of the Government

373
is comparable to the snakes in Iceland, of which it was said "There are none"—but to explain my own individual position. It is perfectly true that the Government decided here and in the House of Commons to leave the matter, without putting on the Party Whips, to the unfettered decision of both Houses of Parliament. The noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, has spoken with disapproval of that practice. He referred to these days when decisions are left by Cabinets to Parliament upon the "go-as-you-please" principle. Well, I am never quite sure whether the noble Marquess is making a grave or humorous contribution to our debates and I am frequently left in doubt as to whether his real purpose is to pass some substantial censure upon the unworthy stewards of the affairs of the country or merely to give the rein to some acceptable or agreeable badinage.
If it is the purpose of the noble Marquess to indulge in a serious censure I might perhaps be bold enough to remind him that for some forty years the fundamental issue of Free Trade and Protection was left as an open question by the Government in both Houses of Parliament, and that the question of Catholic emancipation— a question not less grave than that under debate to-day—was, similarly, left by many Governments of the Party to which the noble Marquess belonged as an open question. And I seem to remember that the Cabinet of which the noble Marquess was a conspicuous ornament left the grave question of female suffrage year by year to the House to be dealt with in precisely the same manner. And for that decision the noble Marquess was, of course, responsible.
I was, I confess, somewhat puzzled by the noble Marquess's interesting historical exegesis of what happened after the year 1906 in relation to this matter. The noble Marquess recounted with pardonable historical pride that the Party to which he belonged came back with a majority, I think he said, of 350 over all the other Parties in the House, and that all the important Ministers, including, by necessary inference, the noble Marquess, were in favour of the abolition of this embargo. Then the noble Marquess, if he will allow me to say so, with great mental agility, anticipating a possible question, said: "I shall perhaps be asked, 'If you were all in favour of it, why did not you introduce legislation to carry it out?'" He said the answer was perfectly plain. To my
374
obtuse mind it appeared less perspicuous than to the noble Marquess. He said: "We had not given a pledge." But, if they were all agreed, it the matter possessed the importance which obviously the noble Marquess, to-day, thinks it did, and which he thought then that it did, was not it possible for that great Party, led by these great men, having as its instrument an immense majority—was it not possible for them to do anything in relation to which they had not given a specific pledge? I can assure the noble Marquess, if his memory is so great a traitor in this matter, that they did many things in those fateful years in regard to which they had given no pledge before the Election.
But I will only make this observation. I am not in a position to speak for the Government. The noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture in this House is equally not in a position to speak for the Government. And the reason is this. There are formidable currents of opinion in the country, represented not only in this House, but in the House of Commons, cutting clean athwart any principle of Party division which is known either in this House or in another place. Fifty instances could be given, fifty justifications could be cited where that has been so, where no great question of Party principle has been affected, where a matter has been left to the unassisted decision and discretion of Parliament.
I rose, however, to state what my own individual position is. I was asked at the last General Election whether I intended to vote in favour of the removal of this embargo. I say quite plainly that I knew very little about the matter. I knew, of course, of the Parliamentary history of the controversy, but I had no claim to have formed, or to state, an informed opinion I remember once saying, with a considerable measure of truth, in the House of Commons, that I was the only lawyer in that assembly who was not an expert upon agriculture, and I retain this claim in your Lordships' House. I know little of cattle, and I might say with one who wrote long ago that quae cura boum qui cultus habendi sit pecori are mysteries shared between the noble Viscount and the noble Marquess into which I make no attempt to obtrude myself.
But when I was asked this question in the Election of 1918, which followed the

375
war, I took the trouble to write to London and ask what was the position of the Government and of the Ministry of Agriculture in relation to the matter. I was supplied with certain information and I had, as it now appears, the extreme misfortune to give a definite promise to those whe were good enough at that Election to return me to the House of Commons, that, if so returned, I should vote in favour of the removal of the embargo. And I cannot hold myself discharged from the obligations of that promise because the matter comes up in this House, and not in the other House. I was supported in that promise by material which was supplied to me, and supplied, if my recollection does not mislead me, by the Ministry of Agriculture, the representative of which in this House will presently inform your Lordships, with great weight and authority, that the Ministry of Agriculture to-day takes an entirely different view.
The noble Lord, Lord Ernle, who has laid us all under great obligations, has, if he will allow me to say so, done great injustice, not to the general atmosphere, of which he said something, but to what he himself specifically said—to what is on record in the Blue-book as having been said by him, and what, I think, has never since, until to-day, been contradicted by him. But before I read it I would add that, with all the clarity of speech which never forsakes the noble Lord, whether he employs his tongue or his pen, I am left in considerable doubt now—and I listened with the greatest attention—as to what his view really is. He says it is a great pity that we did not tell Canada that we should remove the slur. If I may say so I was not greatly impressed by what I may call the ringworm illustration, because if a woman, in the circumstances indicated by the noble Lord, were to take her child to a school and the child was rejected on the ground that it was suffering from ringworm, if the child had not got ringworm I agree she might reasonably feel incensed. Does the noble Lord think that she would not feel incensed if the schoolmaster said: "I will not take your child, and I will not give yon any reason at all." I assure the noble Lord that I do not wish to appraise these pathological inconveniences or to weigh them in the scales against the moral objection, but if such a thing happened to my child I am not at all sure which I should regard as more serious.
376
The real truth is that Canada never really objected merely to the slur. They are men of business in Canada, and what they wanted was the removal of the thing. Whether they were right then, and whether they are right now, for the life of me I do not know, because I am not an agriculturist, and that is why I informed my mind of what the noble Lord said. These were his words—
"As far as I personally am concerned, and so far as the English Board of Agriculture is concerned, after the war is over, of course, because it is not an economical mode of bringing meat to this country during the war to bring over live animals, we should, I consider, be wise to remove the embargo."
So far, I agree there is no pledge; but what there is there is a clear statement of the view of the noble Lord that is immensely authoritative on the matter, repeated by him to-day, and reinforced by the authority of the Board of Agriculture of that day, that they would be wise to remove this embargo. I listened to that, as I was bound to do, with great respect.
Then the noble Lord, later, in the same speech, said—
"And I can assure you that so far as the English Board of Agriculture is concerned, we are in favour of the removal of the embargo. We do not believe that there is now, or has been for a good many years past, the slightest ground to exclude Canadian cattle on the score of disease."
The noble Lord must really let me say, as a humble candidate for Parliament, that when I received this message I was entitled to draw certain definite inferences and to give certain explicit pledges. And the inference I was entitled to draw was that neither the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, nor the then Board of Agriculture, thought there was the slightest ground for excluding Canadian cattle. There was nothing in what was said then to affect that in the slightest degree. There is nothing, if I may say so with the profoundest respect, in what has fallen from the noble Lord to-day to affect it in the slightest degree.
Another old friend of mine, a man of great authority in these matters, the noble Viscount, Lord Long (then Mr. Walter Long), made some remarks at the Conference, with the weight with which he must always speak on this topic, and I must say, in passing, before I address myself to his speech, that I suppose there is something in the indictment which the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, made against Lord Long,

377
that in this question in a period of some thirty years in which, as the noble Marquess told us himself, things have altered so much, in which Canada has grown up from the kind of community which was referred to in his interesting speech by Lord Chaplin, who roamed there for some six months, into the sophisticated community that it is—in those thirty years he has discovered that the noble Viscount, Lord Long, has modified his views. If he had not done so, if on the contrary he had imitated the laudable and unbroken consistency of the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, during the same time, he would have been unworthy of the offices which he has successively held with so much success and of his place in this House to-day.
This is what Lord Long said—and this, again, was available to me for my guidance—
"As far as I am concerned, as my name has been brought into it, I can only say that I entirely agree with Mr. Prothero's policy."
It seems to me that the circumstances of the noble Lord, Lord Ernie, were that he was not only wrong himself but he was seducing his colleague. Lord Long went on to say—
"I think the time that has elapsed has shown that Canada has had a complete and clean bill of health during that time.…Now the position is that the restriction is to be removed."
That is what the noble Viscount, Lord Long, said, and Lord Ernle sat there, and the Canadians sat there, while the noble Viscount said "the position is that the restriction is to be removed." This was the information which I had. Lord Long said—
"Now the position is that the restriction is to be removed, and the Board of Agriculture will take such steps as are necessary for this purpose."
This in the presence of the Board of Agriculture! We have now another head of what was then the Board of Agriculture, and as these chameleon transformations of policy are bewildering, their exposition will be interesting.
Then Mr. Rogers asked—
"Do not you think we should have a Resolution about it?"
He was evidently a cautious representative or, perhaps, he had been following this problem for a considerable period of time. To that Lord Long replied—
"You do not want a Resolution, do you?—or if you like you can simply move that the embargo
378
on Canadian cattle be removed as speedily as possible.
"Mr. Rogers: I beg to move that.
"Mr. Walter Long: Mr. Prothero accepts that, and there is an end of it."
So that, in the presence of Lord Ernle and with the high authority of Lord Long, the representatives of Canada were assured that the Resolution was accepted by the British Government and that there was an end of the matter. They believed it, and they went home and informed the Canadian I Government that there was an end of the matter.
They little knew us. The matter was very shortly afterwards revived, and it I became quite plain that there was by no I means an end of the matter. A Question was addressed to the Prime Minister on March 15, 1921, by a deputation of agricultural members, protesting against the removal of the embargo, and the Prime Minister pointed out that what amounted to a pledge had been given by Lord Ernie and Mr. Walter Long. On the next day a specific Question was addressed to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, and this is what he said in reply—
"In view of the pledge which was given to Canada at the Imperial Conference in 1917, the Government proposes to set up an impartial Inquiry as to whether the embargo could be removed without inflicting serious injury on the agricultural industry."
If I may make a comment upon and a most friendly criticism of the attitude of the Government of which I am a humble member, I would say that that sentence appears to be a little lacking in logic. I think it should have read in this way: "In view of the pledge to Canada at the Imperial Conference in 1917 His Majesty's Government intend to carry it out."
But, ex abundanti cautela, a Commission was set up and, as it was a purely technical matter, my noble and learned friend, Lord Finlay, was made Chairman, a duty which he discharged, as all who know him would imagine he would, with great impartiality and ability. What was the result? This Commission unanimously reported that the embargo ought to be removed. After this, I who know nothing whatever about it and have drawn information from any and every scanty rill I could find, from the pronouncements of successive heads of the Board of Agriculture in this important matter, who pledged my word to my own constituents on the matter, am now prepared to say to Canada: "It is quite

