Sitting of 27 April 1926

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Trent Falls Improvement Bill [Lords].

Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.
PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Petition for additional. Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Pill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Eastbourne Corporation Bill [Lords].
Report referred to the Select committee on Standing Orders.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (ILFRACOMBE) BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Ilfracombe," presented by Air. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    FILMS (BRITISH STUDIOS).
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is keeping a close watch on the cinematograph films producing industry; how many films of three reels and over in length, other than news items, are being produced in British studios at the present time; and if he is satisfied that the necessary steps are being taken to resuscitate and revive the industry within the time limit he has given to the whole trade?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part. I am not aware of the number of films of the kind referred to at present being produced in British studios. As regards the last part of the question, I shall not be in a position to express an opinion until I receive the considered report of the industry upon the suggestions which I pat before them.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that his answers to the first and second parts of my question are contradictory?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I do not see that; either answer is contradictory.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman get a return from the trade, which they are willing to grant, showing the number of films produced.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I daresay I can do that, and I will try to get it.

    1815
    The fact that a number of films are being produced does not afford any guide as to the progress of the industry.
    Colonel DAY: Are any steps being taken to encourage the production of British films in this country?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. WELLSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring the question of British Empire films before the Imperial Conference in the autumn, with a view to encouraging the production and distribution throughout the Empire of films that are in keeping with our national life?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. I have already suggested that this item should be included in the agenda of the Conference.
    Mr. WELLS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that films of a very undesirable nature are being shown in different parts of the Empire which are not of British manufacture?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that is very likely.
    Colonel DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power to stop them?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir.

    TRADE WITH EUROPE.
    Brig.-General Sir HENRY CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the values of exports of British manufactures to Europe and imports of manufactures from Europe in the last completed year; and what were the similar figures for 1913?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My hon. and gallant Friend will, perhaps, agree to my circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information for which he asks.
    Following is the statement
    The following statement, relating to the trade between the United Kingdom and the Continent of Europe, shows the value of our imports and exports of articles wholly or mainly manufactured in each
    1816
    of the years 1913 and 1924. Similar particulars for 1925 are not yet available.

    —

    1913.

    1924.

    £'000.

    £ '000.

    Imports consigned from Europe.

    136,471

    176,546

    Of which retained

    123,439

    160,981

    Exports of goods manufactured in the United Kingdom consigned to Europe.

    113,738

    151,892

    Trade between the Trish Free State and the Continent of Europe is included in the figures given above for 1913, but not in those for 1924. Their inclusion would add about 1 per cent. to the import figures and a much smaller proportion to the export figures.

    IMPORTS AND EXPORTS,
    Sir H. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of the excess of imports over exports in the last 12 months for which returns are available?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: During the 12 months ended March, 1926, the declared value of the total imports of merchandise exceeded that of the total exports by £386,785,000.

    TYPEWRITERS.
    Lieut.-Colonel GADIEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a large number of typewriting machines coming into this country from America bear the name of Royal typewriter, and that this use of the word Royal is calculated to mislead the public into believing that this machine is a British. production; and if he will take steps by registration or otherwise to stop the use of such word in this connection in this country?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but whether the machine is generally believed to be of British origin I cannot say. I regret that, in the existing state of the law, it is not possible to take any action of the nature suggested.

    GLASS FURNACES.
    Mr. BASIL PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade how many glass furnaces were put out of use in the year to 31st March last or in the last completed year of which he has records?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I regret that there are no official records bearing on this matter.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have made inquiries, and neither officially nor unofficially can I get the information.
    Mr. PETO: Will the President consider the information if I send it to him?
    Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that 60 furnaces have gone out of operation lately?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no official information, and I shall be glad to consider any information that the hon. Member can give me.

    BANKRUPTCIES.
    Mr. GILLETTasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of bankruptcies in 1925 in which the unsecured liability amounted to under £500; and how many were there of between £500 and £1,000?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There were 2,128 bankruptcies in England and Wales in 1925, in which the unsecured liability was under £500; and 1,077 where the unsecured liability was between £500 and £1,000.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of bankruptcies is increasing rapidly under the present Government?

    CREDIT INSURANCE.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the President of the Board of Trade what action it is proposed to take on the Report of the Credit Insurance Committee?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Government have given careful consideration to the Report of the Credit Insurance Committee, and we propose to accept generally the scheme recommended by the Committee and to put it into force at an
    1818
    early date. I hope that the simplification of procedure and the larger measure of guarantee offered will be of material assistance to manufacturers and traders. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Committee presided over by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) for their valuable work and Report.
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what liability this scheme will place on the Exchequer?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is no increase in the liability on. the Exchequer. I hope, on the recommendations of the Committee, that it will operate, paying its way, as in the past, more effectively.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I hope the Government will not exclude any export trade with Russia from the terms of the scheme?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member has no right to assume that. The policy of the Government will continue to be what it and its predecessors have followed.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Will legislation be. required?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. The House has already passed the Trade Facilities Bill, which has given us power to carry on export credits for another three years, and a simplification of the scheme can be done by Regulation.

    BOARD OF TRADE ADVISORY COUNCIL.
    Mr. LUNNasked the President of the Board of Trade how many members there are on the Advisory Council of the Board; what trades are represented; who are the employers' and who are the workers' representatives; and will he state particularly who are the coalowners and miners who have seats on this Board?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: As the answer is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, as to whether there are any coalowners' or miners' representatives on this Council?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Perhaps I had better read the answer, instead of circulating it, as intended. It is as follows:
    There are 28 members of the Board of Trade Advisory Council, and the trades with which they are connected are as follows: Iron and steel, non-ferrous metals, shipbuilding and engineering, electrical trades, coal mining; cotton, wool, silk and artificial silk; food industries, pottery, rubber, chemicals; banking, railways, shipping, merchant interests, the co-operative movement.
    These members are: Mr. J. S. Addison, Sir Thomas Allen, Sir Alan Anderson, Mr. Walter Andrews, Mr. John Baker, M.P.; Sir Arthur Balfour, the Hon. R. H. Brand, Lieut.-Colonel N. Seddon Brown, Sir Cecil Budd, Mr. Arthur Dorman, Mr. W. Gallacher, Mr. Arthur Hollins, Mr. R. J. Hose, Mr. Alexander Johnston, Mr. E. Judson, Mr. David Landale, Sir W. Clare Lees, Colonel Sir James Lithgow, Mr. Stanley Machin, Sir Max Muspratt, Sir Philip Nash, Sir Adam Nimmo, Mr. It. 0. Perry, Sir Felix Schuster, Mr. R. H. Tennant, Sir John E. Thornycroft, Sir Herbert Walker, Lieut.-Colonel the Hon. F. V. Willey.
    A number of the members are employers: Sir Thomas Allen and Mr. Gallacher are connected with co-operative societies, and Mr. Baker, Mr. Hollins and Mr. Judson are officials of trade unions.
    Apart from any incidental coal-owning, e.g., by any iron and steel firm, a member of which is on the Council, the only member who is a coalowner is Sir Adam Nimmo. There is no official of the miners who is a member of the present Council.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is not a Council of 28 a case of too many cooks?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. I think there is some misunderstanding about this Council on the part of hon. Members opposite. The object is to have a Council completely representative of all the industry and commerce of the country, so that month by month they may give the Board of Trade and the Government a complete review of the economics of the position in the various industries. It is very important to have a Committee for that purpose.
    Mr. LUNN: As there is no miners' representative on the Council, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take steps to see that the position is equalised between the miners and the coalowners?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. In the first place the representation of the labour side is exactly as it was when the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) was President of the Board of Trade. The object of this Council is not to discuss questions of labour negotiation. The object is entirely to get an economic appreciation of the industries of the country. It would be a great mistake to divide representation between employers and employés. In the case of the pottery industry, I get a good report from a trade unionist. It would be impossible to have both labour and employers' representatives of all the industries. Any one engaged in an industry on either side can speak for the economic side of that industry.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is is not rather important that. yon should get from the side of the miners something with regard to the export trade? You have up to now, or until lately. had a representative on that Advisory Council, and he was able to give reports.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend was himself a member of the corresponding Committee in the Department of Overseas Trade.

    INTER-IMPERIAL TRADE.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps have been taken by his Department to consult trade and industrial organisations in this country in regard to the questions affecting inter-Imperial trade which may be brought to the attention of the forthcoming Imperial Conference?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade how many resolutions he has received protesting against the recently introduced Merchandise Marks Bill, and otherwise criticising it, from chambers of commerce or committees thereof, cham-

  1821
  bers of trade or committees thereof, and other similar bodies, in addition to the resolutions he has received from Liverpool, London, Manchester, and Bristol; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have received no resolution from Bristol. Apart from the resolutions received from Liverpool, London and Manchester to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, I have received about a dozen resolutions, almost all of which, however, are directed towards strengthening the Bill. I may add that at their annual meeting last week the Association of British Chambers of Commerce passed a resolution approving the general principles of the Bill.
  Mr. REMER: Has the attention of the Tight hon. Gentleman been called to the practice of goods corning into this country from foreign countries being marked and exported to other countries as British goods?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

    ENAMEL HOLLOW-WARE.
    Mr. PIELOUasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in the position to make known the recommendations of the Committee which inquired into the application of the enamel hollow-ware trade for a protective duty against unfair foreign competition; and, if so, will he inform the House of the decision arrived at?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: The Report of the Committee has now been published. In view of the findings set out therein the Government do not propose to take any further action in this case.
    Sir H. CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many industries there are in which the Government is not prepared to take action?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. PIELOU: Is the right bon. Gentleman aware that in the issue of the "Financial News" of the 14th April
    1822
    it was stated by the Parliamentary correspondent that a decision had been arrived at in regard to the enamel hollow-ware trade, and will he take steps to inform the House of these decisions before they are communicated outside?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have given no information of any kind to the "Financial News" or to any newspaper, and I cannot be held responsible for what a newspaper publishes on its own responsibility.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Is it part of the Government's policy to give work to foreigners which could be done equally well by Britishers?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No Sir.

    GLOVES.
    Mr. WELLSasked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of gloves, on which duty is now chargeable, imported during the first three mouths of 1925 as compared with the first three months of this year; has he any knowledge of any new factories being opened in this country; and can he state whether the depression that has existed in this industry is becoming less?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: declared value of the imports of gloves of kinds now chargeable with duty was, for the first three months of 1925, £1,001,572, and for the corresponding period of 1926, £284,476. I am not aware of any new factories, but I am informed by the trade that several of the existing concerns are being extended, and that there has been a marked improvement in employment.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the corresponding loss of re-export trade and also the corresponding loss of export trade?
    Sir H. CROFT: Does not the President of the Board of Trade think it more desirable to find employment for our people than to consider the re-export trade?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am satisfied from the information that has reached me that the glove trade in this country is expanding to the benefit of all concerned.
    Mr. B. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantities of gloving leather produced in and imported into this country during the first quarter of 1925 and 1926, respectively?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that leather for glove making is not always identifiable as such, and it is not separately classified in the official returns.

    WORSTED COMMITTEE REPORT.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the Report of the Worsted Committee; and whether, in view of the depreciation in the value of the franc, he will consider the advisability of a duty being imposed on those goods which were the subject of this inquiry?
    Mr. B. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the Committee which considered the Safeguarding of the Worsted Trade recommended the imposition of a safeguarding duty of 122 per cent. in the event of further depreciation in the French and Belgian currencies causing unemployment in the industry and took French currency at 130 and Belgian at 107, and, as these exchanges are now approximately 145 and 136, he intends to take steps to impose the safeguarding duty of 12½ on imported worsted goods?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will answer these questions together. Having regard to the finding of the Committee that employment is not at present seriously affected, the Government have not proposed a duty in the present Budget. The Committee recommended that close observation should be directed to the future trend of currency fluctuation, imports and employment. This is being done, and the progress of the industry will he carefully watched
    Sir H. CROFT: May I ask whether the attention of the President of the Board of Trade has been called to the facts given in yesterday's papers to the effect that the imports of manufactured woollen and worsted goods have been increased by £3,000,000 in three years, and is not this an adequate reason for the Government taking action?
    Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Report the French hank rate has recently fallen away seriously, and is not that a further reason for putting on a duty?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: What is being watched are three things—the fluctuations in currency, imports and employment.
    Mr. REMER: Is it not also a fact that unemployment has increased, unemployment. in the worsted industry?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is a matter of opinion.

    CARPETS.
    Colonel APPLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the value of foreign-made carpets imported into this country during the last three months of 1925 and the first three months of 1926; and what steps he proposes to take to protect the wages of British carpet makers from Oriental and Continental cheap labour?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The retained imports of carpets, carpeting and rugs of wool (including carpets and rugs on a wool or jute basis) amounted in the last three months of 1925 to £352,642, and in the first three months of 1926 to £465,208. As regards the second part of the question, it is open to the industry to make application, in accordance with the Safeguarding of Industries procedure, if it is of opinion that it can establish a case.

    FOREIGN COMPETITION.
    Colonel APPLINasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the success of the steps that have been taken to safeguard certain British industries, as shown by the trade returns and the marked decrease in un employment; and whether, in view of these facts and figures, he will expedite the safeguarding of those industries which are still suffering from unfair foreign competition?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister on the 3rd December to the hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Erskine), of which I am sending him a copy.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    STEAMSHIP "PORTVALE" (WIRELESS OPERATOR).
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamship "Portvale" left Falmouth on the 15th March for Rotterdam without a wireless operator on board, contrary to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919; whether the Board of Trade granted an exemption to this vessel; if so, on what grounds; and, if not, does he propose to take disciplinary action against the responsible official?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have ascertained that the s.s. "Portvale" called for orders at Falmouth on 15th March and proceeded on her voyage (which was from Rosario to Rotterdam) without engaging a wireless operator. No exemption had been granted. The vessel did not require clearance, and the last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. KENNEDY: Is any action being taken by the Board of Trade in view of the contravention of the law?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to this case. The vessel sailed from Rosario, and only put into Falmouth temporarily for orders. There was no question of getting a clearance there, and therefore I could not act.

    STEAMSHIP "BUTESHIRE" (APPRENTICE).
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that an apprentice attached to the s.s. "Buteshire" recently failed in the Board of Trade examination; whether, seeing that such failure was due to this apprentice's time being largely occupied on wireless watches instead of spending his time training as a professional seaman and that the Board was assured by the owners of the vessel that only a small percentage of this apprentice's time was spent keeping wireless watches, the Board of Trade has satisfied itself as to the truth of this assurance; and, if not, what steps will be taken to inquire into the matter?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My attention has not previously been drawn to the
    1826
    case to which the hon. Member refers; but if he will give me the name of the candidate, and the date and place at which he was examined, I will inquire into the matter.

    LINE-THROWING APPLIANCES.
    Colonel DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is able to make any statement as to the suggestion that merchant ships should compulsorily carry line-throwing appliances for the purpose of establishing communication between two vessels or between a vessel and the shore?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The question whether ships should be required to carry line-throwing appliances is being considered, but there is no power to require this under the present law, and I am not in a position at present to make any statement about future legislation.

    ENGINEERS (EXAMINATION CENTRES, SCOTLAND).
    Mr. ROSEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the proposal to abolish the tuition and examination centre for marine engineers at Aberdeen, and transfer its functions to Leith, will cause inconvenience and expense to young engineers seeking to qualify for certificates; that the economy likely to be effected will be disproportionate to the difficulties it will cause; and will he, in view of the circumstances, reconsider the matter?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 20th April to the hon. Members for Caithness and Dundee, of which I am sending him a copy.

    FUEL ECONOMY.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the terms of the Electricity (Supply) Bill now before the House, any investigation is being carried on by His Majesty's Government with regard to fuel economy; and whether, in view of the importance of this question to the trade and industry of the country, information on the subject will be made available at the earliest possible moment?
    Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (for Lord EUSTACE PERCY): I have been asked to reply to this question. Research on the economical utilisation of fuel is being carried out under the Fuel Research Board of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. An account of the work in progress is given in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry (Chapter IV), and fuller information will be found in the annual reports of the Fuel Research Board and of the Department of Scientific and industrial Research.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    SAFETY RAZORS.
    Sir FREDERICK RICEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many of the soldiers in the Army are buying safety razors, as they are unable to use the long-handled, unprotected type issued; and whether he will consider the advisability of authorising an alternative issue of safety razors?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The question of issuing safety razors to the troops in lieu of the long-handled type is already under consideration.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Will my hon. and gallant Friend see that these razors and razor blades are made in England?
    Captain KING: That is obviously one of the points for consideration.

    MUTTON RATION.
    Sir F. RICEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that an Order has been issued withdrawing the supply of mutton in the rations supplied to the troops, he will say if, before doing so, he had consulted his medical advisers as to the desirability of this course; and if he has considered the effect his action will have upon the sheep farmers of this country?
    Captain KING: I am advised that the withdrawal of the mutton issue will not have any adverse effect upon the health of the troops. As regards the second part of the question, I do not think that the action in question will affect the sheep farmers of this country, since, with the
    1828
    exception of quite negligible quantities, all mutton supplied to the troops was imported.

    TATTOO DISPLAYS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. COOPERasked the Secretary of State for War whether any tattoo displays, similar to those given in the Stadium at the British Empire Exhibition last year, are being arranged for Scotland; and, if so, will he state the towns in which it is proposed to hold them?
    Captain KING: A military tattoo will be held in Edinburgh from 29th September to 2nd October. The holding of a tattoo in Glasgow at the end of September is also under consideration.

    ROYAL SCOTS' COLOURS.
    Mr. COIJPERasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the event of Colours being presented to the Royal Scots on their return to Maryhill Barracks, Glasgow, from Aden, he will decide that the pikestaff should bear the Scottish national crest?
    Captain KING: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to recommend the change advocated by my hon. Friend. The proposed alteration in question has been exhaustively considered on several previous occasions, and I am advised that no departure from existing practice is warranted.
    Mr. COUPER: is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the crest which appears on the pikestaff of the Colours is not that which appropriate to the Royal Crest of Scotland?
    Captain KING: it is the crest authorised by the Army Regulations.

    WEST INDIA REGIMENT.
    Mr. JACOBasked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the future of the West India Regiment?
    Captain KING: No, Sir; the matter is still under consideration.

    COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA,
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many officers and

    1829
    soldiers, respectively, have refused duty or been guilty of other acts of insubordination during the last 12 mouths as a result of supposed Communist propaganda and incitement; and whether he has traced any weakening of the discipline of His Majesty's Army as the direct or indirect result of such alleged incitement, and propaganda?
    Captain KING: It is not possible to analyse, the mental process which culminates in an act of insubordination and I am therefore unable to say whether any such act which has occurred during the past. year is the result of Communist propaganda. The answer to the second part of the question is therefore in the negative.