379
true that Lord Ernie gave a pledge when he was at the head of the Board of Agriculture; it is quite true that Lord Long assented to that pledge; it is quite true that the Prime Minister admitted that there was a pledge; it is quite true that the Royal Commission reported that the pledge ought to be carried out, but at the same time all we are prepared to do is to remove the slur, and we are going to do it, on the cattle as far as we can and to say that there is not a stain on the character of any single bull in Canada." Having some knowledge of our Canadian fellow subjects, I am wholly unable to believe that they will derive as much satisfaction as is hurriedly supposed from this solatium.
I am in this position. I have given a pledge. I shall adhere to that pledge, and I am enormously supported in my adherence to that pledge by the knowledge that agricultural authorities of the highest eminence are equally divided upon it. While the doctors are squabbling around the deathbed the patient may be allowed to form an opinion of his own. I am informed that the agriculturists in Scotland are not in agreement on this question at this moment. My authority for that statement is the Secretary for Scotland who supplied me with details in great quantity, and who will make some observations on the matter when it is raised in another place. I do not say that his observations will be in quite the same form as my own, because he is much more informed than I am and will be able to deal with the matter with greater knowledge and in greater detail. I have the happiness of knowing that I shall continue to have the guidance which Lord Ernle gave me in days that are past, and I shall also have the benefit of the knowledge possessed by many of the greatest agriculturists in this House.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I hope I may for a few moments address your Lordships on this subject. I have no authority to speak for anyone, and I speak merely as a private member of your Lordships' House. But during the past few years I have had opportunities of informing myself upon various aspects of this most disputed question. I venture to hope that your Lordships will realise that, deep and strong as my regard for Canada is, I have almost an older affection—namely, that of my connection with various breeding societies. My very earliest recollections take me back to the
380
time when I was intimately acquainted with a herd with which some of your Lordships may still be familiar, or which you may remember. But, even if I felt that I might be going against the interests of Canada, I certainly, if I thought there was the slightest danger to the breeding stock of this country, should not hesitate as to which line to take. As it is, having made myself as acquainted as I possibly could with conditions throughout Canada, I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that I see no danger in allowing a free admission of Canadian-bred cattle into this country.
It is unnecessary, I hope, after what has fallen from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and after the somewhat critical and searching examination of and comparison between the speech which we heard from Lord Ernie this afternoon and the Report of the Imperial Conference, for me to follow in those footsteps. I can only inform your Lordships that when the Canadian representatives, Sir Robert Borden and Mr. Rogers, returned to Canada after the Imperial Conference, they had not got the slightest doubt in their minds that what was intended was not some mere lip service as to the immunity of Canadian herds from disease, but a bona fide effort by the Government to bring forward that legislation which would be necessary to remove the restrictions operating against Canadian cattle. They may have been right, or they may have been wrong, but at any rate they had not the slightest hesitation as to the impression which had been left in their minds.
I may, incidentally, refer here to the statement of Lord Ernie just now that Canadian policy had changed. It is true that the policy which has been adopted, with Government support, for the building of abattoirs and cold storage in, I think, Montreal and Quebec, has been abandoned. It has not been abandoned on account of what passed at the Imperial Conference here, but in the hope and belief that that work, which was originated or sanctioned by the Canadian Government, was not necessary in view of the removal of the restrictions which were operating against the importation of Canadian-bred cattle into this country. If the policy of the British Parliament is to maintain the restrictions against Canadian - bred cattle I have absolutely no doubt that that policy of

381
increasing the cold storage will be adhered to. I may, in a moment, or two, add something on that point.
I would refer next to a word which has taken considerable hold on the public imagination during the course of these discussions, and that is the word "slur." Your Lordships must have no misapprehension on this point. There is more than a sentimental grievance in the use of this word. I have seen steers prepared and ready to be sent over to Europe. They were sent over, and I believe they were looked at with a good deal of admiration, arising from the way in which they had been prepared and the condition in which they arrived on this side of the Atlantic. But again and again, in efforts that have been made in Canada to create an overseas trade, this has been cast in the teeth of Canadians: "How can you expect other countries to take your cattle when the Mother Country insists on refusing to have them?"
I wish to assure your Lordships that I am not exaggerating when I say that very considerable importance indeed is attached to the removal of this "slur," not merely from the sentimental point of view, but from the actual effect upon the conditions of trade. I have no authority to speak on behalf of anyone in Canada, but I am certain that if any reasonable bona fide suggestions could be made for further inspection for the better control of Canadian herds, those suggestions would be favourably received. I do not wish to disguise the fact that recent changes in the United States tariff have made it essential that fresh markets should be opened, and Canada is quite prepared, if suggestions are made with the bona fide intention of removing any difficulties which may exist to-day, to consider the suggestions in the most favourable manner possible.
But this question is not merely a Canadian question. Apart altogether from whether a pledge was given or not, there is another aspect which, I believe, is still more important. Some of your Lordships may have had the privilege, which I had last, week, of seeing the parade of prizewinners in the Royal show at Cambridge. It was a sight which probably could not be equalled anywhere in the world. There were representatives of almost every breed of cattle raised in this country, and a most remarkable show they made. But, good as the show was actually in the ring, as one went
382
about one heard, in ordinary conversation, that while there was an amazing collection of cattle, there was no trade. One was told that the bottom had fallen out of the market, and that the prospects were about as bad as they could be.
Sometimes I think that we in this country hardly realise the enormous assets that we possess. Whether it is due to the natural quality of the soil, or to the long experience which we have gained, whatever reason may be the true one—probably there is a collection of reasons—there is absolutely no doubt that we are the only country capable of producing that stock which is necessary not merely for the foundation but for the renewal of herds elsewhere. To-day, for various reasons, very considerable changes have taken place in agricultural matters, especially in Western Canada. More and more it is becoming obvious that the old methods of continuous cropping are bound to result in a very serious deterioration of the soil. In fact, the surprise, is that worse results have not occurred already. Again and again I heard the same sort of statement, that there were too many farmers in Western Canada who are following the example of the other side of the line, where the land is not farmed but mined; that is to say, when everything the soil can produce has been taken out, the land is left derelict, and the farmers move elsewhere.
There is an obvious danger of that taking place, to-day in Canada. It is possible, of course, to secure artificial manures and put something back into the land, but undoubtedly in the mind of most Canadian farmers, especially in the Prairie Provinces, is a closer and more intensive cultivation and a big development of mixed farming. If any encouragement is given them, we in this country—we are the only country that can provide them with what they want—will see a big demand in the course of the next few years for the highest class of our stock to act as the foundation stock; and they will return to this country for stock for renewal purposes. If the old country can do something to help them in developing their trade, there is no reason why steps should not be taken which would be equally beneficial to the breeders of stock in this country and to the breeders of stock in Canada, especially in the Prairie Provinces.

383
There is only one other aspect of this question that I shall venture to place before your Lordships. It is universally admitted that the proportion of frozen meat to fresh meat is rapidly rising in this country. The growth of the population and the growing necessities and requirements of the milk and dairy produce are probably operating in that way. Since I returned from Canada I have been endeavouring to get hold of a most interesting and illuminating Report of the proceedings of the Committee of Congress appointed in the year 1917 for the purpose of investigating the operations of the Meat Trust of Chicago. Unfortunately, I have not been able to get hold of that Report, but it is one which we could study with considerable benefit from the point of cattle breeding and other industries.
In this country we are using more and more frozen meat. I have never yet received a satisfactory answer to all the inquiries I have made as to why we are not able to provide a far greater proportion of that than we do. Instead of receiving our meat, as we do, from the Argentine and the stock yards of Chicago, I see no reason why we should not do the rearing and finishing, and all the incidental work, connected with cold storage plant, and receive the benefits of the by-products. There is a great opening in this direction, and even if we are unable to carry sufficient stock for our own purposes, so far as frozen meat is concerned, it should be possible to admit stores from Canada which could be utilised for the purpose. I understand that one of the reasons why it is difficult to use animals slaughtered at the port for immediate cold storage is that it is necessary they should have a period of time—three weeks would be the most—in order to get over the effects of the voyage. With co-operation between ourselves and the Dominion an industry of considerable advantage could be built up. If your Lordships reject the Motion of Lord Chaplin it would restore confidence, create an infinitely better feeling, and tend to remove that unfavourable impression that exists at the moment—I do not wish to disguise it from your Lordships—and also show that you are fully determined not only to maintain the pledge but to do something towards a closer connection and co-operation between the Mother Country and Canada.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Duke has made a serious speech,
384
speaking with much authority and from a most valuable experience. The subject is, indeed, a serious one, and he has in a great degree removed- the debate from the atmosphere of comedy in which it was invested, to some extent, by the Lord Chancellor. There are only two points which arouse any serious interest in the mind of the public. The first is whether a pledge was really given in 1917 by the Government—not by an individual Minister, who obviously cannot give a pledge to amend an Act of Parliament—in favour of the admission of cattle from abroad. The noble Lord, Lord Ernle, has explained very fully the circumstances in which that so-called pledge was given. I understood that he regarded it as a contingent pledge, dependent upon certain circumstances, which, as a matter of fact, never occurred, and although he would have been glad, having said what he did, that for a certain period a limited number of Canadian cattle should have been expressly admitted, yet he does not regard the Government or the country as pledged to the free admission of cattle from abroad.
I have a certain sympathy with the position of the noble Lord because some of my friends and I find ourselves subjected to a very similar sort of criticism in connection with the Economic Conference in Paris in 1916. At that time we agreed to certain Resolutions as to the steps that were to be taken by the Allied Powers, France, Belgium, Italy and ourselves, in certain contingencies. They involved, or might involve, in certain cases fiscal action contrary to the view which Mr. Asquith and Mr. Runciman, the other Ministers concerned, and I held. The contingencies never came into play, and, consequently, the expressed intentions of those Resolutions have been completely neglected by the present Government as well as by ourselves. And yet we are always being told, whenever we object to any advance in the direction of Protection or of a tariff against imported goods: "Look what you did when you were one of the people responsible for the Paris Resolutions." Similarly, I think that the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ernie, finds himself open to a construction of what he said in 1917 which is not altogether fair. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack quoted certain isolated sentences from what Lord Ernle then said, altogether ignoring the qualifications of the context.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Marquess suggest that there is anything in the whole of what was said by Lord Ernle which in any way qualifies the passage which I selected for reading? I can assure him that there is none, and I have given the deepest attention to the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble and learned Viscount was, of course, entirely within his right in saying that those particular sentences had forced him, at a particular time, to join in a pledge for the raising of this embargo, but the noble Viscount, at any rate, paid no attention to the very careful and elaborate explanation of the circumstances which Lord Ernie gave us in his speech. The question of the pledge is one which, as I say, is of interest to public opinion here. Everybody will agree that, if an absolute pledge was given by the Government, that pledge has to be honoured. There can be no kind of dispute upon that subject on the part of anybody, however unfortunate he may consider the consequent action. But I confess that I am one of those who cannot see that anything in the nature of an absolute pledge was given, and I cannot, therefore, agree that it is necessary to take any action on the subject now.
The second point, and, so far as I know, the only other point which interests the public, is whether the introduction of these store cattle will reduce the price of meat. That, as Lord Lincolnshire has said, is the only point in which the majority of the inhabitants of this country are interested. They have been told that beef will go down 6d. a pound directly the embargo is removed. The right honourable gentleman the Minister for Agriculture lost his seat at Dudley on that statement. I am bound to agree, speaking as one who is altogether opposed to an alteration of the law, that, if it could be shown that there would be a substantial fall in the price of beef as the result of repealing the Diseases of Animals Act, it would be extremely difficult to stand out and oppose it on behalf of a single section of the community—namely, the farmers who breed cattle. But not only is that claim of a fall in the price of meat not proved, but it is known not to be true. Nobody can bring forward any valid argument to show that the introduction of 100,000, or, if you like, 200,000 lean cattle from Canada would have any
386
but the slightest effect on the price of beef, and that is made absolutely clear in the I report of the Royal Commission.
As regards the interests concerned, the consumer, as an abstract and cold-blooded person, cares nothing for the relative I interests of the person who breeds the cattle and the other person who fattens them. It is a question as between the material interests of two trades. If the consumer is a soft-hearted man, he will be to some extent moved by the fact that the man who is going to be damaged is the small man, the small farmer or small-holder who is a breeder, whereas the man who is going to benefit is either the substantial grazier or the well-to-do salesman in the meat market. But, qua consumer, the only point that interests the inhabitant of this country is the price of beef.
One statement has been made which I desire to contradict. It is said that the opposition to the change in the law is mainly fostered by a few producers of pedigree cattle of the different fattening breeds concerned, such as shorthorns, polled Angus or Herefords, and that it is a selfish fear of the importation of cattle which makes them prominent in the matter. That, of course, is perfectly absurd. It is a matter of complete indifference to the owner of a pedigree herd what are the numbers of lean cattle admitted to this country, provided he can feel reasonably sure that they will not bring any of the dangerous cattle diseases with them. He has nothing to do with the supply of fat cattle for this country. His business is that which was described by the noble Duke, namely, that of breeding the best possible stock, and exporting it, as he hopes, at high prices to different parts of the world.
What the breeders do object to is one possibility which has not been mentioned by any advocate of the change in the law. The different breeding societies have been working hard for a number of years past, and working with great success, for an improvement of the average animals, the farmer's animals, of each particular breed. The standard in all those breeds I have mentioned has been vastly improved of late years, owing to the action of the larger breeders in supplying bulls. There undoubtedly is a fear that, if the indiscriminate importation of cattle—female cattle in addition to steers—is permitted, a great deal of that work might be rendered

387
nugatory by the indiscriminate use of such animals by farmers who are attracted by cheapness, and do not know their own best interests. That is the only interest, so far as I know, that the scientific breeders of cattle have in this matter, and of course, although everything that has been said about the immunity of Canada from pleuropneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease is true, and much as the Dominion is to be congratulated on that fact, yet there are other diseases, such as tuberculosis, and, more particularly, that most sinister malady of contagious abortion, of which the importation is undoubtedly dreaded by those who know the facts.
There is one further argument which I know affects many people—namely, what I might call the humanitarian argument of the circumstances in which store cattle are transhipped. That, I think, was mentioned by Lord Ernle, and it has its bearing on the particular question. I think it cannot be disputed that there is a greater risk of the careless shipping of lean rough animals, brought over to be sold as store cattle for feeding, than of cattle brought over fat to be slaughtered at the port of disembarkation. I do not know whether that argument may appeal to many of your Lordships, but it does appeal, I know, to a great many people, and it is by no means without substance.
I am sorry to be parted for once in a way from my noble friend, Lord Lincolnshire. He, I thought, as the Lord Chancellor pointed out, trod on rather dangerous ground when he spoke of what happened when he and I came into office with Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1905. It is unquestionably true that the subject of altering the law—although my noble friend believes the need for alteration to be founded on the sternest Liberal principles, and is almost inclined to drum me out of the Liberal Party for taking an opposite view—never was raised during the whole of those years. My noble friend was a most skilful and active Minister of Agriculture, but I cannot recollect, and I think I can trust my memory on that point, that he ever made any suggestion m that direction during the years when we were colleagues.
Now I only want to ask one or two questions about what it is that is actually proposed, for no speaker so far has indicated what amendment in the law it is proposed to make. It is all very well
388
to make a sort of after-luncheon speech of sympathy with Canada, and allusions to what indeed can never be forgotten—namely, the part that Canada played in the war—but what I think the agricultural community will want to know is what it is that you actually propose to do. Do you propose to repeal the Act of 1896 altogether? Or do you mean to bring in a short Act of Parliament applying only to Canada and to no other part of the world, or any other part of His Majesty's Dominions? Or do you propose to bring in an Act facilitating the importation of cattle from other parts of the Empire—from the Dominions and from the Crown Colonies? That, of course, would be a measure of Imperial Preference, which would be attractive to many, but which Lord Lincolnshire would dislike. As a Free Trader he would undoubtedly say that what you do for the Empire you undoubtedly ought to do for the whole world. Or, to put the question in another way, are you going simply to return to the system of licences?—that is to say, to place on the Ministry of Agriculture the whole burden of deciding whether, at any particular time, cattle may be admitted from any individual country.
This is a question of considerable importance, because you may very easily be misleading your Canadian friends into supposing that their case can be treated as a purely isolated one, and that it is possible to legislate for them without legislating for other parts of the world. The Government, as we know, is not united on this question, and I have no doubt that the present Minister of Agriculture would not agree to bring in a repealing measure at all. But I think that those who speak so confidently of the necessity of doing something ought to make it clear to us, who do not share their view, exactly what that something is. I agree that in all human probability you could ship a very large number of cattle from Canada without any real risk of introducing disease, but I do not think, having had some experience of administration, that you will be able to stop there. You will immediately get a demand from South Africa; of that I am pretty sure. I think you will probably get it from other parts of the world. You may get it to some extent even from distant Australia. That would be followed, I think, by some demand from friendly countries in Europe, and also from the United States. All, therefore, I think you can possibly do, if you are going