    LIEUTENANT C. H. GLENDINNING.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for War whether any inquiry has been, or will be, held into new charges and allegations against the Secretary of State and senior officers of the Army, contained in a pamphlet recently published by Lieut. C. H. Glendinning?
    Captain KING: No, Sir. The case of this officer has already been the subject of the fullest investigation and there is nothing new in the pamphlet referred to which would warrant the re-opening of this case.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Has this man had any opportunity of appearing before any committee which has investigated the case?
    Captain KING: I require notice of that particular question. The matter was very fully investigated by the right hon. Gentleman who was Secretary of State for War in the Socialist Government.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this man s grievous complaint is that. he himself and his witnesses have never been heard? Is it not time, in view of the man's continual propaganda on his own behalf, and the statements that he is making, to give him that opportunity?
    Captain KING: I have already replied that the question has been very thoroughly considered in the past, and we see no reason for re-opening it.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    WAR OFFICE STAFF AND ARMY PERSONNEL.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for War the numbers employed at the War Office in April, 1914; the numbers so employed at the present time; and the personnel of the Army on both dates?
    Captain KING: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The answer is as follows:
    War Office staff (including local audit staff at outstations):

    1914

    …

    …

    …

    1,878 (a)

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    2,451

    Personnel of Army (excluding "additional numbers"):

    1914

    …

    …

    …

    181,568 (b)

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    153,773 (c)

    (a) Excludes staff for aviation.
    (b) Excludes Royal Flying Corps.
    (c) Excludes native troops in Middle East administered by Air Ministry.

    BONUS (SUPER-CUT).
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the delay to the presentation of the case of the super-cut of the War Bonus, which the staff side of the National Whitley Council desire to submit to the Civil Service Arbitration Court; and what are the reasons which prevent the Government, through the official side of the council, from agreeing to terms of remit to the court?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Winston Churchill): I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer which I gave to him on the 20th April in reply to a similar question.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the decision of the Treasury is ultimately going to be in the negative to this scheme, is it not possible to say "No'' straight away?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is not the only question which we are considering. Apart from the special question of whether this advance should be agreed to now or not, on which we have a per-

    1831
    fectly clear opinion in the negative, there is also the question of the general responsibility of the Government in regard to these matters.

    STATE PRINTING WORKS (PROFITS).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the trading accounts of the Government printing works at Harrow, Hare Street, and Cricklewood for the last certified period show that profits have accrued to the State; and, if so, will he state the gross and net profit earned by each of the three establishments?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The last certified accounts, covering the year ended 31st March, 1925 show the following profits: Harrow—gross profit, £92,679, net profit, £63,219; Hare Street—£18,643 and £7,139; Cricklewood—£12,585 and £5,928. Total gross profit,£123,908; net profit, £76,286.
    Mr. NAYLOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard those returns on State trading as satisfactory?
    Mr. McNEILL: I have no reason to think them unsatisfactory.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Has the net profit been ascertained after provision for sinking fund as well as interest?
    Mr. McNEILL: That I could not answer without notice.
    Sir J. NALL: In assessing these profits, has the work done for the various Departments been charged at rates which would have been charged by contractors, or have higher prices been credited to the Stationery Office?
    Mr. McNEILL: I should require notice of that also.

    ADMIRALTY ESTABLISHMENTS (STAFFS).
    Lieut.-Colonel GADIEasked the First Lord of the. Admiralty the number of persons employed in the years 1905–06, 1913–14 and 1925–26, as follows: Fleet appointments, civil appointments, naval establishments, and other salaried positions, showing rates of pay and salaries for 1905–06, 1913–14 and 1925–26, respectively, for the respective positions, and giving the number of men and ships in commission for the years specified?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): A detailed comparison of the staffs of all Admiralty establishments in 1914 with those in 1922 and 1923 is contained as an Appendix to the First Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, 1923. A perusal will show the enormous amount of labour which would be involved in carrying back the comparison to the year 1906, or in bringing it forward to 1926, but a comparison for this latter date may be made by comparing the statement with the current Navy Estimates. For the numbers of ships on the effective list and of the personnel of the Navy, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply of the 12th March to the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Compton) (OFFICIAL, REPORT, column 2782).

  SCOTLAND.

    EMBO HARBOUR,
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware of the inadequate accommodation at Embo for the boats of the large fishing community in that village; and whether he will have the harbour inspected by the Fishery Board and a scheme drawn up for its improvement?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I have received no recent representations regarding the pier at Embo. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the question of an improvement scheme was the subject of correspondence in 1922 and 1923 between the county council, to whom the harbour belongs, and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and I understand that the proposals then under consideration were the result of inspections carried out on behalf of the county council. If the county council have any fresh proposal to make, it will be considered, but, in view of the commitments and claims on the limited funds available for such purposes, I am afraid that there is no prospect of any grant being made in this case at the present time.

    LAND DRAINAGE.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary for Scotland whether it is proposed to make any financial provision for land

    1833
    drainage in Scotland during the year 1926–27 under the Government schemes for unemployment relief; and, if so, how much money will be available for this purpose?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: A sum of £11,500 has been provided in the Estimates to meet claims for work done up to the 29th May, 1926, under the 1925–26 scheme for the relief of unemployment, which will mature for payment during the current financial year. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, a scheme for the assistance of agricultural drainage in Scotland has recently been introduced as part of the Government's Agricultural policy. The financial provision for this scheme during 1926–27 is £20,625.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not the case that the only provision which is being made is under the drainage scheme, and is only half the provision made in recent years under the unemployment relief schemes, although the Government's own conference reported last year that drainage was the most important work that could be done in the interests of agriculture in Scotland?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: We are getting our reasonable proportion of what is being expended.

    HARRIS (SMALL HOLDINGS).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, as an arrangement was made between the Scottish Board of Agriculture and the late Lord Leverhulme suspending the policy of land purchase for small holdings in Harris for a period of 10 years, and as the employment provided by the late Lord Leverhulme is now no longer available, he can say if it is now his intention to resume the policy of providing land for smallholders?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: So far as I am aware the understanding as to land settlement in Harris rested upon an arrangement between the late Lord Leverhulme and the people of Harris. As, however I informed the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Livingstone) on Tuesday last, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in view of the new situation in Harris, have recently formulated schemes under which 41 applicants have been settled on two farms in Harris.
    1834
    The question whether anything more can be done in this direction consistently with what I said in my reply to the hon. Member's question on the 14th April is being considered but I take this opportunity of stating that any person who engages in illegal seizures of land will seriously prejudice his chances of inclusion in any settlement schemes which may be promoted.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Are we to understand that the Scottish Board of Agriculture was no party to the arrangement with the late Lord Leverhnlme?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have stated, the arrangement in regard to Harris was an arrangement between Lord Leverhulme and the people of Harris. There was another arrangement in regard to Lewis, which was on a different footing.

    AGRICULTURAL LAND (RATEABLE VALUE).
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Secretary for Scotland the gross rental or gross rateable value of all land in Scotland assessed as agricultural for purposes of local rates; and what was the total amount of rates paid in respect of that land, respectively, in the years 1913–14 and 1924–25?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The gross rental of subjects in Scotland assessed as agricultural was £5,663,958 in 1924–25 and approximately £5,700,000 in 1913–14. The total amount of rates paid in respect of that land in 1924–25 is estimated at £1,260,000. The corresponding amount for 1913–14 is not available, but the figure would probably be about £900,000.

  COAL MINING COMPANIES (PROFITS).
  Mr. CONNOLLYasked the Secretary for Mines if he can inform the House as to the amount of profits earned by British coal-mining companies in each year from 1st January, 1915, to the last available date; and the paid-up capital in such companies in 1913 and at the last available date?
  Sir H. BARNSTON (for Colonel LANE FOX): As the answer is necessarily long, my right hon. Friend will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: At the same time, is it not desirable that some record of the losses made should be circulated?
  HON. MEMBERS: There are no losses.
  Following is the answer to the question on the paper:
  The hon. Member will find all available information on this subject in Appendix 38 in the third volume of the Report of the Royal Commission. It is there stated to be impracticable to give separate figures of annual profits for the years 1914–21, but the average annual profit during those years is given as £2217 millions. In subsequent years the profits have been as follow:

  £ million.

  1922

  11·0

  1923

  27·5

  1924

  14·3

  1925 (including subvention.)

  3·0

  As regards paid-up capital, the conclusion arrived at is that it is "impracticable to arrive at figures representing capital embarked in the colliery industry which one could put forward with confidence as approximating closely to the truth."

  TRANSPORT.

    STREET ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. NAYLORasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the increase in the number of fatal and nonfatal street accidents in Great Britain from 98,215 in 1924 to 115,473 in 1925, more than a third of which occurred in the Metropolis, he has any plans or recommendations under consideration for minimising the dangers responsible for this increase in the number of such accidents?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The matter to which the hon. Member refers is constantly under consideration. I may refer in particular to the Circular which was recently issued to highway authorities on the subject of the use of "white lines" on highways, to the new powers secured under Section 4 of the Roads Improvement Act, 1925, for the elimination of blind corners, and to the various improvements with regard to omnibus and tramway stopping places, refuges, and the regulation of traffic generally which
    1836
    have been made in the Metropolitan area on the advice of the London Traffic Advisory Committee.

    STEEL TYRES (DAMAGE TO ROADS).
    Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to serious damage caused to roads in various parts of the country by the use thereon of traction-engines and tractors fitted with steel tyres; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to prevent similar damage being occasioned in the future?
    Colonel ASHLEY: My attention has been drawn, on several occasions, to this matter, particularly in connection with certain roads in Scotland last summer. I have been in communication with the Showmen's Guild and the Traction Engine Owners' Association, and both organisations have agreed to urge the adoption of rubber tyres or pads on all the types of vehicles referred to, other than those used for purely agricultural purposes on the land. This alteration has already been made on a considerable number of vehicles, and I am informed that the results have proved very satisfactory to the users. I hope that this practice will shortly become universal. If, however, the use of steel tyres on vehicles intended for the roads continues, I shall endeavour to secure power to prohibit them.

    ROUND-ABOUT STREET TRAFFIC (LUDGATE CIRCUS).
    Mr. NAYLORasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the proposal to adopt the gyratory system of traffic at Ludgate Circus, London, and the very large number of persons crossing the circus at all times of the day, and especially in the morning and evening, he will make representations to the responsible authority for the construction of underground subways at that point?
    Colonel ASHLEY: There is not at present any proposal to introduce the round-about system of traffic working at Ludgate Circus.

    OMNIBUSES AND TRAMS (STOPPING PLACES).
    Sir FRANK MEYERasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that in many cases in the Metropolitan area omnibuses and trams stop side by

    1837
    side for the purpose of picking up and setting down passengers, thereby causing a complete stoppage of the stream of traffic; and whether he is prepared to recommend the issue of regulations to prevent this practice?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It is my general practice when reviewing traffic matters in the London traffic area to arrange for omnibus stopping places to be fixed a distance of two tramcar lengths to the rear of the corresponding tramway stopping places, although it is sometimes found necessary to depart from this general rule owing to local conditions. However, if my hon. Friend will furnish me with a list of stopping places where the difficulties he refers to are experienced, I will have them investigated.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great difficulty in Trafalgar Square at the present moment with regard to stopping places?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am hoping that the arrangements made in Trafalgar Square will largely eliminate the difficulty.

  OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS (SALE BY AUCTION).
  Sir CHARLES OMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that important official documents, taken away from their offices by former Ministers of State or civil servants, have on several occasions in recent years been offered for sale at auction in London and sold to foreign countries; and whether he is able to suggest some means by which the State should resume possession of such papers when they are advertised for auction or otherwise reported to be leaving the country?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Prime Minister asked me to answer this question. The Prime Minister has no information of the matter to which my hon. Friend refers, but will gladly make inquiry if my hon. Friend will be good enough to furnish any particulars which he may possess.
  Sir C. OMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this morning's paper there is notice of a sale by auction of the papers of a prominent statesman of the early nineteenth century, in which many official documents are to be found?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will refer my hon. Friend's supplementary question to the Prime Minister.

  NECESSITOUS AREAS (GRANTS)

    GOVERNMENT DECISION.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet considered the Report of the Departmental Committee on the question of grants-in-aid to necessitous areas; and what action they propose to take?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, after giving careful consideration to the matter the Government have decided that they are unable to accede to the request of certain local authorities for special assistance from the Exchequer towards the cost of Poor Law relief. They are not prepared to agree in principle that any specific assistance should be given and, as the Report of Sir Harry Goschen's Committee shows, no equitable scheme of distribution has been submitted by local authorities.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is that the final word of the Government in reply to the plea of the necessitous areas?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes Sir, I have just made the statement.

  HISTORIC MANUSCRIPTS, PICTURES AND BUILDINGS.
  Sir HENRY SLESSERasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the continuous wastage and loss of historic manuscripts, works of art, and ancient buildings which is sustained by the country owing to their sale and export or destruction, he will appoint a Committee to consider and report upon the whole question?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government are alive to the importance of this question. In so far as it relates to works of art, it was, as the hon. and learned Member will be aware, investigated fully by Lord Curzon's Committee

  1839
  in 1915, and the Prime Minister is not satisfied that there is any case for a further examination of this aspect of the subject or for a change of the present arrangements. My right hon. Friend is calling for reports with regard to historic manuscripts and ancient buildings.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting a heavy export tax on certified works of art?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have completed my statement of financial proposals for this year.

  MINISTERS' SALARIES.
  Lieut.-Colonel GADI Easked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount paid in salaries to members of His Majesty's Government in 1904, 1914 and 1924; and to which Ministers and under what circumstances have any increases of salary been made?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The total amount paid in salaries to members of His Majesty's Government was £128,525 in 1904, £140,875 in 1914 and £137,560 in 1924. The salaries of the President and Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade were increased from £2,000 and £1,200 per annum to £5,000 and £1,500 per annum, respectively, in 1910 after the passing of the Board of Trade Act, 1909, had removed the limitation on the President's salary, and the same increase was made in that year in the salaries of the President and Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board, offices which are now merged in the posts of Minister and Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. The above increases were granted in recognition of the heavy responsibilities devolving upon the holders of these offices. The salary of the Lord Privy Seal was increased to £5,000 per annum in 1924 while that office was held by the Leader of the House of Commons, but since November, 1924, has been reduced to the normal figure of £2,000.

  INCOME TAX (FARMERS).
  Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAMBULLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has
  1840
  been drawn to cases where inspectors of taxes are demanding from farmers instant payment of instalments of Income Tax even though accounts have been submitted by the farmers concerned showing losses sufficient to exonerate them from payment of tax; and whether he will cause instructions to be given to inspectors of taxes, who through pressure of work or other causes may be delayed in making the necessary adjustments, to defer making such demands?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Under the normal practice a claim by a farmer to adjustment of his liability to Income Tax by reference to a loss sustained by him in the occupation of lands, would be admitted by way of a discharge of tax charged, in any case in which the farmer is able to establish his title to the adjustment at the time when the tax becomes payable. If my hon. Friend has in mind any case in which it is alleged that this practice has not been followed, and will let me have the necessary particulars, I will gladly have inquiry made into the matter and will communicate the result to him in due course.

  TAXATION (EVASION IN CHANNEL ISLANDS).
  Colonel DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any Measures are in contemplation with a view to safeguarding the Exchequer against wealthy persons claiming domicile in Jersey in order to evade British taxation and Death Duties?
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the possibility of avoiding payment of Income Tax and Death Duties opened up by the acquisition of domicile in Jersey; and whether he will take steps to prevent such evasion, especially in the case of British subjects whose property has been acquired by business in this country?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: In reply to these two questions, which I will answer together, I would refer both hon. Members to the reply which I gave yesterday on this subject.

  IRISH FREE STATE (LAND PURCHASE).
  Colonel GRETTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount paid to the Treasury by the Government of the Irish Free State on account of the Irish Land Purchase Acts during the financial year ending the 31st March, 1926, and what was the total payment due; whether there are any arreas of payment accruing during past years; and, if so, what is the total amount of such arrears?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The amount paid to the British Government by the Government of the Irish Free State on Recount of the Irish Land Purchase Acts, 1891 to 1909, during the year ended the 31st March, 1926, was £4,179,380. This sum represents the total amount due in respect of land purchase annuities for the year, together with a contribution of £183,500 towards Bonus and Excess Stock charges and the arrears of the annuities which were outstanding on the 1st April, 1925, pending discussion of certain questions regarding the incidence of Income Tax which have now been settled. No arrears are now outstanding.

  POST OFFICE.

    WIRELESS TELEPHONY, CANADA AND AUSTRALIA.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Postmaster-General whether His Majesty's Government refused to conduct experiments in wireless telephony with either Australia or Canada on account of their commitments in the United States of America; and, if so, whether he will explain the nature of these commitments and how long they will last?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): No, Sir. The only reason why the experiments have so far been confined to the United States is that the United States is the only country equipped with suitable transmitting and receiving apparatus for the purpose of reciprocal experiments. The Government are under no obligations to the United States which would preclude their undertaking experiments with Canada or Australia in the event of stations equipped for the purpose being provided in those Dominions.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it a fact that the Australians and Canadians have asked the Post Office to conduct these experiments with those countries, and that the Post Office have refused?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is far from being the fact, and that request could not in fact have been made, because, as I have stated in my answer, there are no stations in Canada or Australia capable of conducting such experiments.

    PRESS TELEGRAMS.
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the Postmaster-General what was the amount received in respect of Press telegrams for the last completed financial year, and for the longest period since for which figures are available; and what would have been the amount receivable for the same period if those telegrams had been sent at the rates chargeable Fe the public for similar services?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The revenue from Press telegrams was £84,000 in 1925–26. At ordinary rates the revenue from the same amount of traffic would probably have been between £500,000 and £600,000, but considerable labour would be involved in obtaining the in formation necessary to estimate it with any accuracy.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Is it a fact that the services rendered to the Press by the Poet Office involve a loss to the Post Office?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, it is.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: But is it not a fact that every civilised country grants a rebate on Press telegrams?

    ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, TAUNTON.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, an independent electric generating plant is being installed by his Department at Taunton, where there is already an efficient and cheap public supply of electricity available with an adjacent main from the Taunton Corporation; and whether, in the interests of national economy, he will reconsider the erection of this plant and make use of the power generated from the existing system?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am aware that arrangements are being made to install an independent electric generating plant in the new telephone repeater station at Taunton. It is essential from a service point of view to equip repeater stations with a complete electrical power unit, for use in emergency. At the smaller stations, such as that at Taunton, it is more economical to provide a second power unit and thus make the station self-contained, than to instal the special plant which would be necessary to utilise current from the public supply.
    Sir J. NALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate that information to the Ministry of Transport?

    TELEPHONE FACILITIES, DITCHLING.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the village of Ditchling, Sussex, has no telegraph office; and can he state when a telegraph office will be established?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There is already a call office at the Ditchling Post Office by means of which the public can despatch telegrams by telephone, and there is a telegraph office at Keymer less than a mile distant. The number of telegrams likely to be handed in at Ditchling is inappreciable, and the establishment of a telegraph office would not be warranted.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to provide a public telephone call office for day and night service in Ditchling?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: A telephone call office is available at the Ditchling Post Office, and the sub-postmaster has expressed his readiness to attend to calls which may be required after the normal hours of counter business, under the usual condition of the payment of a fee for disturbance. The provision of a call office kiosk available for day and night service in addition to the facilities provided at the post office would not be justified unless a guarantee were furnished to make good any deficiency between the annual expenses and the receipts.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what. would be the fee for this service?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Usually a shilling.

    VILLAGE TELEPHONE CALL OFFICES.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the Postmaster-General if his Department is in process of providing public telephone call-offices available for day and night service in the villages; whether any such call-offices have been established and, if so, where; and, if not, what the prospects are for providing these modern necessities; and whether there are any difficulties?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Rural call-offices installed in local post offices are normally available only during the hours when the post office is open but urgent calls can generally be made at other hours upon payment of a disturbance fee if there is a responsible person on the premises. Such calls are rare, and to provide villages with kiosks available for night service would in most cases involve expense out of all proportion to the use made of the facilities. A kiosk can, however, often be provided if the annual deficit is guaranteed by persons interested. A list of villages where day and night telephone service is provided is not readily available.
    Colonel DAY: Cannot these be provided with automatic telephone boxes?