389
to alter the law, is to say that any country which is able to show that for a fixed period, whatever that period may be, it has been immune from disease, will be entitled to import cattle without restriction into this country. I venture to think that that would be a very retrograde action.
The noble Duke who spoke last does not share my views on that subject, but he did develop with great power the thesis on which I should like to insist, that this country has by now really become the stud farm of the world and the stock farm of the world, and that we could go on supplying the best individuals of six or eight breeds of cattle, to say nothing of horses and pigs, without ever again importing any bull or cow into this country. Alter all, it has been done in the Channel Islands, with great success, for about 300 years, where two breeds have been kept absolutely separate, and everybody who has a herd of either in England has to go back every second generation or so to buy a bull from the Islands. That being so, I cannot help thinking that it really is not worth while to alter your whole policy into one of importation. If you could take the Canadian question alone, and if you could confine the importation to bullocks, I dare say it would be hard to argue against it. But I do not understand that that particular aspect of the question has been considered. Believing, as I do, that the whole question is a very much wider one than has been indicated by any speaker so far, I shall be obliged to give my vote for the Motion of the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, as I had the honour to preside over the Conference to which more than one allusion has been made, and as I also was responsible for the Act of 1896, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words in this discussion. I confess, as an old war horse, that I have been very much tempted to enter some of those interesting fields which have been approached by the noble Marquess who moved the Amendment and by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition. Very interesting discussions might be held by us in reference to those questions which affect the Party to which the noble Marquess belongs or in reference to the Paris Resolutions or any other of those interesting questions upon which so much discussion has taken place,
390
with so very little result up to the present time; but I forbear.
It is not even necessary for me to deal with the extremely good-natured, humorous criticisms of myself which the noble Marquess delivered, because the Lord Chancellor has already. I think, covered that ground. But I must say that I did listen with amazement to the noble Marquess, who has been for so many years a pillar of the great Liberal Party and, I know, has frequently described himself as a real democrat, attacking poor me because at the end of thirty years I have admitted that science has added to our knowledge of this particular quest-ion, as it has of a great many others. The noble Marquess charges me with changing my views. That is a charge which I do not think it necessary to stop now to dispute. But, if I have changed my views, there are two very sound reasons. One is that we know now a great deal more of what is meant by Empire than we did twenty-eight years ago, and we have much greater inducements to give effect to our knowledge.
Some reference has been made to the discussion which took place in the Imperial Conference of 1917. After the speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, who was discharging at that very time the high office of Governor-General of Canada, with so much advantage to the Empire, and so much distinction to himself, I do not know that it is necessary to say much more about the position of the Canadian Government at the time when they came over to the Conference of 1917, and the view they took of the result of this particular discussion with which we are dealing to-day.
As soon as the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada arrived in this country for the Conference of 1917 he came, as usual, to see me as Colonial Secretary. When he had disposed of the questions affecting the war the very first subject to which he directed my attention was this subject of what he called the "stigma" or "slur" upon the credit of Canadian breeders and others interested in cattle. And he pressed it upon me as a question of vital importance, and one which might very easily become a very troublesome question as between this country and Canada. I took the usual course, as it was my duty to do, and wrote to my noble friend who was then Minister of Agriculture. I told him what had

391
passed, and also that I thought it was of the utmost consequence—and I hold that view still—to the relations between the Dominion and ourselves, and that, if possible, he should make some concession.
The noble Marquess who has just sat down says that he cannot find a pledge. He went on to say that a pledge made by a Minister is not a pledge made by a Government. Agreed. I maintain that this was an absolute pledge. It was so understood by Canada, and it was certainly so understood by myself, as the language which the Lord Chancellor quoted from me shows quite clearly. So fully did I believe in the reality and completeness of the pledge that, as the Lord Chancellor has already shown, I said that it was not necessary to have a Resolution. That pledge, of course, was made by my right honourable friend as Minister of Agriculture and not, as someone has said, confirmed by me. I had no power to confirm it, but, as Chairman of the Conference of 1917, it was my duty to sum up the result of the discussion, and to put it to the Conference, and I did not hesitate to say, from my own knowledge derived at the time, that the view that the pledge was a complete one was held by every member of the Conference, and, above all, by the Canadians.
Then the noble Marquess says: "Yes, but this pledge is no binding pledge, because it had yet to be confirmed by the Cabinet." That is a mere truism. No single Minister, except the Prime Minister, can bind any Government. It is a well-known fact that one of the advantages of a Cabinet Minister lies in the fact that by his constant attendance at Cabinets and constant association with the Prime Minister and his colleagues he knows far better what the view of the Cabinet is upon all the great questions of the day than anybody who is outside. And when I presided over that Conference it is perfectly true that I knew that any decisions we arrived at would have to be submitted to the Cabinet, and that the decision arrived at by the Cabinet would have to be confirmed by Parliament.
But after what took place in that Conference, profoundly though I regretted the necessity of having to deal with this question in this way—because I believed in the legislation of 1896, which I carried myself—I can only say that, so firmly convinced was I that the credit of the Government, aye,
392
and not only of the Government but of the whole country, was involved in dealing with this Canadian question, that if the Cabinet had reversed our decision or if Parliament had reversed it, the first thing I should have done would have been to place my resignation in the hands of the Prime Minister. I should have felt that the word that I had passed—whether with regret or not does not matter—had been broken. I am not discussing that aspect of the case with which the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition dealt in the latter part of his remarks. What I am endeavouring to show to your Lordships is that I have good ground for feeling and believing I that a pledge was given and that the pledge ought to be kept.
Very well; how is it to be kept? It is suggested that you are going to meet the Canadian difficulty by telling them that there is no slur, no stigma on their cattle, but that you are going to maintain the law which is based upon that stigma and nothing else. The noble Marquess asked what is to be the policy if we do away with the policy of to-day? I do not know that it is for me to answer that. I can say what I would do. He said that he did not know whether we were going to abolish the Act I of 1896. That Act, as he knows, is a very j short one; it consists, I think, of one section. What it did was to make the Acts of 1890 and 1894 operative without the intervention of the Privy Council, and to make them the permanent law of the land. It is obvious that that Act will have to be repealed if you are going to deal with the question which is commonly spoken of as the Canadian embargo.
I have said that I believe it is regarded in Canada as a question of absolutely first-rate importance. It was so represented to me by Sir Robert Borden. Who and what is Sir Robert Borden? At the time he made these representations to me he was the representative of the Dominion and the head of his Government. What is he? He is a man of lofty patriotism. He is a man of great ability. He is something more than that; he has other possessions. He is a man of broad common sense, and I am quite certain that he is the last man in the world to have exaggerated any case that he had to present to our Government. Above all, I am certain he is the very last man in the world to have exaggerated a case which he knew must cause some domestic difficulty here. Yet, as my noble

393
friend the Duke of Devonshire has said, he regarded it not as a mere sentimental matter, not as a mere grievance that we had imposed Regulations in 1896 for which there was no justification. He regarded it as a slur upon the credit of the Canadian cattle breeders which had, as it must have had, an obviously ill effect upon the general condition of their trade. He put it forward as a matter which was causing the greatest possible irritation in Canada and which he had to present with all the force at his command. I can assure your Lordships that he spoke to me with the deepest sincerity, and impressed me with the fact, which I am sure was a fact, that this was a matter which would have to be dealt with and satisfactorily settled.
The noble Marquess says that he cannot find a pledge in what took place. He twitted the Lord Chancellor with the statement that he had made, and he charged the Lord Chancellor with ignoring statements made by my noble friend Lord Ernie, which the noble Marquess holds as qualifying in some way the statements he made at the Conference. But the noble Marquess obviously was guilty of a stronger act of omission; he entirely forgot to take account of any of the remarkable statements made by the noble Duke who, at the time when all this occurred, was Governor-General of Canada and knew better than anybody what were the feelings of the Canadian Government and of the Canadian people. I have said that while I admit and accept the proposition that no pledge of a single Minister is operative without the Cabinet and without Parliament, I am convinced that if Sir Robert Borden and his colleagues had not satisfied themselves that this pledge was complete and had not believed that it would be acted upon, they would have brought the matter there and then before the Imperial Cabinet. It is useless indulging in reminiscences of this kind, but I know as a member of that Imperial Cabinet, knowing very well what their general views were— an Imperial Cabinet, may I remind your Lordships, composed not only of Ministers representing our own Cabinet but of Ministers representing the four great Dominions—that that Imperial Cabinet would have decided in favour of Sir Robert Borden's contention.
I find it very difficult to put into words what I feel about the pledge, because I know quite well that my sense of honour
394
is no more acute than that of any other member of your Lordships' House. I hope it is, at all events, as acute. But I cannot conceive how anybody can read the White Paper containing the proceedings of that part of that Conference, without coming to the conclusion that two Ministers of the Crown, knowing full well what they were doing, knowing full well the responsibility they were taking on their shoulders, deliberately pledged the Government of that day to carry out a certain policy in regard to one of our great Dominions. I feel that that produces a situation which ought to I be approached, if your Lordships will forgive me for saying so, with the utmost consideration.
Forgive me if I am going outside my province in venturing to make any recommendation to your Lordships, and accept as my excuse and apology the fact that I speak as one who was Colonial Secretary at that time, as one who went through all the horrors of the war. My first duty when I took over the Colonial Office was to approach all the Dominion Governments and some of the Crown Colonies and beg them to double, treble, and quadruple their supplies of men; to ask them to take upon their shoulders the awful responsibility, as one of them put it to me, of sending men abroad who would never return, of facing widows whose husbands had been left in a foreign land, of considering fatherless children and all the causes of suffering and agony which were, of course, apparent to them at that time. With all of that in one's mind and in one's heart, in the light of all the lessons that we learned then, it seems to me that your Lordships have to consider to-day not so much the question of what will be the effect on cattle in this country of removing this possibility of infection, but whether this is not one of the great Imperial questions which come up for settlement.
There are many I believe, in your Lordships' House and in the country who honestly and sincerely desire to see, as a consequence of the war, the different parts of the Empire drawn closer and closer together, and who desire that we shall take advantage of those almost limitless resources which are to be found in the British Empire for the benefit of our Empire and of ourselves. Is it to be said we are right to take advantage of all the possessions to be found in the different parts of the Empire, and that the first time a suggestion is made I to us by one of the great Dominions which

395
would seem to involve some risk, and therefore some little loss, to ourselves, we should say, "While we are ready for Imperial development we will not have it in this form because it may possibly injure us"? I say in all earnestness and sincerity, with all the experience that I gained during those eventful years, that is an impossible course for any real Imperialist to take.
The noble Marquess asked whether there was any practicable recommendation that we were prepared to offer to those who believe in the pledge, and feel that it has to be honoured. I have indicated the line upon which I would proceed. I should treat this question as a great Imperial question. I do not share the fears of the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, as to Imperial Preference. I believe in Imperial Preference. It was established a year or two ago during the time that I had the honour to be at the Colonial Office, and I am very proud of the fact. My remedy would be to deal with the question as an Imperial one. I would retain the Act of 1896 as regards cattle coming from foreign countries, and I would admit cattle coming from our own Empire upon certain conditions, to be arranged between the Oversea Dominions and ourselves.
The noble Viscount who moved this Resolution—and whose speech demands the sympathy of the whole House, for no one knows more on this subject than he does—told us that he believes that pleuropneumonia may lie dormant for any length of time, and therefore cannot be protected by mere quarantine. If that is the case, what have noble Lords who to-day are demanding that we should stand by this absolute exclusion to say to what occurred at Slough? Unless I am greatly mistaken, only the other day at Slough there was a sale of some 120 Friesian cattle. Where had they come from? They had come from South Africa. And where have they gone? They have been scattered all over the United Kingdom. Is there no risk of infection from that? Is not South Africa a vast territory just as liable to the spread of disease as America, and indeed much more so? Anybody who knows South Africa knows that the checking of disease is one of the most difficult things. I am not condemning what has been done, but am only saying that your policy is not complete when, while offering opposition to this particular proposal, you are already running risks which no law can prevent.
396
I am told that a limited time of quarantine would make these cattle perfectly safe, and that if we were to impose a quarantine of, say, one month, we should be quite safe, or at all events reasonably safe. I believe Canada would accept that. To do that would be to treat this question as it ought to be treated—namely, as an Imperial one, and not as a domestic one.
I am grateful to your Lordships for having listened to me. I would point out in conclusion that we are now witnessing the re-birth of an Empire. We are faced with new problems, very difficult some of them, and perhaps even embarrassing to us, but I maintain that if we are going to bear our new responsibilities with fortitude, and to bring ultimate success to the Empire, we must have a policy of give-and-take. We must look to the Empire to stand by us, and we, on our part, must stand by the Empire. I hope that your Lordships will to-night show Canada that we intend to keep our word.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, has done a great service to the United Kingdom and Ireland in bringing forward this Resolution. May I be permitted to say that this is not a political question. I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, that in regard to the question of the supply of food to the 42½ millions in England, Scotland and Wales, the consumer does not concern himself in the least as to how the stuff comes in, or what sort of stuff comes in, as long as it is eatable and fit for human food. The noble Lord who has just sat down mentioned the sale at Slough of Friesian cattle brought from South Africa. I know that those cattle were most carefully examined before they left, and also most carefully examined and watched on board ship. If there had been the slightest doubt about any of them their owners would not have got the enormous prices for them that they did get at Slough. Ten bulls sold for an average of £1,300; one calf sold for £700, and another for £900. Your Lordships may be sure that if there was the least suspicion of any disease the whole sale would have been a fiasco. The cattle, I am informed, were tested for tuberculosis.
I notice, in reading and listening to the debates in this House, that any stick is good enough with which to beat the Government. This is not a case of the Irish blackthorn. This is a case of the goad with

397
which the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, prods the Government. The noble Marquess said that Ireland was against the removal of the embargo. That is perfectly true; the whole of Ireland is against it. I shall follow the example of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and deal with what, is printed on the Paper, and not with generalities. First, it is said that meat would become cheaper if Canadian cattle were let in. The real truth is that meat becomes cheaper when Argentine, Australian and American beef comes into the market. What affects the stores in Ireland is this. If two cargoes of Argentine meat come into the market the price of our fat beef and stores in Ireland drops at once. If you happen to clash with that market you lose your money. Secondly, it is said that there has been no disease amongst Canadian cattle for 30 years. I will say something on that point later. In the third place, it is said that Canadian cattle will compete with Irish store cattle, and that, therefore, store cattle will be cheaper. What we are frightened of in Ireland, and what the breeders of those magnificent herds of which the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, spoke, are afraid of is disease coming into the country.
I know there is no pleuropneumonia in Canada; but there are other diseases. Let me quote, from written records and tell your Lordships what came out in the evidence given before the Royal Commission on the Importation of Store Cattle. In examination by Mr. Aspinall it came out that the Report of the Minister of Agriculture for the Dominion of Canada for the year ending March 31, 1920, says this—
"The importance of taking suitable measures cannot be too strongly emphasised, especially so as the disease is gradually increasing in this country."
Mange is the disease referred to. Then, in his evidence, Mr. Joseph McLoughlin, a member of the Irish Farmers' Union, and Chairman of a branch of the Farmers' Union, County Louth, said—
"I accept Canada's claim to a clean bill of health on the same basis as I would accept a criminal statistics' return from a country which had no police force or judiciary of any kind. Neither am I aware that when the ports were open before that the cattle-carrying boats carried an official British veterinary surgeon to certify as to the cause of death of cattle jettisoned during the passage, and would certainly think it vitally necessary to have such official to be opened to store cattle again. I do not know of any stone wall between the United States of Canada to
398
prevent the spread of contagious cattle diseases I over a 2,000-mile frontier; but I do know of the railway wagons from all parts of the United States to be seen continuously running on Canadian railways and vice versa."
That is pretty strong evidence, and when you find the Royal Commission saying. "We are of opinion that there is no substantial ground for the apprehension that such admission would introduce disease amongst the cattle of this country," we, in Ireland, are beginning to get a little nervous. We are quite determined to keep disease out of our country. We have succeeded so far in doing so as we have an excellent Board of Agriculture.
Let me just tell your Lordships what amount of cattle we provided this country with during the war. Mr. Gill, who was for twenty-one years Secretary to the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, in his evidence stated that the total cattle herd in Ireland has been increased, in twenty years by over half a million head the annual supply to Great Britain has been increased by 125,000 head. But the improvement in quality—their quality as beef, and as early maturers and quick fatteners—has been recently estimated as I representing an intrinsic value, irrespective of market fluctuations, of £5 a head. In 1920 Ireland had only 10 per cent, of the population. She had 43 per cent, of the cattle in the United Kingdom. She consumes less than one-quarter of the cattle she produces; the rest are sent to Great Britain. Two out of every five beef cattle slaughtered in Great Britain before the war were born in Ireland. During the period of the war Ireland sent to Great Britain 3,862 223 cattle and none were lost through submarine action. That is what Mr. Gill said. It is pretty good evidence of what we in Ireland do towards supplying this country with food.
I should like to mention one or two other matters with regard to disease. The noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, mentioned contagious abortion, but it is not the contagious abortion that is known in this country. It is a most insidious, dangerous, and contagious disease. Let me read from the evidence given by Mr. John Maker, President of the County Kilkenny Farmers' Association and a member of the Irish Farmers' Union. He lived for thirty-four years in New Zealand. Speaking of a recent visit to Canada, he says—
"It occurs in this way. I am told that, roughly speaking, there were 3,750,000 milch cows

399
in Canada at that time, I think those were the figures, and out of that number only one calf out of every three is born alive. In other words, two out of every three are dead when born owing to this disease.
"The Chairman [Lord Finlay]—That is a most alarming statement."
Evidence shows that the disease is commonly called "trembles." A cow might be quite right now and in half an hour's time—it might occur at any stage of pregnancy, and at any moment—the cow might take a fit of shivering, the calf be born dead, and that was the end of it. It is highly contagious.
It is all very well saying that there is no disease in Canada. There is disease there, and we are going to keep it out of Ireland by every means possible. I remember hearing about cattle plague long ago, and those who know Ireland will remember the curse it was to our stock and the havoc it played with our herds. It will never be forgotten. I wonder if Lord Lincolnshire has read the evidence given before the Royal Commission. He knows, as well as I do, that if any contagious disease happens to get into these herds—and we have only just begun to establish these valuable herds in Ireland— and the word goes round, farmers will not be able to sell their cattle to the Argentine or to Canada. It is taking a very great risk to allow Canadian stores to come in. They would have to be fed by the Norfolk and Scottish farmers before they were fit to be put on the market.
I have crossed the Atlantic with them and seen one of these animals thrown overboard. There was no disease at all. What struck me was that they were much too fat for stores, and no doubt were sent in order to be slaughtered and eaten. But unless the Canadian farmers change their breed of cattle and send a smaller class, the farmers who wish for them will find that they will eat a great deal and be very expensive before they are fit for the markets of this country. I hope the embargo on Canadian cattle will remain, and I shall follow the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, into the Lobby. I do not see my noble friend, Lord Long, now in the House, but I should like to tell him what a Wiltshire farmer—the noble Lord comes from that county—said to me. I go down to fish there, and I have fished there for nearly thirty years. He said: "If our Member is going to vote for the removal of the embargo on Canadian
400
cattle, we shall vote against him, and see that he is turned out."
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, we have j heard a great deal from many authorities on the Imperial aspect of this question, and Heaven forbid that I should attempt to diminish that side of the question in any way, but we must not ignore the point of view of the simple agriculturist, the farmer of this country who is endeavouring to earn his living. It occurs to me that that point of view has not yet been laid before your Lordships with any great emphasis. I will invite your Lordships to carry your minds back to the introduction of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896, to dissect agriculture into its two natural aspects of stockbreeding and arable farming, and to see what has happened to these two distinct sections during that time.
Arable farming, ever since 1896, and, of course, a little earlier, and with the exception of the few years of the war and those which immediately followed it, has not been, if I may use the expression, good business. All three classes engaged in that business have found it extremely hard to keep their heads above water. On the other hand, stockbreeding has been, during those 26 years, not a source, of great wealth, but progressively successful. It has been good business, where arable farming has been bad business, and I should like to ask your Lordships if there is no reason for that distinction. There must be a reason, and that reason, obviously, is that stockbreeding has been ensured stability, while arable farming has never had the advantage of stability during all those years.
The Diseases of Animals Act, 1896, was the charter of the British breeders. Call it, if you like, Protection; call it protection against disease or protection against competition, it matters not; it was his charter. On that charter he has risen to the heights which we know and recognise as being of such great advantage to this country. Remove that charter, and you at once remove the stability upon which he has thriven, and, although the effect may not be immediate, it is perfectly certain that, when the British stockbreeders as a whole realise that their markets will be unstable and that they will be liable to suffer the same disadvantages as their brother arable farmers now suffer, British stockbreeding will decline. Although for a short time the arable farmer may obtain his store cattle