    SAMPLE POST.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the fact that the pre-paid rate of postage on sample packets for all places abroad is 1d. for the first 4 ounces, he will grant similar facilities for inland sample packets?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I regret that I am unable to reintroduce the inland sample post. which would entail a considerable sacrifice of revenue; and, financial considerations apart, experience has shown that it is impossible to prevent the use of an inland sample post for articles of merchandise which are not samples at all, or for small parcels sent from one individual to another, except by imposing restrictive Regulations which are both harassing to the public and difficult to administer.

    CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICE.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether, for the purpose of protecting the public, he will consider issuing a Regulation that senders of articles cash-on-delivery should sign a declaration that the consignment in question is being forwarded in response to a bona-fide order?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: A Regulation of the nature suggested by my hon. Friend was in force for some years in the cash-on-delivery services with British Colonies. It was abolished because practical experience showed it to be unnecessary. The public can safeguard themselves by refusing to accept parcels of goods which they have not ordered.
    Colonel DAYasked the Postmaster-General the number of complaints received of the abuse of the cash-on-delivery system, in so far as the delivery of unordered goods is concerned; and whether he will consider legislation with a view to dealing in an effective manner with offenders who take such advantage of the system?
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Postmaster-General if he has received any complaints of abuse of the cash-on-delivery system in connection with the sending to householders of unordered goods?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will answer these questions together. I have received a few such complaints; but I do not, as at present advised, consider that legislation is necessary, since the public can readily safeguard themselves, as no doubt most people do, by refusing goods which they have not ordered.
    Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the number of complaints he has received, which is asked for in the question?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I cannot do that off-hand, but really there have been very, very few.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that already cases have occurred where members of a family have been away from home, and other members, who did not know whether the goods had been ordered, have accepted them?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think, perhaps, the hon. Member will see that it is necessary to gain a little experience of the working of this system. If experience shows that such a Regulation is necessary, it will be made.

    IMPERIAL, PENNY POSTAGE.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Post-master-General whether, in view of the fact that one of the Dominions has returned to Imperial penny postage and a second is to introduce internal penny postage, he will use every endeavour to bring up the subject of Empire penny postage at the forthcoming Imperial Conference?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not doubt that the Dominions share the views of His Majesty's Government that a reversion to penny postage is desirable ac soon as financial conditions admit. But as the financial situation in this country does not at present allow of the sacrifice of revenue which the restoration of penny postage would entail, I do not think there is any occasion for His Majesty's Government to initiate a discussion at the imperial Conference on the subject.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: May we take it that this subject will be discussed at the Imperial Conference, as it is of great importance to the Empire?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I cannot say, but the fact remains that we cannot afford it here at the present time.
    Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what sacrifice of revenue is involved?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have given the figures. The last estimate I gave was, I think, about £5,500,000.

    TELEPHONE BOXES (CLEANING).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Post-master-General whether he can inform the House what. methods are pursued to keep in a clean and sanitary- condition public telephone boxes; how often the average box is cleansed; and whether any form of disinfectant, and, if so, what, is made use of either with regard to the box itself or the telephone therein contained?
    Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: Where attendants are employed, they

    1847
    are responsible for keeping the cabinet and apparatus in a clean condition. The mouthpieces and earpieces are wiped with a clean cloth, moistened with disinfectant, every morning. The floor is washed at least once a week and the inner walls occasionally as required. At unattended call offices the mouthpieces and earpieces are wiped with a clean cloth, moistened with disinfectant, once, twice or three times weekly according to the use made of the office. The floor is washed once a week and the inner walls as required. Standard makes of disinfectant are used.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman believe that some of these boxes do not show signs of the frequent washings to which he has referred?
    Sir F. MEYER: Is it in the right hon. Gentleman's power to issue regulations prohibiting smoking in these telephone boxes?
    Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider fitting glass mouthpieces, which are more hygienic?

    TELEPHONE DEPOSITS (TURF COMMISSION AGENTS).
    Colonel APPLINasked the Post-master-General whether he is aware that turf commission agents are compelled to pay a cash deposit of five pounds on every telephone installed for their business instead of 30s. as laid down in the Postal Regulations; and if he will state the reason for this extra charge and the authority for imposing it?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The amount of the deposit ordinarily required is two-thirds of the quarterly user, actual or estimated, with a minimum of £1. Experience shows that turf commission agents make extensive use of the trunk and local services, and in the case of new subscribers of this class, where the probable user has to be estimated, I do not consider the request for a deposit of £5 to be unreasonable. The fixing of the amount is a matter within my discretion and is provided for in the subscriber's agreement.
    Colonel APPLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some of these cases quite considerable sums have been
    1848
    paid and are held by the Post Office for very many years, and probably never returned?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should require a little more information about that from the hon. and gallant Gentleman before I could answer him.

  FISHING INDUSTRY (WIRELESS LECTURES).
  Mr. HARRISONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that the fishing industry, both in the interests of the nation and of the industry itself, requires stimulating, he will consider arranging a series of wireless lectures by his experts to bring before the nation the value of fish as a foodstuff'?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Yes, Sir, I shall be glad to try to arrange suitable wireless talks on fish and fisheries.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fishing industry would regard a speech by the right hon. Gentleman, broadcast, as a very valuable asset?
  Mr. GUINNESS: I think experts will be able to give them better value than I should.

  ENFORCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE ORDERS (CANADA).
  Mr. HARRISONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will make representations to the Government of the Dominion of Canada with a view to effect being given to the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): The question of the passage of reciprocal legislation in Canada to enable effect to. be given to the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920, has been the subject of recent correspondence with the Canadian Government. The matter is one which in Canada falls within the jurisdiction of the several provinces, and the latter are, it is understood, not at present prepared to take steps for the pat-sage of the necessary legislation. In the circumstances, I doubt whether it would be of

  1849
  advantage at present to take the action suggested by my hon. Friend, but I can assure him that the question. of bringing the matter again, to the notice of the Dominion Government at some future date will not be overlooked
  Mr. HARRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there will be any chance to bring this matter before the Imperial Conference in the Autumn?
  Mr. AMERY: It is one of the points that could very well be brought to the notice of the Imperial Conference.

  AIR SERVICES APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT, 1924–25.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the statement contained on page 5 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report on the Air Services Appropriation Account, 1924–25, dealing with special advances made to contractors before the completion or delivery of goods in order that surplus sums remaining unspent should not be repaid to the Treasury, and to the statement on page 8 that a certain contractor to whom such an advance had been made shortly afterwards went into liquidation, whereby the Treasury has sustained a lose of nearly £500; will he state whether any official will be surcharged for the amount of this loss; will he publish a list of all such advance payments made by the Air Ministry and other departments, giving the names of the firms thus favoured; and will he state what steps he proposes to take to prevent such proceedings in future?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): As this question falls into a number of parts, the answer is somewhat long, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Can the hon. Member state whether the statements contained in the question are accurate?
  Sir P. SASSOON: The question is referred to the Public Accounts Committee, which is set up by this House to deal with matters of this kind, and I think that I had better not say anything about it.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if any local authority were guilty of this sort of conduct, the members of it would not only be surcharged but locked up?
  Following is the information promised
  The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension in this matter. The loss alluded to on page 8 of the Report was not in respect of an advance made to a contractor; in fact, no such advance had been made. The Comptroller and Auditor-General called attention to an omission to deduct, from sums due to the contractor on a. Air Ministry contract, the value of services rendered to him by the Royal Aircraft establishment at Farnborough. The case is still the subject of correspondence, and no question of a surcharge against any official has arisen.
  As regards the practice of making advances to contractors referred to on page 5 of the Report, the conditions have been defined and approved by the Public Accounts Committee. The advances are in all cases made for the convenience of the public and not for the advantage of contractors. I do not see that any public purpose, would be served by the publication of a list; of such advances or by the prohibition of such advances as are made within the limits laid down by the Public Accounts Committee.

  MR. IYENGAR (ARREST AT PONDICHERRY).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Chose, a member of the Madras Legislative Council, when visiting a friend at. Pondicherry on 12th March, was placed under arrest, and, after a private examination by certain French officials, was compelled to allow his finger-prints to be taken and suffered other indignities, after which he was released; and will he make representations to the French authorities as to the reason for this treatment of Mr. Chose, in order that a repetition of such action may not take place?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I have been asked to reply. According to the pub-

  1851
  lished statement of the member in question, whose name is Iyengar, not Ghose, the incident took place in February. The friend referred to is a notorious fugitive revolutionary from Bengal, and, in the circumstances, my Noble Friend sees no ground for suggesting that the French Colonial authorities should refrain from any precautionary measures they may think it necessary to take regarding his visitors.
  Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether a man is to be punished because his friend is a noted revolutionary?
  Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member should know very well that I cannot answer questions about administration in a foreign country. The only grounds upon which His Majesty's Government can interfere, or ever do interfere, in matters of this kind is where there is room for representations on the ground that a British subject has been treated illegally under the law. There is no reason to suppose that any such circumstances have arisen here and I must respectfully decline to comment upon the action of the French authorities.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is not this British subject entitled to protection at the hands of His Majesty's Government; and is there any charge at all against this man which would give the right to any foreign Government. to arrest him and take his finger prints as if he were a criminal?
  Earl WINTERTON: It is the duty of His Majesty's subjects, whether British or Indian, to obey the law in foreign countries to which they go. If they choose to visit well-known revolutionaries they must put up with the consequences.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Has the Noble Lord the slightest evidence that the man who was subject to these indignities is a revolutionary, or that he was in the country for any other than a purely legal purpose?
  Earl WINTERTON: That, if I may say so, is not the point at issue. As I said in my original reply, the gentleman whom Mr. Iyengar visited is a well-known fugitive revolutionary from Bengal, and if the French police, in their Colony, and in the exercise of their
  1852
  duty and discretion, choose to take certain action against those who visit him, I say that is within their discretion, and there is no ground for His Majesty's Government to make representations to the French Government.
  Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether the man who was visited was living as an ordinary citizen, and if there is any notice that it is illegal to visit him—either for his friends or anyone else to visit him?
  Earl WINTERTON: I have no knowledge of the laws of the French Colony. All I say is that the French police, in the exercise of their discretion, took certain action against a visitor to this well-known revolutionary, and I say it would be intolerable if His Majesty's Government, were asked to interfere on every occasion that any person visited another person of subversive tendencies.

  HOUSING (RURAL DISTRICTS).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Minister of Health if he can give the number of houses in rural districts for which a subsidy under the Housing Act, 1924, has been sanctioned?
  Sir K. WOOD: 16,002 houses have so far been authorised for erection in rural districts in connection with subsidy schemes under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.
  Mr. BUXTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say what proportion these figures bear to the shortage reported in the rural districts?
  Sir K. WOOD: I think the right hon. Gentleman had better put a question down.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea how many of these houses have been erected for letting to agricultural labourers, and how many for selling?
  Sir K. WOOD: I should like notice of that question, but I may call the attention of the hon. Member to the provisions of the Housing Act, 1924.
  Mr. MARDY JONES: Can the hon. Member tell us what number of these houses got the subsidy at the maximum of £14 per house, and how many at £9?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.

  RELIEVING OFFICERS (QUALIFICATIONS).
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health if, before sanctioning the appointments in the unions of the Isle of Wight, New Forest, Falmouth, and Auckland, to the position of relieving officer, of applicants whose former occupation was that of motor engineer, marine engineer, and miner, he was satisfied that no other applicant had previous experience more likely to qualify him for the work appertaining to the duties of a relieving officer?
  Sir K. WOOD: The selection of persons for appointment as relieving officers is primarily a matter for the guardians, and in the cases referred to my right hon. Friend was satisfied that the guardians had given consideration to the previous experience and to the local knowledge of applicants. In the special circumstances of these districts he did not feel justified in refusing approval to the appointments proposed by the guardians. in three instances my right hon. Friend has given approval for a probationary period only and on the understanding that the officer shall, during that period, endeavour to obtain the certificate of the Poor Law Examination Board. It is proposed to follow the same course in the fourth case.
  Mr. BRIANT: Is it not the fact that in some cases people have to serve a probationary period in order to gain experience which is already possessed by others?
  Sir K. WOOD: I would hesitate to answer such a general question, but as regards the four cases the hon. Member referred to, I think in all of them there was previous experience and a particular knowledge of the respective districts.

  MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there is much uncertainty among county authorities as to the powers of a county authority in connection with maternity and child welfare when the local sanitary authority is responsible for the administration of the
  1854
  Notification of Births Act; whether he will cause a statement to be issued which will make the position clear; and whether he will also give an official interpretation of concurrent powers mentioned in page 3 of Circular M. and C.W. 4, of 1918, issued by his Department?
  Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I would point out that the exercise of powers by local authorities under the Maternity and Child Welfare Act is subject to the sanction of my Department, which is consequently in a position to delimit the functions of any authorities with concurrent powers. As at present advised, therefore, my right lion. Friend does not think it necessary to issue an explanatory statement on the subject, but if the hon. Member will furnish particulars of any case in which difficulty has arisen my right hon. Friend will be pleased to consider them.

  TUBERCULOSIS (SPAHLINGER TREATMENT).
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health if any steps are being taken to make further investigation, if this is necessary, into the results obtained in the cure of phthisis by the Spahlinger treatment; and, in view of the importance of the question to the health of the community, if Government assistance will be given in order to make it available to the large number of persons suffering from this disease?
  Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has offered to send competent medical inspectors to study M. Spahlinger's work at Geneva, and to facilitate scientific investigation in this country if M. Spahlinger will supply his materials and method of use, but up to the present neither invitation has been accepted. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
  Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that Spahlinger had not the money to carry out these experiments?
  Sir K. WOOD: That may be so, but directly we receive the necessary information and materials here we shall be glad to go further into the matter.
  Mr. MARDY JONES: Has not the Ministry of Health a certain amount of discretionary power to assist financially; and is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that a very large number of trade unions have already contributed substantially to try to make this treatment a success?
  Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; I think the right course has been taken in this case, and that is to offer to send our officers to Geneva to study these cases; or, on the other hand, that this gentleman should send the material here, and it will be gladly investigated.
  Mr. CLYNES: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether those offers of investigation have been made quite recently?
  Sir K. WOOD: Yes, I think I can say they have been made repeatedly during the last three years.
  Dr. DAVI ES: Has the Report of the officers on the treatment been satisfactory or otherwise?
  Sir K. WOOD: Apparently the hon. Member did not catch my reply. My right hon. Friend has offered to send competent medical officers to inquire into this matter, but the invitation has not yet been accepted.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYéS (FOREIGN SERVICE).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that when Government. employés are sent on foreign service their contributions to the National Health Insurance cease, that after a period of more than 12 months they lose their status as insured persons and consequently all concessions, and that on resuming employment in the United Kingdom they are treated as new entrants into insurance, and are required to complete the necessary waiting periods for benefits both as regards health insurance and pensions, he will consider introducing a scheme whereby all Government employés on going abroad may contribute a fixed weekly amount as a retaining fee, so that when they ultimately return to England they may enter at once into the full benefits that the National Health Insurance affords?
    Sir K. WOOD: The adoption of a scheme such as the hon. Member suggests would necessitate legislation, and, in view of the fact that the position of these employés was raised in the House when the residential requirements of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill were under discussion, my right hon. Friend can hold out no hope of further legislation to deal with the matter.

    ROYAL DOCKYARD WORKERS.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there are large numbers of dockyard men between the ages of 63 and 65 who, having paid contributions under the National Health Insurance Act, 1912, a period of about 10 years, when discharged on the age limit from His Majesty's dockyard ceased contributions under the National Health Insurance Act because of their reduced means and because they were unable to foresee the award of pensions at the age of 65; and whether, in view of the fact that these men, together with their dependants, are consequently disqualified from receiving benefit under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, he will state if they can now satisfy the terms of the Act and come within its benefits by contributing for a qualifying period?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware of the position described, but I would point out that these ex-Government employés are in the same position as employés of private firms who have retired before reaching the age when contributions cease to be payable. By reason of their age at the date when the Contributory Pensions Act came into force, they would, if they became voluntary contributors, be unable to satisfy the statutory conditions for pensions. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the distinction between these employés and private employés is that they have to retire at the age of 60 and are therefore in an adverse position?
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Before the hon. Gentleman replies to that question, and in view of a great deal of difficulty arising in this connection in relation to the cases

    1857
    mentioned by my hon. Friend in his question, will the Parliamentary Secretary see if some Regulation can be issued to enlighten these individuals as to their position?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid the issue of Regulations would not assist them very much, and if anything is to be done it would mean an alteration of the law. As both my hon. Friends are aware, this matter was very fully discussed when the Bill was in Committee.
    Mr. STEPHEN: is the Minister considering the possibility of introducing new legislation to provide for the difficult cases which have arisen?
    Sir K. WOOD: Not yet.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the Parliamentary Secretary still in a position to issue for the benefit of Members a list of the Regulations made and certain exceptional diseases that have been taken into consideration, so that we shall all be in a better position to understand the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act than we are at the present moment?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter, and the hon. Member bad better put his question down on the Paper.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Major Sir Richard Barnett to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Chartered Associations (Protection of Names and Uniforms) Bill) and Mr. Morgan Jones (in respect of the Home Counties (Music and Dancing) Licensing Bill); and Mr. Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill [Lords], the Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill [Lords], and the Law of Property (Amendment) Bill [Lords]).
Report to lie upon the Table.

MYNYDDISLWYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Griffiths, Mr. James Hudson, Mr. Townend, and Mr. Wallhead; and had appointed in substitution: Dr. Shiels, Mr. Whiteley, Mr. John Williams, and Mr. Robert Wilson.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Vinegar Bill): Colonel Applin, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Mr. David Davies, Mr. Dunnico, Captain Foxcroft, Mr. Greene, Mr. Grotrian, Captain Gunston, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Jephcott, Mr. John, Mr. Lee, Mr. Lindley, and Sir Kingsley Wood.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Chartered Associations (Protection of Names and Uniforms) Bill): Colonel Crookshank, Major-General Sir John Davidson, Mr. Dunnico, Mr. Hugh Edwards, Major Glyn, Captain Hacking. Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook, Lieut.-General Sir Arthur Holland, Sir Malcomn Macnaghten, Mr. Montague, Mr. Geoffrey Peto, Mrs. Phillipson, Mr. Ritson, Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay, an.1 Colonel Wedgwood.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Colonel Gault, Major Glyn, Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes, Brigadier - General Warner, and Mr. Womersley; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett, Captain Beamish, Sir Vansittart Bowater, Captain Bullock, and Admiral Sir Reginald Hall.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill [Lords] and the Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill [Lords]): Mr. Sandeman Allen, Mr. Barnes, Colonel Clifton Brown, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Hall Caine, Sir Philip CunliffeLister, Mr. Dixey, Mr. Duckworth, Lieut.-Colonel Gadie, Mr. Greene, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Neville, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, Dr. Watts, and Mr. Webb.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Law of Property (Amendment) Bill [Lords]): Mr. Attorney-General, Sir Henry Cautley, Colonel Sir George Courthope, Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft, Sir Herbert Cunliffe, Mr. Grace, Mr. John Guest, Mr. Hurd, Mr. Lunn, Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell, Mr. Morris, Mr. David Reid, Sir Leslie Scott, Sir Henry Slesser and Mr Solicitor-General.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. WILLIIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Electricity (Supply) Bill): Captain Garro-Jones; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Murdoch Macdonald.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee. [Progress 20th April.]
  [Captain FITROY in the Chair.]