401
slightly more cheaply than at present, it is an absolute certainty that, in course of time, he will find himself having to look entirely to the oversea market, with nothing to fall back on at home. Will that be to the advantage of the nation as a whole and of the farming community?
It may be said that just now there are, in certain parts of England and Scotland, a number of farmers who are in favour of raising the embargo—not that great majority, either in Scotland or elsewhere, that has been spoken of by noble Lords, but still a considerable number in some parts of the country. Those farmers are all arable farmers, who are suffering acutely from the depression created by a number of circumstances, all of them entirely beyond their own control. Persons in that condition are apt to clutch at any straw which they may consider in the least likely to help them out of their difficulties. They are good ground upon which this propaganda, which has been so frequent of late months, can fall. It is not surprising that there are a certain number of arable farmers at the present time who are likely to desire that the embargo should be removed. But they are a very small minority of the farmers of this country. The great mass of farmers are sufficiently long-sighted to know that if you remove their charter they are doomed to struggle along as their brother arable farmers now struggle, and their industry will no longer be worth their while, as it has been for some years past.
Various Governments, indeed most Governments, have done their best to make it impossible for British agriculturists to live at all. Is it not time that those who live by agriculture and have regard for agriculture should ask this and every other Government to leave them alone? After all, this Act of 1896 has worked admirably for this country, and admirably for agriculture right through. It inflicts no hardships upon anybody. Why not let it alone? Are we to have the only small part of agriculture which is now prosperous knocked down and made unprosperous by Government action? It is not asking very much of those noble Lords who have no such real interest in agriculture as have others to give us some chance of keeping our heads above water in the only direction in which there is any scope at the present time. Surely, it is to the national advantage that British agriculture should flourish. If one section of it is now in a fair way to
402
flourish, why make it impossible for that section to carry on? It is not as if you were going to benefit anybody else. I cannot see that anybody—consumer, or arable farmer, or any portion of the inhabitants of this country—can benefit in any way from the removal of this embargo.
Upon the Imperial question I prefer not to touch. It has been dealt with far more ably than I could hope to deal with it by noble Lords speaking with infinitely greater authority than myself. But I think the position of the British agriculturist has a right to be voiced in your Lordships' House, and, at the risk of being thought small-minded, I have dared to voice that complaint. We have been told over and over again that this is a great Imperial question. I am not here to deny it; I am not in a position to deny it. But there is at least an element of what I might call a traders' question underlying the whole thing. I wonder—I wish I knew—whether Canadians as a whole are so bitterly keen about this matter as has been suggested in your Lordships' House. I happen to be honoured with the acquaintance and friendship of a number of Canadians, and I have not been able to discover quite that zeal for the removal of the embargo that has been described to your Lordships. But I will not pursue that point. All I wish to do is to invite your Lordships to consider the case of the British agriculturist; not to destroy the only section of British agriculture which is now flourishing, but to give that section a chance to carry on to their own advantage and to the advantage of the nation, as they have done in the past.
One other little point upon which I should like to touch—it was raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe—is whether or not the people of this country would for long tolerate the importation of great masses of lean, cheap beasts from overseas. The cruelty involved in this trade is immense, and, after all, these cattle cannot be worth very much when they are put on the ship, or they would be no advantage to British farmers at this end. Their loss is not going to be worth the same consideration as is the loss of fat cattle, and I have great doubts whether the British public as a whole would care to see this embargo removed, if they realised that to which they were going to subject the oversea cattle in the passage to this country.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I only desire to say one word in order to make a suggestion which may relieve a good many noble Lords who feel, as I do, that we are in a very grave dilemma. If we vote for the Resolution of the noble Viscount opposite it might be construed that we I repeat the slur, but if we vote for the Amendment of the noble Marquess we commit ourselves to something about which there is a difference of opinion; and I think anyone who has heard the speeches of Lord Ernie and Viscount Long will probably agree with me that there is a difference of opinion as to what the pledge was. Therefore, in those, circumstances, in order to avoid committing ourselves tonight to agreement with cither of those Motions, I have consulted several noble friends who are interested deeply in this subject, and they promise me their support if I move that this debate be now adjourned, with a view to the consideration, on a later day, of a Resolution somewhat to the following effect—I do not commit myself to the actual words now, because I think the wording will have to be carefully considered—namely, "That this House accepts the conclusion of the Royal Commission that Canada is free from pleuro-pneumonia in cattle, and that stores from the Dominions might be admitted, subject to precautions by means of quarantine being taken." If your Lordships are at all in favour of that, I am prepared to move it.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Harris.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene on the Motion of my noble friend, Lord Harris, because the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, has asked me to say that so far as he is concerned he is prepared to fall in with the I Motion for the adjournment. He, on his part, would by no means, I think, be disposed to commit himself to the actual terms of the Resolution foreshadowed by Lord Harris. I am in the same position myself. From what I heard of the terms of the Resolution I think it is one which would require careful examination and consideration before it was agreed to. I confess I am much impressed by what my noble friend opposite said. He said that on the one hand the acceptance by your Lordships of the noble Viscount's Motion; might, at any rate, be regarded as continuing the slur of which the Canadians
404
so bitterly and, from one point of view, so reasonably, complain, whereas if the noble. Marquess's Amendment were carried the House would be committing itself to some legislation, the precise terms of which have not been explained.
My noble friend opposite, Lord Long, was good enough, after I had spoken, and had made some complaint that we did not know where we were in this respect, to give an exceedingly clear exposition of what he would do if he were in a position to carry an Act of Parliament; but, of course, it is impossible to say what view the House as a whole might take, or what view might be taken in another place, or by His Majesty's Government. I cannot help thinking that Lord Harris made a valuable suggestion in moving the adjournment, and in giving us time to consider the various possibilities which have been indicated in some of the speeches this afternoon.
THE FTRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THK EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, so far as the Government are concerned we readily agree to the proposal for the adjournment of the debate. I hope, however, that your Lordships will reserve Thursday of next week for the second day of the discussion upon the constitution of this House. If that be so, I am afraid that the debate on this Motion will have to go over to the following week, unless your Lordships sit on Friday.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

GOVERNOR OF SOUTHERN PALESTINE.
LORO SYDENHAM LORO SYDENHAM rose to ask his Majesty's Government—

1. Whether Mr. Abramson has been or is s to be appointed Governor of Southern Palestine;

2. Whether he, is an Austrian Jew of the name of Mahler, who was naturalised about fourteen years ago;

3. Whether he proved a failure in Tran-Jordania, and was withdrawn; and

4. Whether British officers have been dismissed in order to make this appointment possible.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that Mr. Abramson was brought UJJ as a boy by one of the Christian Missions, and therefore he is by faith a Christian.

405
Before the war he was a clerk in Messrs. Cook's office, and his knowledge of Arabic was so good that he made himself extremely useful in connection with the Labour battalions which were raised. He then entered the Palestine public service, and was appointed political adviser to the Emir Abdullah. That was naturally a rather unfortunate selection, and he had to be replaced by a British officer in a comparatively short time. That was no reproach to Mr. Abramson, who found himself in an impossible position through no fault of his own. He is now, I believe, Assistant Civil Secretary to the Zionist Government in Palestine. That seems to me to be a distinctly meritorious record, and I have nothing to say against Mr. Abramson.
I raise this Question only because I consider that the Governorship of Southern Palestine, at a critical time, should, be held by a British officer, or a competent Arab if one can be found. It seems to me that it is not desirable that a member of the Jewish nation, now officially recognised as such by His Majesty's Government, should be appointed to the Governorship of this important province. The High Commissioner lately dismissed ten British officers, some of great experience and trusted by the people. No Jewish official has been dismissed at the same time, and therefore pro tanto Zionist influence in the Government of Palestine must have been increased. I hope, therefore, that the answer to my first Question, which the noble Duke will give, will be in the negative.
THE DUKE OP SUTHERLAND: My Lords, Mr. Abramson is a permanent member of the Palestine Civil Service. I understand that he was born in Palestine of Rumanian parents but became a British subject in 1909. He was for many years before the war in the employment of a British firm. He is and always has been a Christian. His family name is, and, I understand, always was, Abramson. He served as a commissioned officer in the Intelligence Branch of Lord Allenby's General Staff, in which position his local knowledge of the country and its peoples were of particular value. Later, he was appointed Military Governor of Hebron under the Military Administration of Palestine, where he displayed great aptitude for administration, gaining the respect of all sections of the population of Palestine
406
and the favourable reports of the chief 1 administrators under whom he served.
When a Civil Administration was set up I under Sir Herbert Samuel, Mr. Abramson, on the strength of the reports of the Military Administration, was offered permanent employment under the Palestine j Government. His first duty was, with the help of Palestinian colleagues, to examine and inquire into conditions respecting land holdings in Palestine, with special reference to the extent and size of State lands. Mr. Abramson and his colleagues prepared a most valuable and interesting Report, which is now under the consideration of the Palestine Government and the Secretary of State. While retaining his substantive appointment in Palestine, he was temporarily employed as chief British representative in Trans-Jordania, where be laid the foundations of the administrative arrangements that are now working so satisfactorily in that country.
There is no foundation for the allegation: that Mr. Abramson was a failure in Trans-Jordania. I should like to say that insinuations of this land are calculated to cause great bitterness to officers who are loyally and unselfishly endeavouring to carry out the policy of His Majesty's Government in countries where the conditions are often difficult and discouraging. Mr. Abramson has recently been acting as Chief Secretary while the High Commissioner has been on leave, and will take up the post of District Governor of the Southern District at an early date, if he has not already done so.
Mr. Abramson is receiving his new appointment purely on his merits. The need for economy has rendered it necessary to; reconstruct the Palestine administration and to reduce the number of administrative districts. As a consequence the services of a few British officers have had to be dispensed with. Mr. Abramson is one I of those whom it has been decided to retain. I In the opinion of the Palestine Government he will find in the Southern District suitable opportunity to display those administrative talents of which he has already given I ample proof, and. I am sure that I am voicing your Lordships' own feelings when I express the sincere; hope that his task in his new post will not be made more difficult by the incorrect and unfair statements regarding his antecedents which have recently been given currency in this country.