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    AMENDMENT OF LAW.
    Question again proposed,
    "That, it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and to make further provision in connection with Finance."
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself metaphorically shook hands with one another before entering the ring. To-day we enter upon what may be a long and strenuous fight. I do not propose to deal in detail this afternoon with the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, and I will leave a full and detailed examination of them until they appear in the form of definite Resolutions. I would rather to-day confine my observations to the general and wider aspect of the statement made to the Committee yesterday afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman will not complain if I apply to his Budget this year the test which he himself laid down in the Budget 12 months ago. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman used those words:
    "I have to think for more years than one, and I could not produce this year a Budget which will leave me stultified, and in the position of having misled the House and misled the taxpayers of the country. I cannot do that, and I have to consider the possibility that I may have to stand here next year faced with the consequences of what I have done.''—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 28,th April, 1925; col. 38, Vol. 183.]
    The right hon. Gentleman stands there this year to face the consequences of what he did 12 months ago.
    In regard to financial matters, what were the pledges given? What was the policy declared by the present Government, and emphatically by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? At the opening of the first Session of this Parliament, the King's Speech said that economy in every sphere was absolutely necessary to encourage a revival of trade and industry. How far has the right
    1874
    hon. Gentleman succeeded, during the 18 months he has been in office, in redeeming that pledge? He excused himself 12 months ago on the ground that he had not been long in office, and we were quite prepared to concede to him all that he was entitled to by that claim; but I may point out to the Committee that he had been much longer in office when he was called upon to present his Budget than the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer had been. When the right hon. Gentleman took office, the Estimates, if prepared, had not been presented to the Treasury. When we took office they had been completed, and there remained only three or four weeks before they had to be presented to the House of Commons. He had been six months in office before he was called upon to put his financial statement before the Committee of the House of Commons. There had been time-1 will not say ample time, but there had been time—to examine those Estimates, to prune them, and to effect economies; and what was the result in the last Budget?
    Let the Committee never forget that the test by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be judged on his omit pledges is how far he succeeds in reducing expenditure and reducing taxation: and yet, last year, he presented Estimates of expenditure which showed an estimated expenditure £9,000,000 over the Estimates of the previous year. He described that as a disappointing result, but he promised to improve on it. He has improved on it. He presented a Budget yesterday which shows an increase over last year's expenditure of £21,000,000, and in 18 months' time he has succeeding in increasing the national expenditure by £30,000,000 a year. This is after making certain economies, I admit—raiding the sick and the disabled, the unemployed, the Road Fund, and now the Sinking Fund, the extent of these raids amounting to £20,000,000.
    The extent of the right hon. Gentleman's financial embarrassment was very well illustrated by a communique which appeared in the Sunday papers, issued, I know not why, by the French Finance Minister, announcing that ha had received a message of dire distress from the right hon. Gentleman, begging that he would give him something on account that he might

    1875
    present in his Budget to the House of Commons on the following day. The right hon. Gentleman knows my views in regard to the French Debt. Nobody will be better pleased than I shall be if he can succeed in inducing the French Government to meet some part of their financial responsibilities. He made an outrageous settlement with Italy, simply for the purpose of getting £4,000,000 to include in his Budget this year. I see in the newspapers this morning that the French Government are not to pay cash down. The first payment is not to be made for eight months, when half the promised £4,000,000 will be paid, and the rest they hope to pay before the end of next March.
    This was the outcome of the right hon. Gentleman's Herculean effort s at economy—not his own efforts entirely, but assisted by that standing committee of the Cabinet the creation of which he announced last year, and assisted by the Colwyn Committee, who have been probing every nook and corner to see if it were possible to save a £5 note. The right hon. Gentleman has denied that he gave a promise or pledge last year to reduce expenditure progressively by;£10,000,000 a year. Let me read his actual words. He said:
    "I believe we ought to aim at a net reduction"—
    HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Do not let hon. Members be too eager—
    "I believe we ought to aim at a net reduction in the Supply expenditure of not less than £10,000,000 a year. That is not taking an extravagant figure."
    Then I intervened with a question:
    "Every year?"
    and the right hon. Gentleman answered:
    "Each year, progressively on Supply services. There is no reason at all why a strong and resolute effort should not achieve it. There should certainly be a saving of about £5,000,000 on the debt operations of each year."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 28th April, 1925: col. 60, Vol. 183.]
    Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman said there was no reason at all, provided he made a resolute effort, why there should not be a saving of £10,000,000 a year on Supply services, and—and this was certain—£5,000,000 upon the debt services.
    1876
    He denies that that was a promise. Well, I think it would be quite sufficient, if the statement were made to a young lady of a gentleman's intentions, to sustain an action for breach of promise. There was to be a reduction of £15,000,000 a year; expenditure has gone up by £20,000,000 a year. Now with regard to the promised relief of taxation.
    4.0 P.M.
    The right hon. Gentleman is increasing taxation this year by £9,000,000. Receiving a deputation' from, I believe, the London Chamber of Commerce or the Associated Chamber of Commerce a few weeks ago, the right hon. Gentleman said this:
    "Few things would be more unfortunate than the re-imposition of taxation next year."
    That is yesterday—
    "I should regard it as a melancholy necessity."
    The right hon. Gentleman came down yesterday and increased taxation by £9,000.000 a year. "Ah," he may say, "I said the re-imposition of taxation." But what in the world is the difference between increasing old taxes and putting on new taxes? The effect is precisely the same so far as the taxpayers are concerned. He is, he said, in a melancholy position. Why has he got into this melancholy position? The right hon. Gentleman says it is because of the coal subsidy. Was coal responsible for an increase of expenditure of £9,000,000 last year? Is coal responsible for the £20,000,000 addition? Not at all.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): £17,000,000.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The £17,000,000 was accounted for. The right hon. Gentleman at the end of last year had a surplus of £5,000,000 apart from the coal subsidy.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In this year, there is £4,000,000 provided for the April payment; there is £3,000,000 held in reserve for the May payment—that is £7,000,000 —and there is £10,000,000 paid into the National Debt Sinking Fund to pay for the cost of last year. That £17,000,000 is all included in the total of the Estimate.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The amount of the coal subsidy during the two months which enter into this year is only accounted for in the Estimates and the figures I have

    1877
    given. I have not included the £4,000,000 surplus for which the right hon. Gentleman is estimating. In the calculations I have made, unless expressly stated otherwise, I have excluded the cost of the coal subsidy. I realise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not responsible for that. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, that is his misfortune and. not his fault. He has failed to achieve the promised economy, and the explanation, in his own words, is that he has not put tot ward the resolute and determined effort, which, if applied, be said, would make it not a difficult problem. The second reason is that he gave away last year to the relief of what he described as the hard-pressed Income Taxpayer and Super-taxpayer money which he could not afford. He had not got it to give. Last year he had a surplus which he inherited from ins of £26,000,000. He threw that away in relief to the Super-tax and Income Taxpayer.
    In replying to an interjection behind me the other day upon this point, the right hon. Gentleman retorted, and I am quite sure he would not have made the retort had he had time to think about it, "I should not have been in this position the right hon. Gentleman"—that is myself-." had not given away £30,000,000 to the taxpayers in the previous year." I gave it away, because I had it to spare, mid the result at the end of that year proved it, because, notwithstanding that gift, the right hon. Gentleman had a surplus of £26,000,000 at his disposal. What did he do last year? He gambled on hopes that have not been realised. He never looked beyond last year. He said that the revenue Would expand, and that the Death Duties would progress. He estimated an increased yield from Income Tax, Super-tax, and Death Duties of £25,000,000. They are down by £2,000,000. That is the first time, except one—and that was accounted for by the great lock-out in the coal industry in 1920—for 13 years—that the Income Tax has not responded to expectations. I do not want to be egotistical at all, but I think I am entitled to claim that in very specific terms I warned the right hon. Gentleman last year as to the consequences of what he was doing. I said:
    "I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer can look forward to any considerable increase of taxation except from an increase of population."
    1878
    He failed to take into consideration that many of the sources of revenue upon which he was relying were of a temporary character, and were not likely to come to his assistance in future years. I said last year that the balancing of the Budget in my view would depend altogether upon whether the right hon. Gentleman's anticipations in regard to Special Receipts and the Excess Profits Duty were realised. That has turned out to he so. If it had riot been for the altogether unexpected yield from these passing sources of revenue, the right hon. Gentleman would, apart from the coal subsidy, have had a very serious deficit. I would like to point out to the Committee that it is a matter of the greatest importance and very disconcerting, when we look at the probability of the yield of the standing taxes of the country, to notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has estimated the receipts from Income Tax upon an unusually low increased yield. I quite admit that there are paradoxes in this. The Income Tax and particularly the Super-tax last year, I believe, were swollen to a very considerable extent by the collection of arrears. There were about £60,000,000 arrears of Income Tax and Super-tax at the end of March, 1925.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, in reply to a question a week or two ago, said that these arrears were coming in very well, and it would be most interesting to knew to what extent the yield of the Income Tax last year was augmented by the getting in of these arrears. I do not, of course, place much, if any, importance at all on the revenue receipts in the early weeks of a new financial year, but the revenue receipts for the first three weeks of this year certainly have not been encouraging, because those items upon which the Budget depends are down by something like £11,000,000 on the corresponding week of the previous year. I say that there is something of a paradox in this non-expansion in the yield from the Income Tax, and the fact, stated by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, and with which I quite agree, that there is an increase in the wealth of the country. It has been stated that the profits of public companies have now got back to the standard of the boom year of 1920.We

    1879
    might put against that the fact that in the last five years the Wages Bill has declined by £500,000,000. What are the features of this expenditure which the right hon. Gentleman is encouraging at such an alarming rate? The right hon. Gentleman apparently was not warned by the rashness of the promise he gave 12 months ago to reduce expenditure by £15,000,000 a year. He renewed the promise yesterday in very solemn terms. He said:
    "On behalf, not alone of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but of the Prime Minister and of every single member of the Government, I give a solemn undertaking, even after our recent dreary experience, that we will continue in the matter of economy to do the Utmost."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 26th April, 1926; col. 1700. Vol. 194.]
    If the right hon. Gentleman's utmost in the future is no better than his utmost in the past, there is not a very cheering prospect in front of those taxpayers who are looking for a reduction in the burdens which they have to bear. What is the prospect? There are two items of expenditure upon which reduction is possible, the Supply Services and the Debt. The right hon. Gentleman concluded the long Debate upon the Economy Bill the other day with a speech which was not a defence of economy but was a defence of increased expenditure. The one thing in which he gloried was that we were spending more this year upon education than under the Labour Government.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I was replying to your charge that we were starving education.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: He took credit for that fact, but he did not tell the House of Commons that the increased Education Vote this year is due to the maturing of educational improvements which were carried out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan). I want particularly to refer to a statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which we on this side of the House cannot allow to pass unchallenged. He said:
    "The First Lord has succeeded in doing what ha never been done before, namely, a substantial increase in new construction and a substantial reduction in calls upon the taxpayer."
    1880
    That statement is absolutely untrue. When we took office, I found the Navy Estimates for the coming year had been finally sanctioned by the Government. I have never made this statement before, but I think I am justified in making it now in view of the right hon. Gentleman's charge. I had strong personal representations made to me by two of the Ministers in the previous Government that the Navy Estimates for the year had been fixed. They had been fixed at £61,500,000, and that was the Navy Vote which would have been presented to Parliament that year if the Conservative Government had remained in office. What did we do? The Navy Vote in 1923–24 was £58,000,000 under the Conservative Government. The following year, it would have been, if the Government had remained in office, £61,500,000. We agree that there were many things that we did as a Labour Government which we should probably have done otherwise had we had longer time for consideration and longer experience, and I am certain one of those things we should not have done in those strange circumstances would have been to agree to the increased construction of cruisers. Notwithstanding that, and agreeing to the new construction of five cruisers, we reduced the Navy Vote from their figure of £61,500,000 to £55,500.000.
    What happened following year? Let the Committee note that there was no new construction last year. They raised our figure from £55,500,000 to £60,500,000, and this year it is £58,000,000 —between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 higher than our figure—and we are committed to a prospective expenditure upon new construction of £58,000,000, and the right hon. Gentleman has the audacity to state in the House of Commons that the First Lord of the Admiralty has for the first time in history succeeded in launching a new programme of construction and relieving the taxpayer. The First Lord has told the House we must not expect further reduction of naval expenditure. He has scraped to the bone, and after having been cut to the bone they are asking for £2,300,000 more than we asked the House of Commons to grant when we were in office. He further said:
    "I approved a programme of construction larger than any that our naval advisers pressed upon us."

    1881
    That statement is untrue. We approved a total programme of new construction of five cruisers.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: For how long?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: A programme of five, and five only. What has he done? He has agreed to a new programme spread over a number of years which involves the building, not of five cruisers only, but of 16 cruisers. Both those statements made by the right hon. Gentleman are utterly at variance with the facts of the case. In the Navy, as in every other Department, the right hon. Gentleman has been extravagant. He has failed to carry out the pledge he gave to the House of Commons last year.
    The other heading under which a reduction of expenditure is possible is debt reduction. The right hon. Gentleman, to the surprise I believe of the majority of the Committee, announced yesterday that he was prepared to pay back into the Sinking Fund £10,000,000. It ought to be paid back. He said, "I inherited from the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer a surplus of about £4,000,000. That went into the Sinking Fund." It ought to have gone into the Sinking Fund by law. It did. It has been there for 12 months, and now the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take it back in order to help his finances. He has raided the Sinking Fund to the extent of £1,000,000. Bat, he says, on the average since the new Sinking Fund was established we have paid the statutory figure. The right hon. Gentleman yesterday announced the abolition of the three years' average in regard to Income Tax. At the same time he has applied it to the Sinking Fund. Why did he not go further back? If he had gone to the previous year he would have found that about £100,000,000 of surplus were paid into the Sinking Fund, and £200,000,000, I believe, the year before. There is a nest for the right hon. Gentleman to raid to help him in the embarrassment he is piling up for himself for future years. Instead of raiding the Sinking Fund, why did he not recall the Super-tax that he unnecessarily gave away last year? There was to be, he told us a year ago, certainly a reduction of £5,000,000 a year in the charge for debt services. Yet last year it increased by £3,250,000, and the right hon. Gentleman this year is estimating for a reduction of only £1,000,000 in the charge for these
    1882
    services. What is the reason for that excess over the Estimates last year is very important.
    The right hon. Gentleman expatiated yesterday upon the great benefits which had come from a, return to the gold standard. There have been advantages, but there have been disadvantages too. What happened last year? The average rate of interest on Treasury Bills—about £500,000,000—was 4½ per cent. At one time this year the rate has been, as high as £4 18s. 0d. per cent. A difference of 1 per cent. in the price of Treasury Bills makes a difference of £5,000,000 a year in the' cost to the Exchequer. Where does this money come from that is lent to the Government on Treasury Bills? No tender of less than £50,000 is accepted. It does not come, therefore, from the savings of the workpeople. These Treasury Bills are convenient, and, indeed, the best form of short term investment that there is in the world. They are taken up by banks, financial houses, and insurance companies. Banks borrow their money from their customers at 3 per cent. They lend it to the Government at 4½ per cent. The difference between 3 per cent. and 4½per cent. represents the profit that is made by the banks. The credit of the banks is apparently 50 per cent. better than the credit of the British Government. The Government undoubtedly are in the grip of the banks and the financial houses. It is no wonder that the banks last year were able to announce far larger profits than in the previous year. One bank chairman was frank enough to confess that it was mainly due to the fact that they hail had a windfall in the higher interest upon their Treasury Bills. This grip upon the Government by national and international finance cannot be allowed to continue without bringing about financial disaster to the country, and whatever may be one's views about the nationalisation of banks and the public control of credit, cases like that to which I have just referred are going to make the public ownership and control of banking and credit absolutely essential.
    This is a very serious matter in view of the right hon. Gentleman's financial problem. He has in the next two years £1,000,000,000 of debt to convert. What are the prospects? The rate has been a little lower during the last few weeks,

    1883
    but on Treasury Bills during the last six months—short-term bills—the Government have had to pay 4½ per cent. There is in the market to-day a new issue by the Glasgow Corporation. The credit of the Glasgow Corporation is the highest of any municipality in the Kingdom. When other municipalities were borrowing at 6 per cent., Glasgow was able to effect a public issue at 5½ per cent. The Government are in no better position. An issue under the Trade Facilities Act, guaranteed by the Government, is for all practical purposes a Government issue. There is the same security behind it as there is behind the War Debt. There have been two issues in the last few weeks, one for the Kent coalfields, and one last week for Africa at 5 per cent. at a discount. Yet the African loan was very soon at a discount after the allotments bad been made. Therefore, there is no prospect at the moment of the right hon. Gentleman dealing with this conversion of £1,000,000,000 within the next two years at less than 5 per cent. unless there is an unexpected change in the money market, and his financial policy is certainly not encouraging that. In addition, there is the 1929–47 block of War Debt of;£2,000,000,000. The conversion of £1,000,000,000 of debt at 5 per cent. to a 4 per cent. basis, after deducting the loss of Income Tax, relieves the Exchequer of £8,000,000 a year. If the £2,000,000,000 which must be dealt with at a comparatively early date could be converted at 4 per cent., there would be a net reduction of £16,000,000, and if we could convert the £2,000,000,000 block there would he a saving of £24,000,000. There is little prospect of that. I do not know whether any Member of the Committee saw a very remarkable article by a man whose opinion is entitled to respect in connection with this important matter. I refer to Professor Cassell, of Sweden, who wrote an article some weeks ago dealing with the probable future of interest rates. After elaborating the argument with very great care and intricacy, he came to the conclusion that for the next five or six years, at any rate, we could hardly expect any fall in any international interest rates. That is a rather gloomy prospect for the right hon. Gentleman.
    1884
    The burden of taxation may be imposed in such a way as to be a real burden upon industry, but I think the extent to which the heavy taxation at the present time in this country is a burden upon industry has been greatly exaggerated. I am not saying that because of what I think is an incontrovertible argument, that Income Tax falling upon profits, unlike local rates, is not a burden upon industry. I put it for this further reason, that 100 years ago, when the national income of this country—I do not mean the Government's stated income, but the value of all incomes and of wealth produced in the country—was £400,000,000, the national taxation, nearly all indirect, was £72,000,000, whereas to-day the national income is ten times the figure of 100 years ago—it is estimated at about £4,000,000,000—and the amount of taxation in relation to national income is precisely the same as it was 100 years ago. There is this important difference to be taken into consideration, that if you take one-sixth of a national income, of £400,000,000 it is an infinitely greater burden than to take one-sixth of an income of £4,000,000,000. Therefore, the burden of taxation to-day is undoubtedly much lighter than it was 100 years ago. There is this further important difference to bear in mind, that 100 years ago the whole of national taxation was raised for unproductive purposes. A great deal of national taxation to-day goes back tie the people in the form of social services, and in that way it is a re-distribution, and a very beneficial re-distribution, of the national income.
    I see one way of lightening the burdens of present taxation. I am not speaking at the moment of reduced expenditure, unnecessary expenditure, upon armaments and so forth. May I here say that the Labour party have never subscribed to the principle of national economy as it is understood and advocated by the party opposite? In the years before the War, I remember speaking from the place where the noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) now sits, and stating in connection with the Budget of that time, which amounted to £200,000,000, that I hoped to live to see the day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would present a Budget for £300,000,100. My state-