BRITISH CIVIL OFFICIALS IN EGYPT.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether a scheme for compensation to discharged British officials of the Egyptian Civil Service put forward by the High Commissioner has been rejected by the Egyptian Government; and, if so, what steps are being taken to protect the interests of these officials.
The position of British Civil Servants in Egypt is even more unsatisfactory than that of those in India. Not only do they see positions to which they expected to be promoted filled by Egyptians, but the tenure of the offices which they now hold is extremely precarious, and the general deterioration in the character of the administration since the grant of independence makes it difficult for them to derive any satisfaction from the performance of their duties. Many of them are, therefore, anxious to resign, but the British Government, under whose auspices they took up this employment, instead of guaranteeing them compensation, has only made tentative proposals to the Prime Minister of Egypt, which the latter has rejected. In these circumstances the officials feel that the British Government, which has already betrayed them by promising them a career in Egypt, may betray them again, and they are extremely anxious to know in what position they stand both in regard to the Egyptian Government and in regard to the British Government.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, on May 29 I gave to VOUT Lordships a pretty full statement about the position as it then existed in relation to compensation for officials in Egypt, whether British or non-British, whose position was changed with the changed status of Egypt. Your Lordships were then informed that Lord Allenby had been instructed to take up the matter with the Egyptian Government. Since that date Lord Allenby has been in close; communication with the British officials concerned. He has consulted with them, and a scheme was recently drawn up which took into account both the principles laid down by His Majesty's Government in the negotiations with the Egyptian Delegation last year, and the suggestions of the Government actuary. This scheme was not drawn entirely to safeguard the interests of British officials; it applied to others as well. But it was approved by a Committee of all the British advisers to the
408
Egyptian Government, and Lord Allenby himself looked upon it as a fair and equitable solution. While, it is true, it might not satisfy certain of the more extreme demands that were advanced it represented a compromise which ought to be acceptable to both sides. It was presented to the Egyptian Government at the beginning of June, but I regret to say that as yet they have not seen their way to accept it.
The King's Government is fully alive to the fact that the change in the status of Egypt completely alters the situation of non-Egyptian officials, both as regards their future prospects and the actual conditions under which they are at present serving. For this reason, both in London and in Cairo the greatest possible care has been taken to devote every attention to the elaboration of some scheme by which these officials whom the Egyptian Government might elect to dismiss, and also those who reasonably felt that their prospects were so much impaired by the changed régime as to justify them in resigning, should receive adequate compensation, in addition to the pension to which, under existing law, they are entitled. Moreover, the applicability of these principles to temporary as well as to permanent officials has been insisted upon.
The Government regard the apprehension which at present exists among foreign officials of all classes in Egypt as perfectly natural, and I therefore welcome this opportunity of assuring your Lordships that His Majesty's Government are determined to protect the legitimate interests of those officials who may be dismissed or who may wish to retire.
LORD RAGLAN: Cannot the British Government give these officials some definite guarantee?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The duty rests upon the Egyptian Government. It is not the duty of the British Government to give this guarantee.
LORD RAGLAN: It was the British Government which recruited these officials, not the Egyptian Government, who had nothing to do with their original appointment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think the noble Lord is aware that the Egyptian Government has undertaken to carry this responsibility.

CONCESSIONS IN PALESTINE.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether the High Commissioner of Palestine is now empowered to grant concessions to non-Jews as well as to Jews; and, if so, how long he has been so empowered. In view of the statements that have been made that preference has been shown to Jews in the matter of concessions in Palestine perhaps the Government would give a clear statement as to what their policy is.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, the High Commissioner for Palestine is not, and never has been, empowered to grant any concessions without reference to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. There is not, and never has been, any restriction on the right of non-Jews to apply for concessions in Palestine, and, in fact, an application from a gentleman who is not a Jew is at present under consideration. Certain other applications for concessions were submitted by non-Jews to the Military Administration which preceded the present Civil Government of Palestine. The applicants were told, as Jewish applicants were also told at the same period, that no concessions were then being granted. No other answer was possible at the time.
In July, 1921, however, it was decided that in the interests of Palestine the full embargo could no longer be maintained; and the High Commissioner was accordingly authorised by His Majesty's Government to entertain applications for concessions for certain public services, excluding oil and mineral rights. A public notice to that effect was issued in Palestine at the time. Applications made or renewed since that date have duly received consideration. I can assure your Lordships that all applications are being, and will be, considered strictly on their merits; but you will not lose sight of the fact that, as experience has shown, public-spirited Jews, who are actuated by sentimental as well as by purely business motives, may be ready to undertake enterprises in Palestine on terms that would hardly commend themselves as purely business propositions to other capitalists.

BREAD ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Southwark.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of 3 Geo. 4. c. 106, and 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 37, so as to permit sale of self-raising flour.
1. Nothing in the Acts relating to the manufacture or sale of broad within or without the City of London and the liberties thereof shall be deemed to prohibit the addition to any flour of any ingredient or mixture for the purpose of making such Hour self-raising or the addition to such self-raising flour of ingredients suitable for the making of cakes or puddings, or the sale or offer or exposure for sale of any flour to which any such ingredient or mixture has been added.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: "Provided that the public are clearly notified of the addition of any such ingredient or mixture." The noble Earl said: If your Lordships read Clause 1 you will see that it says that
"Nothing in the Acts relating to the manufacture or sale of bread within or without the City of London and the liberties thereof shall be deemed to prohibit the addition to any flour of any ingredient or mixture for the purpose of making such flour self-raising or the addition to such self-raising flour of ingredients suitable for the making of cakes or puddings, or the sale or offer or exposure for sale of any flour to which any such ingredient or mixture has been added."
My Amendment merely adds the proviso that the public are to be clearly notified I of the addition of any such ingredient or mixture.
I consider that to be a most harmless addition. These are ingredients that are really put in to raise the flour. The right way to make bread and to raise it is to use yeast or yeast cakes, brewer's barm of the best sort, which is used for tea cakes and milk bread, or sour dough, or tartaric acid. Those are all wholesome ingredients. All sorts of powders are used and some proprietary articles which, practically speaking, are minerals. My only object in making this addition to the clause is that for young children and very old people bread made in the right way and raised in a simple manner is very wholesome. It is of the children that I am thinking. This question has been raised by many medical men and those who are interested in the welfare of children, and I cannot see how the proposed Amendment will affect the Bill in any way. I shall be told, no doubt,

411
that it is going to wreck the Bill. I have heard that said in regard to a great many Bills. In reply to any suggestion that a Bill shall be amended it is said at once that the proposal is going to wreck the Bill. I have been many years a member of this House and I have heard that said from this and from the other side. I do not believe for one instant that this very simple addition to this very simple clause can possibly affect the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, at end insert the said proviso.— (The Earl of Mayo.)
LORD SOUTHWARK: I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment and that my noble friend will not press it. He displays, I think, really unnecessary alarm. He will find that the public are amply protected by the present Acts of Parliament. In Clause 2 of the Bill itself he will find that the Ministry of Health are given express power to deal with the manner in which an article is described or named. They have other powers under Acts dealing with adulteration which make it absolutely safe in the public interest to leave the Bill in its present form. I would draw the noble Earl's attention to Clause 3 which provides that—
"Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the operation of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907."
The noble Earl has shown anxiety—
THE EARL OF MAYO: I am not in the least anxious.
LORD SOUTHWARK:—as to the evil effects which may arise, but the Ministry of Health have all necessary powers to protect the public in the direction in which the noble Earl sees that protection is needed. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw his Amendment or, if he presses it to a Division, that your Lordships will not accept it.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I think the noble Earl need not persist in his Amendment. Section 6 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1875, says—
"No person shall sell to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by such purchaser, under a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds; provided that an offence shall not be deemed to be committed under this section in the following cases; that is to say,
412
"(1) Where any matter or ingredient not injurious to health has been added to the food or drug because the same is required for the production or preparation thereof as an article of commerce, in a state fit for carriage or consumption, and not fraudulently to increase the bulk, weight, or measure of the food or drug, or conceal the inferior quality thereof."
There are also other provisos which I do not think affect this case.
No doubt that section does not actually prevent a man from selling to the public without telling the public that he has used some ingredient to make his cake a little bit lighter and more easily digested. But if it is any ingredient which is injurious he is ultimately hit by that section, and it really cannot be necessary for a baker to put a label on his cake saying: "Pursuant to the Bread Act, 1922, I have put in some form of yeast to make my cake a little lighter." I think the noble Earl's Amendment is really unnecessary, and one knows at this stage of the session that unnecessary Amendments are not desirable.
THE EARL OF MAYO: The noble and learned Lord has made a very good case, no doubt, but the result of his argument is that I do not see the smallest harm in my Amendment. It makes it even clearer than the Act. Does the noble Lord in charge of the Bill say that my Amendment would wreck the Bill? That is what I want to know.
LORD SOUTHWARK: I do not say that it would wreck the Bill, but I think it is unnecessary, and at this period of the session when the desire is to wind up business it is not, perhaps, wise to send down an Amendment which is really unnecessary.
THE EARL OF MAYO: We have had a most interesting debate, and I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (PAYMENT OF CALLS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this Bill is to enable His Majesty's Government