    1885
    went was received with hilarity in every part of the House. We of the Labour party take up the position that money spent through the State and through the municipalities upon social services is the most economical and beneficial way of spending money, and that in that way we get a far better return for the money spent. We are ruthless opponents of un-remunerative and uneconomical expenditure.
    I have said that I can see one way in which the burden of national taxation can he reduced, and it is this: double the amount of national production; double the amount of wealth produced each year. It can be done, and having done that you have reduced the burden of taxation by 50 per cent. There are different forms of the re-distribution of wealth. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made several interesting references yesterday to the result of my reduction of the Sugar Duty two years ago. I hope that his observations will not be forgotten by my hon. Friends. I was criticised at the time I took off those duties. I took a great risk, I was told. What did the right hon. Gentleman tell us yesterday? He said that the result of cheapening the price had lead to an enormous consumption of sugar. The enormous increase in the consumption of sugar means the employment of a vastly greater amount of labour. Therefore, the effect of that reduction of indirect taxation has been, on the admission of the right hon. Gentleman, of a most beneficial character. Can the right hon. Gentleman point to a single instance where his reduction of the Income Tax and the Super-tax last year has added to employment by a single person?
    There are no tax reductions in this Budget. I beg the Committee's pardon. There is one reduction. The right hon. Gentleman has reduced the Excise Duty on chicory. One of the newspapers this morning described it as a "Chicory Budget." That remission of taxation is purely Protective in its character and Protective in its intentions. In the last, four Budgets direct taxation has been reduced by £158,000,000, and indirect taxation by £56,000,000, some £20,000,000 of which was the reduction of the Beer Duty. Since then the right hon. Gentleman has increased indirect taxation by £2,0,000,000. Therefore, there has been a
    1886
    reduction in indirect taxation by £36,000,000, and a reduction in direct taxation by £158,000,000.
    I want to say a few words about the right hon. Gentleman's references to the Silk Duties. He said that he might quote from my speeches. I should be perfectly willing that he should quote every word I said in the debates last year on the subject of the Silk Duties. I do not withdraw one single word. Twelve months' experience of those Duties has amply justified everything that I said. I said last year, mare than once, that the right hon. Gentleman would not kill the artificial silk industry by those Duties. I said that it would take more than that, to kill a new and growing industry like that. I said that he would get his revenue. I made a mistake. He has not got his revenue to the extent that ho estimated. [HON. MEMBERS: "More".] If the policy that he put before the House yesterday were sound, it means that he has discovered a panacea for all our troubles of taxation. He says that the Silk Duties have not increased prices, they have not injured trade, and the foreigner has paid them. This is a brilliant discovery made by the right hon. Gentleman since he left the Free Trade platform and joined the Protectionist party. If by putting a tax on manufactured goods and raw materials the right hon. Gentleman will cause no increase in prices, no injury to trade, and the foreigner will pay, where is the limit to be set in applying that policy? Why does he not apply it to cotton? He could raise £40,000,000 a year by applying it to cotton. Why does he not apply it to food? He could raise £60,000,000 a year by applying it to food. I will tell the Committee why he does not do it. He does not do it because he knows that the statement he made yesterday was sheer bunkum, and nothing else.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman should certainly refer to the statement I made, which was that the course of these Duties had been influenced by the fact that they applied to expanding trades.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman's imposition of these Duties, I gather, as a logical conclusion, has helped the expansion of these trades. I describe that statement, as sheer bunkum, and the

    1887
    right hon. Gentleman went on to admit that it was bunkum a moment or two after he had made his statement yesterday. He said that the state of the artificial silk industry was not so good as it had been. Why this falling away in the prosperity of the artificial silk industry? Surely, if these protective Duties are going to sustain it, it should not, after eight months of the operation of these Duties, be in a declining condition, and the wave of prosperity should not have been retarded. He now admits that that is the case.
    I am not going further into the question as to the effect of the re-imposition of the McKenna Duties upon employment. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's figures which he gave yesterday. May I remind the Committee of what I have said repeatedly, and which was jeered when I made the statement last year? I said that if you take a new and growing industry like the motor trade, a tariff has not the same effect upon it as it would have upon an old, well-established industry. I admit that with the figures in regard to import and export trade, and the like, in the motor industry, you can prove any case you want to prove. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that yesterday. He said—and this came as a cold douche after loud cheering by hon. Members opposite as to the beneficial effect of the duty the right. hon. Gentleman imposed last year:
    "It must be remembered., however—here again I add my word of caution—that as regards motor cars, as in the case of artificial silk, the conditions observable are those which apply to trades in a rapid and general state of expansion, through a change in world habits. It would he foolish for anyone to close his eyes to the actual facts that we have experienced in regard to these duties, but it would be imprudent to attempt to draw a general and unchanging rule from them."—[OFFFICAL., REPORT, 26th April. 1926; col. 1704. Vol. 194.]
    I hope hon. Members opposite will take that advice to heart.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Is that bunkum?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: No, the right hon. Gentleman is not all bunkum; he has occasional lapses into sanity and common sense. I said at the opening of my observations that I would not deal in detail at this stage with the new taxes which are proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, but before I do say a Few
    1888
    words about them, I want to refer to the right hon. Gentleman's raid on the Road Fund. I am inclined to think that the opposition which the right hon. Gentleman's intention has aroused in all parts of the country has led him to modify his original intentions. But, still, they are of such a character as to demand the opposition of all who are interested in developing the roads of this country. The right hon. Gentleman has raided the Fund to the extent of £7,000,000, and the fact that he has taken £700,000,000 from the accumulated Fund is a far more serious offence than his proposal to lessen the amount of money to go into the Road Fund in future, because the present moneys in the Road Fund are allocated. The Road Board has undertaken obligations to the extent of £36,000,000 for, I think, the next three years, and what the right hon. Gentleman is doing by stealing this £7,000,000 from the Road Fund is to lessen the amount of development work which the Road Board has either undertaken or has in contemplation. I will not say more about that, beyond saying that in the Committee stage we shall offer to this proposal our most strenuous opposition.
    The part of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget which, no doubt, has excited the largest popular interest, and which will invoke a bitter controversy, is the proposal to tax betting. I want to express my very decided views on this matter. I am not going to say much at the moment about the moral issue involved, though that is great and important. No. Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to propose a tax which he knows will outrage the most sacred feelings of a vast number of people in the country. I want rather, for the moment, to deal with the economic argument In defending this tax the right hon. Gentleman used this as an argument, which ought to have made Mr. Gladstone rise in his grave. It was an optional tax, he said. Surely, it is a new principle in finance to defend a tax on the ground that it has the merit of being an, optional tax. I have always lived in the school that the canons of taxation should be, first, to levy a tax so that every person will pay in proportion to his ability to pay; and, secondly, in proportion to the benefit that he gets from the spending of public money. The right hon. Gentleman defended this tax on the ground that a

    1889
    person need not pay unless he wished to do so. If every tax were of that character, how much revenue would the right hon. Gentleman gather in?
    Mr. RADFORD: The Entertainments Duty.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman has abandoned the principle of compulsory taxation, and has embarked on the policy of optional taxation.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: What about drink?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: When a Chancellor of the Exchequer imposes a new tax, he ought to consider whether it is a tax which can be easily evaded. I am betraying no secrets when I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed this tax in the face of the adverse advice of all expert opinion. If hon. Members will go to the Library, they will find there the evidence of the present Chairman of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, given before the Betting Commission on this question, and no witness could be stronger in his emphatic condemnation of such a proposal as the right hon. Gentleman has submitted. The Chairman of Customs and Excise said that if you are going to put a tax on betting, you will have to put a tax on all betting: you will have to legalise what is illegal betting to-day. Are hon. Members prepared to face that? The majority of the House of Commons, or, at any rate, the majority of those voting last week, said most emphatically, "We are not prepared to do that." The Chairman of the Board of Customs and Excise said, that unless you do that, if you adopt the plan of the right hon. Gentleman, your system will ultimately burst the bounds altogether.
    It. can be easily evaded. How many policemen are you going to have on a racecourse to see that every bookmaker gives a ticket to the person who makes a bet.? Why, you have not sufficient police force available to insure that such a tax will be collected. Someone ignorantly shouted a few moments ago, "Entertainments Duty!" I am the last person to whom that remark ought to be addressed. There is all this difference between a Betting Tax and an Entertainments Tax. An Entertainments Tax can be easily checked, but collusion between
    1890
    the bettor and the bookmaker is 1890easiest thing in the world, because both of them are interested in evading the payment of the tax. We have passed through the years of terrible financial distress during and after the War, with an Income Tax of 6s. in the pound, and not one of the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman ever thought of imposing a Betting Tax. The financial resources of the right hon. Gentleman are completely exhausted when he has to raise the revenue of the country by imposing a tax upon what everybody will admit is one of the greatest evils in our midst. The right hon. Gentleman evidently does not regard it as an evil. I suppose he regards it as a virtue, and if it should succeed in giving him the revenue he anticipates, then, I suppose, that will be an added virtue to this vice.
    Speaking a few months ago, the right hon. Gentleman said, in referring to his Budget of last year—and, if I might be permitted to use the expression, I think that this is a perfect example of Churchillian rhetoric—
    "As a matter of fact, the Budget is the most delightful hamper, the most overflowing cornucopia of luxuries, the most delectable and carefully-chosen repast that ever was laid upon the table of the nation by a British administration. If I am spared, physically and politically, to introduce another Budget, I hope next year to he able to rub the noses of the critics in an abundant pool of indisputable facts."
    What are the indisputable facts in the pool in which the right hon. Gentleman is going to rub our noses? He has raised expenditure by £30,000,000 a year. He has imposed new taxation of £20,000,000 a year. He has lowered Government credit by 1 per cent. He has destroyed any immediate possibility of Debt conversion at a reduced rate of interest. He has given £42,000,000 a year to relieve the special objects of his compassion. He has robbed the sick, the disabled, the unemployed. He has raided the Road Fund. He has discredited the fiscal system of the country by relying on the encouragement of a grave social evil to raise £1,500,000 a year. These are some of the indisputable facts in the pool in which the right hon. Gentleman was going to rub the noses of his critics. Twelve months ago I described the Budget as a Rich Man's Budget. To-day I describe this Budget as the Budget of a profligate and a bankrupt.
    5.0 P.M.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): There is an old saying, which has now almost reached the dignity of a constitutional maxim, that it is the function of His Majesty's Opposition to oppose. I am quite certain that there is no one who undertakes that duty with greater enjoyment to himself than the right hon. Gentleman. I could not help reflecting while he was speaking that, of all historical roles, that which I can imagine that the right hon. Gentleman could most properly fill would be among those officials of Darius who sought occasion against the prophet Daniel. I do not think in his earnest research that he really found, during the hour in which he has entertained us, very much occasion against my right hon. Friend. There is one thing I am certain of and that is that he would be delighted, and quite ready, to send my right hon. Friend to a den of lions, though, if I may judge by the criticism which we have heard just now, I believe those lions would prove as tame and innocuous as the original ones. The right hon. Gentleman began his attempt to find occasion against the Chancellor of the Exchequer by reminding us that last year my right hon. Friend said, with the caution that distinguishes him and of which we had several examples yesterday, that this year he would no doubt "be faced by the consequences of what he was doing 12 months ago.
    The right hon. Gentleman brought out this quotation, thinking that by doing so, and by doing so alone, he was embarrassing my right hon. Friend in view of what has taken place. I do not think that my right hon. Friend, or those who are supporting him, need shrink from the consequences of what was done last year. Taking into consideration the whole of the circumstances of the country at the present moment, the difficulties with which he has been confronted, the state of trade, the social conditions of the people, I do not think that the fact that, with the small adjustments of taxation to which I shall refer in a moment, he has succeeded in balancing the Budget and showing a surplus in face of all those difficulties is a consequence of which my right hon. Friend need be ashamed.
    1892
    The difficulty I have in dealing immediately with the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms is two-fold. A considerable part of his speech, and I think the most important part, was, as he will himself recognise, of a very technical description. I mean that part in which he dealt with the national credit, the terms on which the Government can borrow money and the consequences which might arise from that state of things when conversion of loans will become necessary. I pay a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman on the way in which lie dealt with it in a very carefully prepared speech that was of a very technical character. But I hope that neither he nor the Committee will expect me to deal with those points without having seen in print what he said on these subjects.
    I will now make only one general observation. I think we all recognise the tremendous importance of the conversion operations which will be necessary within the next few years and the tremendous obstacles which do stand in the way of successful operations of that sort owing to commitments already inevitably made and the consequent condition of national credit. The only moral to be drawn from that is that everything that is possible should be done not merely by my right hon. Friend but by all parties to support the credit of the State, not to make demands for further commitments, and to exercise, not merely in the Government service but throughout the nation, the economy upon which alone the ultimate credit of the nation must rest. If the right hon. Gentleman's observations only mean that the party to which he belongs, and which he leads will support the Government in all efforts of economy—I am not now merely talking about small questions of economy in a Government Department but in the very much larger sense of not making demands upon the Government for legislation which would involve commitments and involve expenditure—then I certainly, and I am quite certain I can speak for my right hon. Friend, will have no complaint with regard to what he has said in regard to that side of our national finance. The right hon. Gentleman made a statement, and I think he said that it was in the French Press, in

    1893
    regard to our negotiations with France, a statement which has not a shadow of foundation.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: You will find it in the Sunday newspapers.
    Mr. McNEILL: I understand he has seen it in some newspapers. Surely he has enough experience to know that because he has seen a thing in a Sunday newspaper it is not necessarily true and that he should bring, on no better basis than a paragraph in a Sunday newspaper, a charge of a rather serious nature—
    Mr. SNOWDEN: This was an official communiqué which appeared in all the Sunday newspapers and also appeared on Monday morning. It was a communiqué from the French Finance Ministry to say that they had had representations from the British Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was important that some temporary arrangement should be made in regard to payment in order to—the word "help" was not used—in view of the Budget statement on Monday.
    Mr. McNEILL: I did not gather that there was a communiqué from the French Ministry of Finance. I do not make any complaint against the right hon. Gentleman because he mentions it. I can, however, say that, taking it entirely from his account, it certainly entirely misrepresents what actually occurred. After all, if the matter is properly understood, will anybody in this House think that anything improper has taken place? The right hon. Gentleman certainly brought it forward in the course of his speech as if it were a most improper action. If I understand that he withdraws that aspect now, I shall accept the withdrawal.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not withdraw it, because I have not made it. I simply used it in this connection. I was speaking of an embarrassed Chancellor of the Exchequer and I said that he had sent this request to the French Government telling them to let him have something on account which might be included in this year's Budget.
    Mr. McNEILL: I withdraw all accusations against the right hon. Gentleman. I understood he did not mean it in that sense. We, on this side, entirely misunderstood him. As the matter has been brought up, let me say exactly what
    1894
    occurred and I submit to the House that it was a very proper thing. It is well known—from time to time plenty of pressure has been brought upon the Government on the subject—that there is a large debt to this country from the French Government, that there have been negotiations going on for a settlement of that debt, that an arrangement had been come to, that the Finance Minister was coming to London, and that the whole arrangement had been held up by political disturbances in France. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that it shows a desparate state of embarrassment on the part of my right hon. Friend that he is anxious for this settlement to be brought to a conclusion? Is it anything improper or ridiculous or a sign of embarrassment that he should be anxious, before laying before the country a review of the financial position for the whole year, that, if possible, we should know where we stood in regard to the French Debt, and, if an arrangement should be come to, whether we could count on any payment on account of the French Debt before he made the financial statement of the year? That seems to me a most natural and proper thing for my right hon. Friend to do, and I cannot understand that, under the circumstances of the moment, any Chancellor of the Exchequer in his senses would have omitted to do it. I cannot accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this is a sign of the terrible embarrassment of my right hon. Friend, whom he appears to think is nosing about to find hen roosts that he can rob, or the view that, because he finds across the Channel a tree that he can shake, his embarrassment is such that he can be spoken of in the language of denunciation with which the right hon. Gentleman concluded his peroration.
    The right hon. Gentleman, continuing his criticism of the Budget speech, made a great point about the difference between imposition of taxation and reimposition. He said they were exactly the same thing, and he reproached my right hon. Friend because last year he said, as he says this year, that it would be a very unfortunate thing if the remission of taxation which were then made had to be reimposed. They have not been reimposed, but the right hon. Gentleman says, "No, perhaps not, but it is exactly the same thing because he has put on other taxes in

    1895
    other directions." It is quite true that, later on in his speech, the right hon. Gentleman made a peculiar revelation of the state of his mind on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls optional taxation. It is not only for him the same thing whether you reimpose Income Tax or whether you impose a Betting Tax, but the fact that the tax is optional is positively mischievous, according to the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. He hardly ever heard of such a thing before. Why, almost all indirect taxation is optional in that sense! Any indirect taxation which is not put upon the absolute necessities of life is optional in that sense, and has always been recognised as such. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman studied his taxation and economics when he says that ho never heard of such a thing. It has always been regarded as one of the great advantages of indirect taxation, that it was open to the taxpayer, in regard to that particular form of taxation, whether he would contribute to the State or refrain from indulgence. That is the option at the disposal of everybody who takes a glass of beer.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!
    Mr. McNEILL: The Noble Lady exercises the option by avoiding the taxation. But the tirade about optional taxation is not only beside the mark, it is entirely out of touch with the history of taxation in this country. Another complaint which the right hon. Gentleman made against the Chancellor of the Exchequer was this. He said that this terrible embarrassment in which he finds himself—an embarrassment mostly in the imagination of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—was due to the fact that last year he did such an improper thing; he remitted taxation when he had not got a surplus out of which to give any remission of taxation. If that means anything it means that any realised surplus should be surrendered into the old Sinking Fund, and that the taxation of the following year, on both sides of the account, should be estimated without taking into account what surplus would be shown.
    That was not the view of the right hon. Gentleman last year. On the contrary, he proposed that the surplus at the disposal of the Chancellor of the
    1896
    Exchequer should be used for the remission of taxation. The only difference is that he wanted another sort of tax remitted. He wanted to abolish the Sugar Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not agree as to the particular form the remission should take, but that is quite a different thing from the criticism now made by the right hon. Gentleman. Almost in the same sentence he went on to make another serious complaint against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that Income Tax, and it is one of the most serious symptoms of our present condition is falling in its yield. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the yield of the Income Tax was falling so much that it was a serious symptom—
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Really, I am getting so accustomed to being misrepresented that I had almost made up my mind I would not interfere when any further misrepresentation was made, but I think I must on this particular point. What I said was that the Income Tax was failing to respond to the increase of last year; that is a different thing to saying it was falling. I said that the yield of the Income Tax was not going to be so expansive as in the previous year.
    Mr. McNEILL: I am quite willing to take the words which the right hon. Gentleman has just used, and my comment upon it is this, that at the same time that he says this he is still making the complaint that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took something off last year. I should have thought that when such a state of affairs exists, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred as a serious symptom, and I agree it is a symptom that requires careful consideration, when the Income Tax, as I thought he said, shows a falling off, but as he now says, fails to respond, when such a state of things exists it is serious, and the remedy for it is to give some relief to the particular tax. That is the traditional and orthodox manner of dealing with a tax which begins to fail to respond or gives a less return than might have been expected. The orthodox manner is to relieve that particular form of tax, which is exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did last year. The right hon. Gentleman complains that I am misrepresenting him. I have no intention what-

    1897
    ever of doing so, but if I might give a quid for his quo—I am not accusing him of misrepresentation—my difficulty is that he makes assertions which we have to take upon his ipse dixit. He gives us no argument at all. It is not as if they were self-evident propositions; quite the reverse. For example, the right hon. Gentleman tells us, with all the air of authority he can command so well, that Income Tax is not a burden on industry. I am a very humble-minded man, and I want to learn from the right hon. Gentleman, but it is a startling proposition. I was brought up to believe the contrary; most of us have been. Almost every book on economics and taxation that I have ever read have taught me the opposite. But the right hon. Gentleman makes the assertion that all this is untrue. He says, "Do not believe for a moment that Income Tax is any burden on industry." He might have taken us into his confidence as to the reasons which have brought him to that conclusion, but no, not a single word of argument.
    He makes that assertion, and then he went on to say that there were only two possible ways, as I gather two possible fields, in which economy could be followed out with any hope of success. One was Debt, and the other the Supply Services. Then we had that disquisition, to which I have already referred, of rather too technical a nature to deal with at a moment's notice, but from which I understand the general result was that the right hon. Gentleman and his party, if they ever have an opportunity of doing so, are going to cut the Gordian knot of all these financial difficulties by doing away with the present banking system and nationalise the banks of this country. There, again, he did not think it necessary to tell us why it should have any effect in remedying for a moment the particular evils to which he referred. He left it almost immediately and spoke about economy in the Supply Services, and with all the air of a solemn revelation which it was now possible to make for the first time, a revelation that he had carefully concealed up to now, we were allowed to know what happened when he was in office with regard to the Navy Estimates.
    I am quite willing to make a very large admission to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to economy on the Naval
    1898
    Estimates. He tells us that the terrible Estimate of his predecessor of £61,000,000 was ruthlessly cut down to £55,000,000, showing a large and spendid economy standing for ever to the credit of that short-lived Socialist Government. I think he is wholly entitled to that. But I doubt very much Whether there would have been anything left in the Navy Estimates if they had stayed in office very long. If the right hon. Gentleman had his way, if a good many of his followers behind him had their way, we should soon have had that economy—a complete disappearance of the Naval Estimates and of the Navy. We are content, in this respect, to face the consequences, as my right hon. Friend said last year, and if and when the time comes for us to have to face, not only the consequences but our constituents, we would far rather go without this particular economy, of which the right hon. Gentleman is so proud. We hope that whatever economies we make, we shall leave office, when the time comes, with a British Navy still in being.
    The right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with the question of Debt, made a very extraordinary complaint against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I thought that, if there were one thing in the Budget more than another which would have had the approval and support of so orthodox an economist as the right hon. Gentleman, it was the way in which the Chancellor has dealt with the Sinking Fund. But no, there must be an occasion found against the prophet, and so the right hon. Gentleman has managed to find it to his own satisfaction. I am sure, through inadvertence, he rather failed to make quite clear to the Committee exactly what had been done. I think he may have given the impression to some of the more thoughtless Members of the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had appropriated this surplus of £4,000,000, had, in fact, raided the Sinking Fund in order to make up the balance of the £50,000,000 of the Sinking Fund of 1923. I do not think he explained that the £4,000,000 was in the old Sinking Fund, a very different matter from the Sinking Fund established by the present Prime Minister in 1923, and into which £50,000,000 has to be paid. That £4,000,000 was a realised surplus, which was surrendered at the end of the year

    1899
    into the old Sinking Fund. I am not complaining of the Budget Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman. Supposing they had been absolutely correct—
    Mr. SNOWDEN: They were exactly accurate.
    Mr. Mc NEILL: There would have been no £4,000,000 in that case. When you take a realised surplus of that sort, and in effect take it from the old Sinking Fund, into the new Sinking Fund, in order to keep £50,000,000 intact, that is a very different thing from the impression which many hon. Members got that there had been an improper raiding of the Sinking Fund. I have already said that we entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the necessity for maintaining national credit, and in that connection I would remind the Committee that the whole system of the Trade Facilities Act, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced, is now to be brought to an end. Although not perhaps a matter of first-rate importance, it is of importance from the point of maintaining the national credit, and it is because further guarantees of this sort, at a time when these Acts have outlined their usefulness, would be a drag and a check on national credit that the Government have decided to bring them to an end.
    There remains only one other matter on which I need comment. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would reserve for future occasions a more detailed examination of the actual proposals for new taxation. The matters in this Budget which naturally attract comment—the right hon. Gentleman referred to them all—are the Silk Duty, the McKenna Duties, the Motor-Car Licence Duties and the Betting Duty. So far as two of them are concerned, the Silk Duty and the McKenna Duties, I do not think we shall find any great difficulty of defence this year. There is nothing new in them. I do not know whether the two sides of the Committee will again raise the old question of Free Trade versus Protection with regard to the McKenna Duties, and whether we shall have over again this year all the speeches in the same or similar words to those used a year ago; but so far as we are concerned, certainly so far as I am concerned, I am quite content to say that the Silk Duty and the
    1900
    McKenna Duties are giving us a very useful addition to the revenue. I will not say that they are giving additional employment, because I am not certain that that is so, but, at all events, they are assisting employment, and the downward tendency of unemployment, which is a very happy and blessed feature of recent times, is being, pro tanto, assisted by the operation of these particular Duties. It is doing that, moreover, without adding to the price of the articles sold. Therefore, when you have three certainties—no addition to the price, a useful addition to the revenue, and probably assistance from the point of view of unemployment —I do not think it will be necessary for us to go further for their defence.
    As regards the Road Fund, so far as detail is concerned I would rather reserve myself also until a later period, when we know exactly what attitude is taken on the Report stage by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. But, as a preliminary to those Debates, I would say that I hone the Committee will not miss one very important feature of the situation The right hon. Gentleman again introduced the word "steal" in this connection. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was accused of "stealing £7,000,000." As the right hon. Gentleman has shown us this afternoon, and by his complaints to me, he is very particular in the choice of words, and he would not for the world misrepresent anyone even inadvertently. Therefore, when he says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is "stealing £7,000,000" he means stealing; he means taking something that does not belong to him. My right hon. Friend, of course, is the representative and spokesman of the taxpayer when he stands at this Box, and that £7,000,000 is to be placed to the credit of the taxpayer in the Exchequer of the country. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is stealing, because the money does not belong to the taxpayer. To whom does it belong? I am certain that when the detailed history of this matter is gone into, it will be seen that there is not a shadow of excuse for saying that this money belongs to anyone except the taxpayer. Therefore, it is a matter entirely for the taxpayer, through the agency of my right hon. Friend, to decide, with all the conditions taken into account at the moment,

    1901
    what is the way in which that money can be most usefully spent in the interest of the taxpayer?
    The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said yesterday that it was quite natural that £200,000,000 or £300,000,000 should be spent on roads alone at the present time. He said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the Exchequer scoffed at the idea of the possibility of profitably spending £200,000,000 or £300,000,000 on the roads. My right hon. Friend scoffed at nothing of the sort. I think It is very likely that you could, if you had it, spend quite profitably £200,000,000 or £300,000,000, or twice that sum, in renewing the roads of the country. What my right hon. Friend did say, when it was suggested by someone interested in the Road Fund that £200,000,000 or £300,000,000 should be spent now upon the renewal of roads, was, "We ought to have some sense of proportion in these things, and we ought to realise that we have not £200,000,000 or £300,000,000 at this moment to spend upon that, or upon any equally desirable object." The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, if he says that we should spend that sum, is no doubt ready to propose the exact method by which that £200,000,000 or £300,000,000 could be raised by taxation now. If at a later stage he does propose that that sort of sum should be raised by taxation for the roads—I do not think that he will—it will be time enough then for my right hon. Friend to give his personal reply.
    There is one other point that I hope the Committee will bear in mind in connection with this subject. Altogether apart from the taxation which, for very good reasons, was allotted for the purpose of roads in 1909 and renewed in 1920, since the War the State has spent more than £18,000,000 upon the upkeep of the roads, for which there was no sort of contractual obligation whatever. When the balance sheet of the Road Fund is taken into account and the history of the particular transactions out of which the Road Fund grew is recalled, it is necessary to consider the total benefit which the Road Fund has derived from the National Exchequer, and, as my right hon. Friend said, keep "a sense of proportion" as to how much can or ought to be spent, having regard to all
    1902
    the other necessities of our time. When the time comes for these matters to be gone into with the close examination of detail which the right hon. Gentleman. opposite will no doubt give them at a later stage, I do not think that we shall shrink in the least, as he seems to think, from facing the consequences of what was done last year, and we shall be perfectly prepared to answer all the criticisms which he may make.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, and the Budget proposals which he introduced, cover so wide a field, that it is easy to deal at great length with a number of these topics at a time when many Members of the House would wish to express their first view of the Budget. I will have regard to the time and make only a short demand upon the attention of the Committee. When I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, I was reminded of a saying which I think is attributed to a critic of his great predecessor, Sir William Harcourt—that the power and the prehensile character of his mind were like the action of an elephant, equally able with his trunk to pick up a pin and to uproot a tree. I myself unfeignedly admired the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt, in a comparatively short space of time, with a vast number of matters small and great, remissions of taxation so important as the matter of £500 going to the abolition of the Excise Duty on chicory—I cannot think of any other remission, except perhaps in relation to antiques—I hope the genuine antiques—and matters of immense importance on the other side of the Account.
    I would like to begin with a very important matter, not acutely controversial, which we shall no doubt discuss more in detail on one Resolution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced his intention of abolishing the three years' average for Income Tax and substituting the figure for the single year preceding the year of charge. There are many attractive arguments which may be advanced for that change, and at the same time—I am speaking from a fairly long experience, both on behalf of the Crown and of the taxpayer —I am not by any means clear that the change will really commend itself to all concerned. At present the scheme of

    1903
    Income Tax calculations is ludicrously elaborate and varied. If I remember rightly, railway companies and gas companies are taxed on the profits of the preceding year; colliery enterprises are taxed on the average of five years: income from foreign investments is taxed on income in the actual year of charge: and there are all sorts of varieties of that kind, which really have no justification. At the same time, the three years' average is a method which has been recommended by the Departmental Committee of 1905, and, although I know that the last Commission was prepared to suggest the change, yet I am not at all certain that it will turn out to the advantage, in the long run, of the Treasury or the commercial public. It certainly will increase very greatly the difficulty of estimating with accuracy the yield of the tax.
    As things are, the revenue always has some notion of how the future is to work out, because as long as assessment is based on three past years, the Revenue Authorities have a pretty good notion of how two of those three years may be expected to come into the calculations for the new year. Not only that, but I doubt whether, after experience, it will not be found that some advantage is lost from a failure more or less to equalise the ups and downs of business. The Committee must remember that this proposal is not, and cannot be, that you are to pay Income Tax on the income of the year in which you are taxed; it must necessarily be a tax based on something previous to that, for otherwise you would never be able either to assess the tax or to collect it until the end of the year for which the tax is charged. For my own part, I express some doubt as to whether it will be found to be a very great advantage, though the matter is not one that causes any great heat or controversy. The reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is rather disposed to favour it is plain enough. It will always be the case that the Treasury is a little disposed to favour such a system if thereby it cuts out two bad years. It will always be the case that the commercial community will be a little slow to welcome it if they lose the advantage of two bad years. No doubt it is true that, in the end, the thing will equalise itself, but I doubt
    1904
    whether it is going to prove such an immense advantage as the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to suppose.
    I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman another question, with which, perhaps, he will deal at some stage of these discussions, because, although it is not in the Budget, recent events have made it a matter of very great interest to all who have to consider the national finances. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to indicate his view as to whether something ought not to be done to prevent the possibility of Death Duties being evaded by a sudden change of domicile on the part of a British subject? I would like to point out that a change of domicile for this purpose is a thing that may happen in a moment—between night and morning. It is not like a change of nationality, which requires the gradual building-up of the conditions upon which alone most civilised States will accept one as a member of a new community. A change of domicile, as I say, can take place between night and morning, but there may be difficulty in proving that it has taken place. I dare say, in connection with some recent instances, there may be a good deal to be said about that point, because it is one thing for a gentleman to say in his will that he has changed his domicile, but it is a very different thing for his executors, after he is dead, to prove that he actually did so. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that sound public finance requires that this matter should be considered. An analogy occurs to one which, I think, was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) the other day. We do not limit Death Duties to property which, in fact, passes at death, because, if we did so, people would give away their property on their death-beds and great sums of Death Duties would be avoided. Therefore, Parliament, by a series of changes, has now gone so far as to say that people who make voluntary gifts of their property within three years of the date of their death, must expect that that transfer shall be treated as though it was the passing of their property at death. It seems to me that, while these are not matters of acute or violent controversy, they are of great importance, and I am certain that the Chancellor of the

    1905
    Exchequer, concerned as he is with the public revenue, must be thinking a great deal about them.
    May I occupy the attention of the Committee on three points which no doubt are matters of much greater controversy? The first is the proposed Betting Duty. I listened to the Chancellor's explanation of how this matter stands with the admiration which I always feel for the right hon. Gentleman's powers of exposition. He showed once again that had it been his misfortune to be called to the Bar and to practice the legal profession, he would at once have established his reputation not only as the clearest of all possible expounders of a difficult subject but one who can put his explanation into very few words. He explained to us the complexity of the present law on the subject. What he did not point out and what has a good deal to do with the question, is that when the Act is passed, which I think was called an Act for the Suppression of Betting Houses, it was really the intention of Parliament to stop altogether the business of the professional bookmaker. Indeed, the Report on the proposed betting duty to which the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer referred just now, has an appendix in which one can read the speech that was made when that Measure was proposed in the House, and it is quite plain that the Government which proposed it, intended and hoped to put an end to the business of professional bookmaking altogether.
    They failed, for two reasons. The first was because, as so often happens, the language of an Act of Parliament turned out to be quite inadequate to express the intention of Parliament. The language of the Act is in effect something of this sort.. "It shall be illegal for anybody to open or keep a house or office or place for the purpose of making bets with persons resorting thereto." There are two flaws in the language of that Act, and it did not take long for people to find them out. First, there is the famous controversy, or the controversy that used to be famous, as to what constituted "a place within the meaning of the Act." It was discovered that as long as a bookmaker did nut anchor himself too solidly to one spot, did not stand under one umbrella, or placed his feet on one particular box, he was not pursuing an illegal occupation because he was found on race courses
    1906
    openly engaged in receiving his clients and effecting transactions with them. The second reason was because the language of the Act only made betting a criminal offence if you carried on an office for this purpose to which people "resorted" for the purpose of making bets. Parliament forgot the telephone and the telegraph and the other methods by which you can send what you want to send to the bookmaker without personally visiting him at his own office. For these reasons, as we all know, not only has the Act failed to secure the result expected, but it has given opportunities for an immense development and extension of the system.
    I do not think, however, that was the only reason why the Act failed. I think the Act really failed because there is a sentiment in a large section of the public which does not regard it as wrong to bet, and considers that a Parliament which tries to put unreasonable or extravagant obstacles in the way of betting, is doing something quite contrary to the opinion of a large mass of the public. There is a great deal in that. My own view—though I must listen to the arguments—is distinctly opposed to the betting tax, but I cannot pretend to base my opposition strictly on high moral principles. Let me make a confession. I occasionally adventure half-a-crown on a game of golf. I am sorry to have to add that I almost invariably lose the half-crown, but I find it very difficult to think that there is some extreme moral principle here involved when one reflects, for example, that raffles which are held at church bazaars, or sweepstakes of the most innocent and innocuous character, undoubtedly attract the support of the most virtuous of the community.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Golf is sometimes a game of skill.
    Sir J. SIMON: That is true—sometimes. So I understand is picking a winner. At any rate, I cannot pretend to put my opposition on that high moral plane. At the same time, I think it is a most serious consideration for the House of Commons and this Committee, whether in our legislation we are going to take a step which I think may fairly be regarded as acquiescence in and approval of what has been described as a terrible national evil. I do not appreciate the state of mind of anybody who

    1907
    thinks you can oppose a betting tax on the highest moral principle and who at the same time wants to tax the consumption of intoxicating liquor. It does seem to me, however, that it is a very serious question for the House of Commons and this Committee whether we ought to give what will be regarded as an imprimatur to this method of amusement or excitement, which beyond all question produces the most terrible havoc in a great many homes when Carried to excess. The ground upon which I should oppose this Betting Duty is not the high moral ground, but the ground, as it seems to me, of practical difficulty. The result of the breakdown of the intention of Parliament has been that you not only have the turf accountant who carries on the perfectly lawful business of credit betting; you not only have the bookmaker on the racecourse who will enter into cash transactions with you, but you have in all our industrial areas in the streets, alleys and courts, unfortunately, a terrible amount of illegal and illicit street betting. It is the one case in the history of England to-day which may fairly be quoted against us, if we were disposed to sneer at the United States for failing to enforce the law as to prohibition. It is the one case in which the law says one thing and the people do another to an immense extent every day and every night.
    The Report of the Committee on the Betting Duty recognising that fact, was disposed to indicate that if you are going to have a tax on betting you must not put the burden of the tax on the people who are now doing what is lawful and thereby confer a great advantage on all the people who are now doing what is unlawful. That is the real difficulty which the Betting Tax here raises. I do not myself see how you can, as a matter of fair play or good government, put bookmakers and backers who keep within the law at a disadvantage compared with those who break the law. If you do, you make it certain that you are encouraging people to break the law. What the Committee on the Betting Duty had to consider was not the present proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer —which I think has not been very widely supported by expert opinion behind the scenes—but a very different proposal, namely that you should legalise cash betting off the race course; that you
    1908
    should make it possible for the people now engaged in street betting to go to a betting office and bet there; that you should give a licence to the man who is now carrying on an illegal business and that you should then attempt to raise your tax, not only from the turf commission agent and the bookmaker on the racecourse, but from this new class of individuals who would then be given a legal status by an Act of the Legislature. At any rate, that proposal is intelligible, though, I think it would run entirely counter to the better judgment of the nation. It would involve definitely legalising betting in conditions where it is not legal to-day. It would not have the disadvantage—the grave disadvantage —which this scheme seems to have, namely that it is going to put bookmakers and backers who are carrying on a lawful business, at a serious disadvantage as against others who at present are secretly breaking the law. The inevitable result of that course is that you are actually encouraging illegality and driving this business—which, as I say, in excess and in many homes is nothing more or less than rank poison to the life of the people—underground into the very channels and through the very medium where you ought to do your very best to stop it.
    6.0 P.M.
    Let it be granted that the law of this country and the police are not strong enough to stop betting. I wish they were. That is no manner of reason why you should make the unlawful, underground, illicit, unregulated thing tenfold worse than it. is to-day. On these grounds it seems to me most surprising that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should bring forward this proposition and that he should attempt to defend it by saying, "I am not taxing anything that is illegal; I am only taxing the section of this business which at present may be carried on under the law." This is one of the Chancellor's bold novelties, and we all greatly admire his courage. It is a new notion. Let me trouble the Committee with one quotation which will prove it to be so. The present Prime Minister was a predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman at the Treasury and he considered this tax. The hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey), who has taken some interest in this subject, asked a question about this very tax as recently