413
to pay up the balance of 19s. in the £ on 1,000,000 partly paid ordinary shares bought in 1919. Under the Acts of 1914 and 1919, 5,000,000 ordinary shares were purchased, of which 4,000,000 were fully paid and 1,000,000 1s. paid. 'There were also 1,000 8 per cent, first preference shares and £199,000 5 per cent, debenture stock. The investment in Anglo-Persian Oil was made primarily to secure naval oil supplies for the Government, but I am glad to say it has proved extremely profitable as well. Now, further capital is required for extensions in Persia, and the continuance of an uncalled liability is undesirable from all points of view. The sum required is £950,000 and it is proposed to borrow this from the National Debt Commissioners, following the precedent of 1919 when £2,050,000 was advanced by them. Of this sum £1,360,459 has already been repaid by the application of receipts from dividends, and when the loans have been repaid the whole of the future receipts will go to the Exchequer. There is little doubt that in a year or so the whole of the borrowings will be repaid out of dividends. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, at this late stage of the sitting I will be as brief as possible in explaining this Bill, the Second Beading of which I beg to move. It is the outcome of the recommendations of the Geddes Committee to effect economies of expenditure. The payments made by the State, in addition to the statutory grant of two-ninths of all sums paid out in benefits, consist of certain special grants which amount approximately to £2,150,000 per annum and are made up as follows: £1,700,000 is the State's supplementary contribution towards the cost of medical benefit; £100,000 is the expenditure incurred for the regional medical officers and the Index Clearance Branch; and £350,000 is the amount of the State grant to the Women's Equalization Fund.
It was suggested that these State grants should be discontinued, and that the necessary funds to meet them should be
414
provided by increasing the contributions in respect of insured persons by one penny per week—one halfpenny subscribed by the insured person, and one halfpenny by the employers. This recommendation of the Geddes Committee the Government were prepared to accept, and, indeed, I think a Bill embodying it was actually drafted by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health. But the Consultative Council of the Approved Societies went into the matter very carefully, and came to the conclusion—a conclusion which was shared by His Majesty's Government, and, I think, by everyone else who addressed their minds to this problem—that it would be in the highest degree undesirable, in the present state of industrial depression, to increase the contributions to be made, by the employers and the employed. The Consultative Council, in consequence, drafted an alternative scheme which is embodied in this Bill. By that alternative scheme a saving is effected by drawing on the other funds of the Societies.
There are three funds by which contributions are levied to finance the scheme of this Bill. First, there are the Benefit Funds of the Approved Societies. These funds, in addition to the ordinary receipts to meet current claims, also contain £8,000,000 in undistributed surpluses from the last valuation, and £6,000,000 in contingency funds, or a total surplus of £14,000,000 over liabilities. This £14,000,000 is in addition to the sums distributed at the last valuation among the Societies for schemes of additional benefit. The Societies, therefore, had in reserve at the last valuation a sum of £14,000,000, and it is proposed to meet, from April 1, 1922, up to the end of 1923, the charges of £1,700,000 and £100,000 per annum out of these funds. Taking the whole of Great Britain, the charges for the year and nine months will amount to £3,400,000.
I now come to the second fund which will be called upon to bear a certain amount of this expenditure. The Benefit Funds will not have to bear the whole £3,400,000, because one-third will come out of the Central Fund, which amounts to a sum of over £2,000,000. I should explain that the Central Fund is a fund which is allocated mainly for the assistance of those smaller Societies who, through no fault of their own, are in financial difficulties. It is really a reinsurance fund which is levied by a flat rate on all contributions. The larger

415
Societies, of course, are not likely to want the assistance of this fund, but it is a valuable insurance for those smaller Societies who, as I say, by bad luck and not bad management, may find themselves in difficulties. This Central Fund would pay one-third of the total £3,400,000, less two-ninths represented by the State grant to the Benefit Funds.
If your Lordships will look at Clause 1, subsection (3), you will see that the whole of the payments by the Societies are made out of the Benefit Funds without recourse to the ordinary two-ninths grant from the Exchequer. The Benefit Funds pay their own share entirely, and also pay two-ninths of the share of the Central Fund. When the next valuation comes, and when the money in the Benefit Funds would have been otherwise allocated to members for additional benefits, the State will then, as it is bound to do on benefits, hand over to the Societies their two-ninths, but until that time comes and the benefits will be due, the Benefit Funds will bear the cost of the Exchequer contribution.
Before I pass to the next point of the Bill, I would like to call your Lordships' attention to the White Paper which lies on the Table of the House. It is, you will see, in the form of a letter from the Government actuary on the finance of the Bill. Sir Alfred Watson sets forward in detail the figures which I venture to give briefly to your Lordships, and gives his opinion that the charges can be safely borne by the Societies for the limited time—that is to say, until the end of 1923—which it is proposed that they shall operate.
I now come to the Women's Equalisation Fund. This fund was instituted to meet the extra cost which is entailed by the higher incidence of sickness among married women. It is proposed to meet this charge out of the reserve value or sinking fund. This is a fund which is held by the Ministry of Health to equalise the risk of sickness among the different Societies. When the Insurance scheme was started, of course some Societies had a higher average of age among the members than others, and that higher average carried a higher sickness liability. The average age of those insured in each Society is taken, and the liability to sickness owing to the variations in the average ages of the members is equalised from this reserve fund. Now, in dealing with the Women's Equalisation Fund it is ' simply proposed to add the increased
416
sickness liability of married women to that of age and the money necessary to equalise among Societies the payments due on account of married women will be met by this fund. These are the changes in the insurance law which are embodied in Clauses 1 and 2, and are designed to give effect to the recommendations of the Geddes Committee.
But we have taken advantage of this Bill to make provision, in Clause 3, for a difficulty which, owing to the prolonged conditions of unemployment, will confront the Societies this autumn. As your Lordships know, under the financial scheme of the Insurance Act, an insured person's cash benefits are in proportion to the number of contributions paid in respect of that benefit during any contribution year. When less than 26 contributions have been credited in a contribution year, an insured person is not entitled to any cash benefits in the following benefit year. Now, in view of the prolonged unemployment, it is obvious that a considerable number of persons will be in this position in the current contribution year, and as a consequence these persons will not be entitled to any cash benefits during this year. Therefore, by Clause 3, we propose to vary, until December 31 next, the provisions of the Act of 1918 as to the disposal of unclaimed balances.
Under Section 29 of the Act of 1918, nine-tenths of the available unclaimed contributions are carried to the Central Fund which I have already explained. The other one-tenth is carried to a special fund for merchant seamen. We propose to utilise a sufficient sum, which I believe will be about £250,000, drawn from these unclaimed balances to enable the Approved Societies to pay minimum cash benefits to insured persons who would otherwise be suspended from benefits owing to prolonged unemployment. The Central Fund, as I have already stated consists of £2,000,000, and can easily afford to spare the reduction which the different allocation of unclaimed balances will entail.
Clause 4 refers to Ireland, and Clause 5 to Scotland, and I do not think they require any further explanation.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Onslow).
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SALE OF TEA BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMOBE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Short title and application
6.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Sale, of Tea Act, 1922.
(2) This Act shall not apply to Ireland.
LORD SOMERLEYTON LORD SOMERLEYTON moved, at the end of the clause, to insert as a new subsection—
"(3) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of September nineteen hundred and twenty-two."
The noble Lord said: It is necessary to give the trade this interval in order to arrange for the supply of labels. It was not necessary in the Bill as introduced in the House of Commons as the order as to labels was not then compulsory.
Amendment moved —
Clause 6, page 2, line 36, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

CANALS (CONTINUANCE OF CHARGING POWERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF CBAWFORD): My Lords, this Bill corresponds to that to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading yesterday relating to docks and harbours.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GUARDIANSHIP, ETC., OF INFANTS BILL. [H.L.]
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I beg to move that Lord MacDonnell be added to the Joint; Committee to which the Guardianship, etc., of Infants Bill has been referred. Another name has been added to this Committee in another place, and I hope your Lordships will follow the same course and appoint an additional member for this House.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.

MINISTRY OF HKALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No, 9) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATER BILL.
Returned from the, Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lords following be, proposed to the House as Members of the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, namely:

L. Belhaven and Stenton;

L. Raglan:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

IMPORTATION OF CATTLE.
Debate on the Motion made by Viscount CHAPLIN adjourned to Monday, July 24.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Committed for Tuesday next.
BREAD ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
To be read 3a on Tuesday next.