    1909
    as last December. On 9th December last year, the hon. Member for Penrith asked the Prime Minister whether the Government would not consider some scheme for a tax on betting. The Prime Minister said, last December
    "I do not wish to debate the matter, but I can tell my hon. Friend that before he became a Member of this House, and when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, this matter was gone into most exhaustively, and that there are one or two objections which seem almost insurmountable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1925; col. 447, Vol. 189.]
    While, of course, it may be that the right hon. Gentleman has discovered a way over the obstacle, I think I am expressing a very widely held view when I say that it is a most serious thing for us to contemplate the taxing of a portion of a business which is lawful while failing to stop or to suppress another portion which is unlawful, with, as I think, the inevitable consequence that we are encouraging illegality and driving this most unhappy practice into channels where it cannot be regulated and still less suppressed.
    I want to say a word on the second subject, which is the subject of the Road Fund, and I will be very brief about it. The Road Fund is a subject on which, I think, we who sit on these benches have a very special right to speak, because the fact is that the Road Fund is a Fund which had its origin in 1909 as part of the proposals of the Budget of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). As the Committee remembers, it took this form: There was a tax on petrol, and there was a tax on motor cars, and it was certainly the case that from the very beginning the money thus raised was to be put into a special fund, a Road Fund, which was to be dedicated for a special purpose, and indeed, if you look up the old debates, you will see that the present Foreign Secretary, who had just before been the Minister of Finance, stated across the Table in those debates that the Conservative party were either going to accept or resist this proposal according as they received the assurance that the money thus raised was going to be dedicated to roads and to nothing else. There cannot be any doubt, therefore, that in its origin it
    1910
    was intended to be devoted only to roads.
    I do not myself take quite so severe a view as to the constitutional right of Parliament to consider the new circumstances and to deal with them as some other people do. I, myself, should draw a distinction between this case and the case which we had on the Economy Bill, for example, about the contribution of the State to National Health Insurance. The contribution of the State to National Health Insurance was a bargain in this sense, that there was another party to the bargain, that the approved societies came in, were negotiated with as a body, and were asked and agreed to undertake certain duties in return for certain promises. That is, as far as anything ever can be, a Parliamentary bargain. But I quite agree that there is a constitutional right in Parliament to say, after many years: "Well, we find that this Fund, started in this way, dedicated originally for a particular purpose, has become so big, so unnecessarily large, that it can be reconsidered." I think it fair to say that I draw that distinction, and I think Parliament might quite properly draw it, but here again I cannot think that the extremities to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds himself driven are really any solid justification for saying that this money is not needed for roads. I cannot think that that argument stands square for a moment.
    The true position is this: The roads of this country are now occupying a position in national life, in relation to national trade, which is quite different from what a previous generation ever dreamed. It is quite true that when railways came along, and for long after, it looked as though the road was a way by means of which people would pass with horses, and on foot, and it might be on bicycles, and that it would, therefore, cease to be a really important medium of internal communication over long distances, and that continued for a great many years. Indeed, it is an example of the imaginative power of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that he pictured in 1909 that this was going to be the big thing it is, but what has happened since then really is this: Take my own constituency in Yorkshire. Much of the wool that is being carried to the West Riding of Yorkshire, and which comes

    1911
    into Manchester Docks, does not go by railway to Bradford at all; it goes by road to Bradford. The cotton that comes into Liverpool does not go by railway to the Lancashire towns; it goes by heavy traction along the roads. [An HON. MEMBVI: "Some of it !"] I do not say all of it, but a great deal of it, and there is the strongest indication that if the roads are good enough, and if they stand the traffic, that is going to be a profitable and economical way of carrying on a great deal of the business of this country.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If they pay their tax.
    Sir J. SIMON: I quite agree, but my point is not that. My point is that the roads of this country are really occupying to-day a far more important position in the structure of internal trade than they ever did before.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: They will be still more important in the future.
    Sir J. SIMON: It may come to that, but, at any rate, the question for the Committee in these circumstances is: Is it really wise for us to say that we are not going to spend this money, which has been raised for this purpose, on roads, but we are going to take it for general national purposes? I understand the temptation, and I think I understand the emergency. I am not puffing it, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees, on the ground of a gross breach of contract or anything of the kind, but I do most gravely doubt whether, as a matter of fact, taking a long view, it is a wise thing to do. You have these considerations suggested: You have the consideration, first of all, that if, as the Chancellor seems to think, our internal trade is so much more important than our external trade—he used a phrase yesterday which surprised me when he suggested that—you are bound to consider whether the trade and commerce of the country does not most urgently need the improvement of roads and the making of great new roads, both trunk roads and other roads, throughout the country.
    You have to consider, secondly, this: What is the loss which trade suffers to-day from the crowding, from the bottle-necks, from the absence of rapid means of road communication? The loss
    1912
    is enormous, and there is no instance in which it is more obvious that time is money. Then, I think you have to consider this: Before we have got through many of our industrial troubles, I think we must prepare ourselves to face the possibility that there are men who will be trying to be engaged in the future in some highly organised industry, who, as a matter of fact, will be surplus to the industry, and who may have to get other and different work, and even apart from that, if you have, as you now have, over a million unemployed—
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Under a million.
    Sir J. SIMON: Well, let me say a million. The point I am making does not depend on the exact figure. If we have this terribly large figure of unemployed, it does seem a most surprising suggestion at this time to say that you should deal adversely with that particular fund, which, if vigorously used, might not only improve country roads, might not only maintain and improve great trunk roads, but might be used for making new means of communication. What are the arguments against that? There was one argument against it which really surprised me, coming from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who actually said that if you go spending money on roads like this, what will happen to the railways?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No.
    Sir J. SIMON: I can quote it if the right hon. Gentleman likes. There is a sentence in his speech which is practically What I have stated. You might have used the same argument when the railways were put down. You might have said: "You must not authorise railways, for, if you do, what will happen to the stage coaches? "
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: That was said
    Sir J. SIMON: There is no doubt that if it was said, it was a very obscurantist thing to say.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: It was the railways that stopped road transport in this country.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) is full of information, but I am sure he will agree with me that it was a very

    1913
    stupid thing to say, and it is seldom that we have a stupid thing said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My argument was that it was a very wrong thing that the railways should be rendered obsolete by unfair competition. If they are rendered obsolete by fair competition, that is an economic fact, which we cannot control.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am glad to have it quite clear. I thought the right hon. Gentleman used a phrase in which he quite plainly said that, if you had this money spent on the further improvement. of roads, it was going to be a serious obstacle to the railways. I quite agree that money has to be fairly spent, but all that I am arguing is that the railways in this matter must look after themselves, and you might just as well argue that you cannot have motor omnibuses because there are tramways, or that you cannot have electricity because people have got oil lamps, as to say that you are not to have good roads because the railway interest is powerful and is deeply concerned about the future.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That was not at all my argument.
    Sir J. SIMON: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is a phrase in his speech which might be so understood, and I did so understand it. However, let it now be conceded that if anybody uses that argument, it is a bad argument, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer repudiates it, and that he never at any rate meant to say anything of the sort.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but there are two separate arguments. One is the argument of unfair competition with the railways, and the other is whether it is within our financial capacity to make such a very heavy expenditure—two or three hundred millions—on the roads, however desirable it might be, at the present time.
    Sir J. SIMON: I quite agree, and I was dealing really with the one and was just going to deal with the other. The right hon. Gentleman expressed surprise at the suggestion that it might be possible to raise and to spend a great capital sum on roads. I do not see the difficulty. If
    1914
    this Road Fund is a Fund in the future, as it has been in the past, which is earmarked for road purposes, I confess that I should have thought that a very considerable capital sum could very properly have been raised on the security of that Fund, and that it would be perfectly possible and very proper that it should be used for the purpose of very rapid and substantial road development. It is a wholly reactionary proposal that we should do something which stops or delays that development; it is bad for trade, it is bad for our efforts to deal with unemployment and to find means of employment; it really delays rather than assists the recovery of the nation to more prosperous conditions; and it is, as a matter of fact, diverting a Fund which, before the War and after the War, has been throughout dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman's own colleagues as though it was a Fund for road purposes and for nothing else. If the Home Secretary were here, I would have had; I quotation to point out how he said so quite recently, and on those grounds I think the road proposal of the Government is open to very serious criticism.
    Allow me to add two or three words on the steady tendency of this Budget to extend a change in the fiscal system in the Protectionist direction. The tax on imported wrapping paper seems to me to be a perfectly miserable tax. The size of the industry in this country which is supposed to be protected thereby is less than the size of some of the single enterprises that are going to be injured by the tax if it raises the cost of wrapping paper. Every household, especially every poor household, is exposed to the effect of a tax like that—unless it perform the miracle of not raising the price of wrapping-paper. When we come to consider the tax in detail, I expect great difficulties to arise over what is to be done in the case of imported commodities, the main value of which is in their contents, but which are wrapped up. Are we going to tax all the wrapping-paper in those comparatively trumpery cases? I am sure it will be found impracticable to do so. If, on the other hand, it is said, "I am going to disregard the wrapping-paper unless it is a substantial fraction of the whole value of the duty," what we are doing is

    1915
    not assisting British production but putting a penalty on the British producer who has got to buy all his wrapping paper under these new conditions while imports come in which will not be affected by the Duty. I cannot think that this proposal, which was left out last year, is one which on fair examination can possibly be justified.
    I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's reason for wanting to round off his Motor Car Duties by bringing in commercial motor cars, and I thought there was great force in what be said, because I know it is a fact that this difficulty about spare parts and all the rest of it creates an immense amount of complication and does very little good. At the same time, the language which he uses when he announces this proposal shows how cheerfully and boldly and absolutely the Chancellor of the Exchequer disregards the assurances which the head of his Government has made. He used language in flattest contradiction of the most solemn assurances of the Prime Minister. In his Budget speech, yesterday, he said commercial motor cars could not possibly be taxed, as no such tax could be justified within the limits of the Safeguarding of Industry policy.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear.
    Sir J. SIMON: Yes, but the Prime Minister at the last election assured the country that the only means by which any industry which complained of foreign competition could possibly secure any sort of protection would be by coming within the four corners of the Safeguarding of Industry Acts, and, therefore, whatever may be the practical convenience—
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Nothing ever limited the right of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose taxation in his Budget.
    Sir J. SIMON: If you please. That makes the matter exceedingly plain. It appears, then, that the administration to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer belongs is an administration of this sort—that the Prime Minister is at liberty at election times to give assurances, as the head of the Government, as to certain kinds of taxation which in no circumstances will his Government adopt,
    1916
    whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer says "That does not limit the right of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose what he pleases in his Budget." It shows, what I have always believed, that there never was a sham greater than the sham of pretending that the assurances of the Conservative party on the subject of Protection were worth anything at all.
    The next instance, which is equally remarkable, is the renewal of Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. People have short memories, and the right hon. Gentleman takes full advantage of the fact. The person who introduced the Safeguarding of Industries Act was the present Prime Minister, and he was challenged at the time as to why he said Part I was limited to five years. He gave his reasons. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do me the kindness of listening to the reason why five years was the period. The reason was that it was argued that certain industries must be given time to strike root, must be given time to start, and, said the Prime Minister five years ago:
    "the object of fixing the period of five years, which I quite agree may be described as an arbitrary period, is that that is a term of years which, after very careful consideration, we believe is long enough for any industry to prove that when it is not having special financial assistance, and when there will still be in some cases competition, those industries can so solidify their position and so perfect their experiments that they may be able to stand and flourish in free competition at the end of that period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st May, 1921; cols. 876, 877, Vol. 142.]
    It is the old story. It always happens. First of all, they ask for a small piece of Protection for some particular industry. They say, "You are very young; you are exposed to all the cold blasts of the world; you are in danger of losing your young life. Instead of being thrown to the winds of the world in your infancy, you ought to be given a short period during which you may establish yourself." And assurances are always given that the proposals made are quite temporary, for the purpose of just giving the thing a chance of starting—because when it has had a chance of starting it will grow up by itself and face the world quite comfortably. The thing that, happens is the thing that always happens.

    1917
    When the end of the five years comes, the Government says: "We cannot possibly expose you to the new conditions. You have got accustomed to the present conditions, and you must have them, and so this time, instead of giving you five years' protection, we will give you 10." I wish I had the tongue of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when in the old days he was denouncing such proposals, because nobody sees more clearly than he that this is a perfect example of the ways in which Protectionist systems always tend to work.
    The last point I wish to make is that there is a, new feature in some of these financial proposals, or, at any rate, a feature which is not very old, which in my humble submission ought to be resisted, and as far as this Opposition is concerned ought to be repudiated. It is a system by which a Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to the House on Budget day and says, "I make this proposal, and it will last for five years, and I make this other proposal, and it will last for 10 years." I quite agree that if Parliament as a whole—not as the result of controversy or party conflict, but as a whole—agrees to some particular course of conduct, that that is a case where Parliament may very well be said constitutionally to be bound. I believe that was the position about the State's contribution to the approved societies, because the House of Commons as a whole was agreed to such an arrangement, but I repudiate altogether the idea that it is in the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day to say, "I am going to carry a tax, and I am going to announce that it will last for five or 10 years." As far as I am concerned, I hope it will be clearly understood that if the day came—I hope it; may come—when a Government with different political and fiscal opinions sits on that Treasury Bench, with a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was not a Free Trader once, but is a Free Trader now—these announcements which are made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and these legislative declarations which he wants to carry by his majority through the House of Commons, will be said to have no force and no validity, and that when that new Parliament arises it will be perfectly within the competence of the Government of the day to sweep away
    1918
    the whole Protectionist system which has thus been set up.
    Mr. HILTON YOUNG: As regards the last words which fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) I would point out that all Governments have to make engagements with foreign countries which have to last over periods of years, and it would be singularly unfortunate if we were to be prevented from entering into an engagement, equally binding, with our own Dominions to last for a period of years. Constitutionally, of course, there can be no question that one Parliament cannot bind another, but looking at the very small thing which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done for preference in this Budget I can only regret that the bonds by which he has tied this engagement to the Colonies are necessarily so weak. May we hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley may yet be persuaded to join cheerfully in the funeral of the three years' average? There is force in the arguments which he has advanced in its favour, but the argument against it, which is entitled to prevail, is that the three years' average tends to separate by too long a period the time of taxation and the time at which the money is earned out of which that taxation has to be paid. That is a hardship to the taxpayer, and it is in the interest of the taxpayer that the State should bring the time at which the tax has to be paid and the time at which the profits are earned into as close approximation as possible.
    Let me put an instance. I do not know whether it is accurate in law, but it may appeal to my right hon. Friend in fact. Suppose there was a prosperous junior member of the Bar who was earning £5,000 a year and who then took silk, and, by a sad fatality, earned no income for three years. In the third of those years he would have been living for two years on nothing but hopes and memories, but would still be paying Income Tax upon the £5,000 he earned three years before. That is an extreme instance, but it illustrates the evil.
    Sir J. SIMON: I think he would be paying tax on one-third of the £5,000 only.
    Mr. YOUNG: At any rate he would be paying tax. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will pardon me if I do not follow him on this occasion through all the special topics to which he has referred. He, I think, would be the first to agree that there is a disproportion between the concentration of attention upon a. new tax of £26,000,000 a year when we are considering a Budget of £812,000,000. That would be to strain at a gnat and to swallow a camel. That is, perhaps, the only occasion upon which we have free opportunity of dealing with the broadest aspects of the Budget, and I fear we have to recognise, when we come on to those more interesting and closely-fought discussions upon this or that minor tax, that we are discussing matters which, as regards their fiscal importance, are quite trivial in comparison with the total of the year's Budget.
    Before I refer to the total of the annual revenue and expenditure, let me refer to the state of our capital account. Perhaps this is the gravest aspect of our finance, most needing consideration. The broad facts are well known. We have £945,000,000 of debt maturing in the course of the next three years. We have a floating debt of £704,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred with legitimate pride to the achievements of the nation in the reduction by half of our floating debt since the War. That is one aspect; but another aspect is that a floating debt of ifs present magnitude is' a constant threat to the solvency of the nation. It stands now at 9 per cent. of our total liabilities, in comparison with 2 per cent. at which it stood before the War, and there is a long road to travel in the reduction of floating debt before we arrive at comfort and safety. But these well-known facts are not those in connection with our capital account to which I would give prominence. They are these—that it is not, perhaps, as widely realised as it should be that at the same time that we are making this effort to pay off debt we are constantly creating fresh debt. That is the gravest feature of the present situation. The new subjects of expenditure which are so lightly voted in this House are not paid out of revenue only, they are causing the constant issue of
    1920
    fresh debt, causing a constant fresh burden to our national credit.
    In the course of the past six years we have raised loans for £156,000,000£fresh loans. I am not referring to guarantees, but let me pause here to interpolate a word upon the cessation of the Trade Facilities Act. As one who had, perhaps, a quasi-paternal interest in that Act, I can yet say that I accept the conclusion to bring it to an end. It was not in tended as a permanent part of the financial structure of the country. It has served, I claim, a highly useful purpose, and if it is decided that supplies of credit are now sufficient without that assistance, I think the decision may be accepted. But I would say this, that it can only be accepted on one condition. There is still a great region of use of the asset of State credit in the promotion of Colonial enterprises, and in the Dominions, and I am confident that we ought only to accept the end of the Trade Facilities Act if it be replaced by some new and more efficient scheme for making use of this great national asset for the development of our Empire. The worst feature of this constant addition to the burden of our debt and credit is the fresh issue of Local Loan stock. I do not question the purpose for which it is issued, but we have to recognise that year by year by the issue of fresh Local Loan stock a fresh harden is being placed on our national credit.
    Not only this, but there is an even more serious aspect which claims the attention of the House, and that is the threatened contingency of future increases of fresh borrowing which are now imminent. Many instances will occur to the House. I do not question the £10,000,000 which is going to the East African colonies, or the £33,000,000 involved in the Electricity Bill, because I believe that probably will be useful. We must, however, look at the whole picture. The most. serious threat is the £100,000,000 of fresh capital to be raised for the unproductive purpose of buying out the coal royalties.
    It is not for me to argue now about the purposes of any of these fresh borrowings. I only wish to point out the accumulating weight which they are piling on our national credit. It is perfectly clear in this connection that the first essential of financial prudence is to keep up our Sinking Fund. The part of

    1921
    Cassandra is always an ungrateful one, but nevertheless it is only right to say that last year it was pointed out that we had cut down our margin of regular permanent revenue below the region of safety; and the result must be to threaten the Sinking Fund. The margin of safety in regard to the regular revenue has proved too small, and consequently the Sinking Fund has suffered. At first sight it seemed to be a most admirable and courageous decision on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allocate £10,000,000 of surplus to the Sinking Fund. I still think it was a right and courageous decision, and a remarkable instance of financial prudence; but I think we must admit after a little further investigation that not every claim can be made for it which was put forward at first. This £10,000,000 for the Sinking Fund is derived by taking £7,000,000 from the Road Fund, and that really was a capital asset, and it was invested in interest-bearing securities. Of the rest, £5,000,000 is derived from beer in anticipation of revenue, and this should be looked upon as a capital asset.
    It. is clear that this £10,000,000 is obtained by the realisation of capital assets and ought in any case to be devoted to the reduction of debt. I do not think it can be considered as a set off against the raid on the Sinking Fund which occurred last year. No doubt it is a right thing to do now, but it will not bear the burden of the justification of two wrongs.
    I believe it is now recognised that all easy economies and easy reformations in our Budget are over, and that if more is to be done in the way of a reduction of our annual charges it will require a united effort which can only be achieved when all forces are combined to make a great effort at national unity. One begins to look forward to an ideal development, that of a national policy in finance. We have a national policy in foreign affairs: why not in finance? The Leader of the Opposition when in office followed the national policy at the Foreign Office.
    This policy runs on with consecutive tradition from Government to Government. Is it, impossible in these matters of high financial policy that we should have a national policy which should rise superior to the conflicts and confusion of temporary party strife? If that be so, I suppose in the view of many of us
    1922
    it is of first consideration that, we have a Budget of £800,000,000 or over. That is a sum which the country cannot bear. It means having a people overtaxed. Can there be any doubt, in those who look at the state of the nation as a whole, that we are suffering from the evil of over-taxation? The very figures show it. Before the War the ratio of taxation to national income was 7 per cent. Even then we were a highly-taxed nation in comparison with other nations. Now the ratio is more than double; it is 17 per cent. of our national income. Never in the history of the world has there been a, nation which has borne such a burden for public purposes as we are bearing at the present time. It is high taxation. It is over-taxation. Do not all the signs of the times prove it?
    To what is the depression of trade due? It is due to the high cost of production which is the natural consequence of over-taxation. To what is the struggle to maintain a standard of living amongst the wage-earners due? Again it is due to this great and universal evil of over-taxation which causes unemployment. I am not going to traverse on this occasion the argument which is already so familiar to the House, that over-taxation and high income tax results in the depletion of capital, and is thus responsible for the evils affecting our trade. That argument has been thrashed out, and it. is not necessary to repeat it. What, I will do upon this occasion is to lay some stress upon another aspect which has not perhaps received adequate attention, and it is this The worst evil of over-taxation an excessively high Income Tax, because it reduces effort, initiative and enterprise. I am not speaking of the large capitalists, or the millionaire, of whom a great deal too much is heard in our discussions on this subject. I am speaking of the middle range of incomes, the people who provide the country with leadership, effort, initiative, invention, brains and a willingness to undertake risks in competition. These are the prime movers of the great machine and engine of industry. If you enfeeble these you are dealing a fatal blow at the nerve centre of the nation's industry. The Income Tax now stands normally three times higher than it was before the War.
    I was recently in a tropical district where the whole population was suffering

    1923
    from a dreadful tropical parasite which reduced men, women and children to a state in which they could only creep about half alive, and were not able to do more than half a day's work, deprived entirely of energy. That is the effect of an excessive Income Tax on enterprise, its effect upon the nerve-centres of the country. What is the real impulse to work. It is to be found in the desire for a return or gain to a man and his family for his work. We have now reduced his return by one-twentieth, or 5 per cent. We have reduced income by that amount. The surest way to increase the enterprise and prosperity of the country is by doing something, to increase the return upon a man's work. Halve the Income Tax and you would increase the effort, and therefore the prosperity of the country by 10 per cent.
    By over-taxation we are led into a vicious circle. That is one in which high taxation produces subsidies, and subsidies produce in their turn high taxation. By high taxation you diminish hard work and enterprise, and we are left behind in competition with our rivals. Then subsidies have to be found to recover our position. These again increase the burden of taxation, and we come back to where we began. How can this vicious circle be broken? Firstly, by more healthy and more sane remedies for our depressed trade than the remedy of a subsidy. That question is discussed when we raise the question of fresh markets for our trade. We want a cure and not palliatives. We require fresh and willing buyers and new sheltered markets to replace those lost. We have lost the sheltered markets which we gained by getting a start in production. We must find fresh sheltered markets in the Empire.
    Secondly, to break the vicious circle we must look to reductions of expenditure. It must be recognised that reductions as big as needed can only be obtained by changes of policy. The best hope of a substantial and immediate reduction is in the Estimates for the Fighting Services. But this must lie in pressing forward the policy of disarmament. Economy is bound up with that Conference, the news of which we await so long, and await, we hope, ultimately not in vain.
    1924
    To turn to the other field of economy, the field of the social services, is it possible to express any very great hope of the large-scale reductions which are necessary being forthcoming there? The large-scale reductions sufficient to bring our Budget within the required dimensions are not to be got while the country is in its present frame of mind. I do not want to make an unduly controversial observation; I make an observation, as it were, on the natural history of our nation at the present time, and it is this, that we have come to rely too much upon the efforts of the State and too little upon our own efforts. We have come to think that the State can intervene to save us from the curse of Adam. We can no more escape it than we can escape the curse of Eve. I refer to the figures as to pensions which are given in the recent White Paper published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not refer to War pensions, but to civil pensions. The percentage of pensions for State employés has increased by 128 per cent. since 1914. and the percentage in case of teachers and police has increased by no less than 181 per cent., while the value of money has only increased by about 60 per cent. We find, in such evidence as this proof that we have come in rely too much upon the State and too little upon ourselves.
    I do not want to advance any ultra-individualist view. I am not advocating any such harsh reductions in social services as were referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with disapprobation. Some of the most magnificent achievements of our public life and political sagacity have been obtained in the past by the application of the principle of equalisation of burdens, by transferring burdens off shoulders that are too weak and on to those that are stronger and better able to bear them. While the application of that principle has achieved the most results, nevertheless it is a hard saying, but one worthy to be believed, that you can have too much of this good thing. The corruption and abuse of the best of principles often produces the worst results. It would be the worst possible result to carry this principle of the equalisation of burdens so far as to affect the efficiency of the vital centres of energy of the nation. That is what we are in danger of doing. We must not sacrifice the vital energies of the

    1925
    nation, even to pure benevolence. In the long run all will suffer more if we do not do our first duty to the community by keeping its initiative and enterprise healthy at the core.
    Another phase of this aspect of our present frame of mind is a profound illusion about public money that is irrelevant. It is the tendency to treat public money as if it came from nowhere. It does not come from nowhere. It does not fall like a shower of gold in the lap of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as once another shower fell in the land of Danae. Public money is earned by some body. It belongs to the man or woman who earned it in the first place, and you are only entitled to ask them to part with it if it is absolutely essential that they should do so for some vital interest of the nation. And, even after they have parted with it, if from month to month and from year to year you cannot show that that vital interest continues, they are entitled to have it back. The first sentence of the greatest code of laws in the world runs:
    "Justice is the perpetual and constant desire of rendering to each man that which is his just due."
    It is the just due of each man to have that which he earns, unless it is essential for the purposes of the State. We are hero in this House as the guardians of the taxpayers. As their guardians we should do justice; but we are sometimes, perhaps, led aside from this principle into forgetfulness as to the origin of the money we spend.
    For these evils of a general nature into which I have wandered, there is, perhaps, only one remedy, and that is the remedy of a. change of mind, of a return to a greater measure of self-reliance on the part of our fellow-countrymen and countrywomen. Something can be done to assist in that return by the State. There is a remedy for a state of paralysis which is well recognised in medicine, and that is the electric shock. One sometimes wonders if the best that could be done to this nation would not be the administration to it of such an electric shock as would result from the adoption as a national policy of a steady refusal on the part of this House and the instruments of Government further to use public money for the sake of any form of subsidy to trade, or for the extension of any
    1926
    further assistance to the individual. It would be a severe shock, but it is one that may be necessary. Were it to be given, I believe that things would improve, that all men and women of this nation would look into their hearts and would become convinced that they could, by reliance on their own efforts, and not on those of the State, work out better the salvation both of themselves and of their community.
    Mr. SEXTON: Let me say at the outset that I am not going into figures, but I may say, without invidious distinction or individual reflection that, in the words of the old adage, while figures cannot lie, liars can figure. It has been my privilege to listen to the introduction of at least 10 Budgets in this House, and, up to the advent of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think I may say that they were as dry as dust He has relieved the monotony, and has added, not only to the interest, but to the gaiety of the House and of the nation by his method of dealing with the Budgets he has introduced. On the introduction of his first Budget I, like other Members of the House, came immediately under the glamour of the right hon. Gentleman s method—so much so that in a moment of impulse, and as the victim of first impressions, I made such a public declaration in his favour that on more mature consideration, I found it very difficult to enter into any criticism of the Budget at all. On this occasion it was a case of "once bitten, twice shy," and I refrained from giving any particular expression of opinion until I had had an opportunity of considering the real merits of the case. I have come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that this Budget is, indeed, a. thing of shreds and patches. It reminds me very much of what is known as the travelling tinker's budget. In that particular fraternity, the rule is that when one tinker gets a. job at a particular place and stops up one hole, he leaves two or three others for the fellow that is to follow him. This Budget of the right hon. Gentleman's fits that case to the utmost. Let me take the Road Fund as an example. There the right hon. Gentleman has left a good many holes. Where he has attempted to block up one he has knocked the bottom out of others. The right Gentleman the Mem-

    1927
    ber for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) dealt very effectively with this phase of the question, and the fact does remain that if you tax the heavier vehicles on the roads, the inevitable result is that you increase the cost of carriage on the roads to the advantage of the railways. That is the only fact worth considering in this case. There is only one other thing I want to say with respect to vehicular traffic, and that is, that with the raising of the tax on the vehicle of the small owner from £96 to £108, the possibility is that the man with small capital will try to recoup himself by limiting his costs and doing with less labour than he employed before.
    Then we come to betting, and here the right hon. Gentleman has accomplished what my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) could not accomplish—he has got the rabbit out of the hat. And a very poor example it is indeed. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley, I am not going into the moral aspect of the case. I have an annual flutter on the racecourse, and I am not always successful, any more than he is, and therefore I am not going to touch on the moral aspect of the case. All I have to say is that it is a fitting climax to a Budget of this character that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, not to-day or yesterday, but for the last six weeks, has been putting his hands into the pockets of the working classes of this country in order to cover up the hole he has made, should now be ending up in Tattersall's ring. That is really what follows. First of all, we had Unemployment Insurance; then the contributions of the dead men of the Army and Navy—which is even meaner than pinching the pennies out of a dead man's eyes at a wake. There was the pinching of the National Health Insurance Fund, the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and, last but not least, the Army and Navy Fund. I do say that, in the circumstances, the description of this Budget as a thing of shreds and patches is a fitting one, so much so that I have taken the opportunity of consulting the Muse, with the following results:
    "But, alas, even this was not the last lap,
    By which to recover his losses;
    Necessity forced him to fill up the gap,
    To drop all cackle and come to the 'osses.
    1928
    So he'll now have his fling inside Tattersall's Ring,
    To S.P.'s he'll be telling the story;
    And with winks and with nods he'll be taxing the odds,
    So we'll leave him alone in his glory."
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I wish to congratulate the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton-Young) on his most excellent speech, and the more so in view of the fact that in this House we have very few occasions of listening to so sound a speech on the economic situation. I think most Members have come to the conclusion that., at any rate, one aspect of the Budget is not so very unsatisfactory. I refer to the part that is known as the revenue side. That, after all, is the principal side we shall have to deal with when it comes to the Finance Bill. I should like to say a few words on the revenue side before coming to the more important side, in the long run, the expenditure side. Although I know my hon. Friends on the other side will make a great attack on one or two of the proposals, such as the betting and the safeguarding proposals, I think with those exceptions, from their point of view, the Chancellor has made a very satisfactory Budget.
    I think really the Chancellor has been extremely fair in his proposals to take one-third of the moneys that are allocated to be spent upon roads. I know hon. Members will suggest that at the present moment, in view of unemployment and the bad state of the roads in rural districts, that money should be spent. It is just as bad to advocate a great expenditure on the roads as it is to advocate a great expenditure on any services in this country if the money is not there to enable the work to be carried out. To suggest that the money taken from those who use motor cars should only be spent on roads, is a proposition which, if carried out in regard to receipts from other taxes, would place the Chancellor in an impossible position in framing his Budget in the future. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer told us to-day how very wicked the betting proposals were, and that they were going to enable the Government to tax betting. But if it is possible to raise £5,000,000—it may he found that that is an exaggeration—through a tax on betting, I cannot conceive any possible kind

    1929
    of attack that could be made on levying a tax on what is obviously a pure amusement, and in the view of hon. Members opposite a very evil amusement. It is money which after all is not vitally necessary for any particular purpose in the country. It is not money taken directly out of industry, and it is not money which would probably be spent in any other way. I cannot see any argument which would be a danger to the Chancellor in getting his proposals through.
    I would also like to congratulate him on his proposals to carry through the Key Industries Act again and also on his Imperial Preference proposals. Members on this side have always looked to the Chancellor and the present Government for a broadening of the principles of Imperial Preference, and they hope that in the future the Chancellor will propose some step, if it is only a very small step, towards what is the ambition of most Members of this House interested in Empire questions, namely, a real trading agreement or zollverein between the different Dominions within the Empire, so that we can eventually, if we are to keep the Empire together, have some trading agreement which will take the place of this sentiment which keeps us together at present.
    I am going now to turn to the expenditure side. The future has been painted by the right hon. Gentleman behind me in a very serious light. He has not exaggerated it, it is more serious than he has stated. I heard what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister, and other members of the Government have continually stated in answer to questions, that there is a Committee, the Colwyn Committee, which continually studies expenditure in different Government Departments. May I ask the Financial Secretary whether it is possible for them on any occasions to publish these reports which presumably are made to the Cabinet? I know that in answer to questions given every day he says that any committee appointed by the Cabinet has to report only to the Cabinet, and its Report cannot be made public. If the expenditure is continually going to rise—and this Committee is supposed to be doing good work—I suppose it continually sits and
    1930
    is not like other Committees which we have discovered only sit once in 18 months or two years—why should we not have the Report before the House? Why should we not be able to judge what is the state of the Government services? Nobody is going to underrate the difficulty of economising or the difficulties the Chancellor will have in the different Departments when he tries to cut down expenditure. At the same time, it is perfectly obvious that not only has it got to be done, but it can be done, and the Financial Secretary should find plenty of instances where he could economise in the Government services.
    The Chancellor when he proposed his Budget last year began in the wrong direction. I would have thought the best method of entering upon his office, presumably for four or five years of the life of this Government, would have been first of all to try so to cut down expenditure that he would, by the end of his term of office, have such a surplus of revenue that he could put before the country proper proposals not only for the reduction of taxation, but also for any social benefits which he thought necessary for the country to have. It would have been better if he had proposed the benefits he gave last year towards the end of his Chancellorship, when the state of the country would have been such as to warrant them, instead of proposing them at the very start of his Chancellorship, when we not only still have trade depression, but also a state of affairs which might be nothing, but which on the other hand might prove to be something, and that is a slight reduction in yield from the Income Tax.
    Ever since I have sat in this House I have heard Member after Member say that the trade revival was coming next year, and, as we know, next year never comes. To-day no hon. Member is going to say that the revival of trade has come. There is always this flickering that is apparent on the surface. The revival never materialises. I suggest to the Chancellor that it never will materialise until he seriously takes in hand this question of taxation and reduction of public expenditure. I was very surprised that on coming into office he did not immediately take in hand the reduction of public expenditure. It is a very serious matter for industry and business. It is

    1931
    only from industry that the money can come which is going to pay for the different social benefits given throughout the country. Not only does industry have to pay the money, but it has to pay for vast levies upon the rates, and I should like to point out to the Chancellor that the rates this year are steadily increasing in every district. I believe that at the present moment the Chancellor is making great efforts to discourage the local authorities from over-expenditure. That should have been done before. Local authorities are going to take their cue from the central authority, and, if the central authority continues to spend too much money, you cannot expect the local authorities not to do likewise.
    The conversion of the War Loan is one of the most serious questions this House will have to face in the next three years. It is perfectly able to convert the whole of the War Loan before 1930. It will have to convert a very large portion of it, but it is possible to convert the whole amount. If it were able to convert it with a saving of 1 per cent., it would be a saving of £50,000,000 a year. As the Financial Secretary knows, such a saving on the War Loan would be a very substantial reduction of taxation. The possibility of it taking place and the cheaper credit which it would show in the market—it would not be possible unless money became cheaper—would not only be most excellent from the point of view of the Government, but also from the point of view of business generally. It seems to me that during the past year, and still in the present year, the very opposite is the case. Gradually money is becoming dearer. Suppose before 1930, if the present state of affairs continues, you have to refloat a proportion of the loan at 5½ per cent. and tremendously increase the expenditure of the country. It would be a most terrible thing, not only from the point of view of the Exchequer, but of trade as a whole.
    The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer produced Estimates of £790,000,000. The present Chancellor in his first Budget added £9,000,000, and, in the present year, is adding another £13,000,000, or, without the coal subsidy, at any rate, another £9,000,000 on to that. I do not see the slightest reason why the gradually
    1932
    accumulating effect of social legislation which has been passed in this House should not cause another £9,000,000 to be spent. The majority of the different schemes which have been carried, and carried without the slightest notion of what they are going to cost, and merely passed because it is thought they will be popular among the Government supporters, are going to be cumulative in their cost to the National Exchequer. The Chancellor is going to have a very difficult task to prevent such an increase in expenditure for the next few years as will make the position look as if some further increase in taxation, whether direct or indirect is necessary after all.
    In the last two years, although we have had 6d. off the Income Tax, which has saved the country about £26,000,000, we have had increases in other directions, in new taxes mostly, silk and betting and various safeguarding duties, of which I am entirely in favour, but which at the same time are increasing the revenue of the country. The revenue from these extra proposals has been almost as great as the reduction of revenue which he has proposed in taking 6d. off the Income Tax, if not greater, and therefore the Government are raising in one way or another just as much, if not more money than they were when they came into office, which is a very serious state of affairs and is directly opposite to the trend of policy of previous Chancellors of the Exchequer and previous Governments. Although I am certain the Chancellor of the Exchequer will remedy that state of affairs in the future, it is a matter that is so serious that if it is not seriously taken in hand, in view of the conversion loans and other matters coming in the future, it may, before this Government leaves office, result in such a state of affairs that we shall have to increase taxation.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer should not be too optimistic over the result of his Economy Bill. In his joy over his great victory, I think he was a little like the tailor in the fairy story who wrote on a placard that he had killed nine with one blow, when what he had managed to kill was only some flies that had settled on his table. In saving his £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 he has done extremely well, but it is a very small amount of money when you are dealing with a Budget of

    1933
    £812,000,000, and, although the Opposition did their best to prevent him from getting these £9,000,000, I think their purpose was too bold, not merely from the point of view of trying to get popularity in the country through the people who had been deprived of that money. I think their purpose was deeper than that. It was that if the right hon. Gentleman is not able to economise he will have to do what will be a far more unpopular thing in the country than depriving funds of their surpluses. He will have to increase taxation, and, if he attempts to increase taxation, he will find it a far more unpopular thing than attempting to deprive people of what, after all, has only been given them in most cases by Parliament since the War and by what was imagined at one time, when the Coalition Government were in office, to be a more prosperous nation. I have a table here showing the increase in expenditure on social services since 20 or 30 years ago. In 1891 the expenditure was £22,000,000. This is from a White Paper that the Chancellor knows very well. In 1901 it had increased to £36,000,000, in 1911 to £63,000,000, in 1921 to £306,000,000, and in 1924 it was £332,000,000.
    I am not going into the merits ordemerits of those Social Services. The Chancellor of the Exchequer probably puts them on too high a level in relation to the prosperity of the country, because, though I think the country should give everything it can possiby afford, I hold the opinion that if it is more than it can afford it will have in the end to take it away, and there is nothing so difficult as cutting people's salaries down once they have been raised, or trying to deprive them of something once they have been made used to it, and have imagined they are going to have it for all time. It is a well-known maxim that if you never have a thing you may never want it, but once you have had it you do not want to give it up, and every single time the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes new schemes for the people—and apparently they are inexhaustibie—that section of the people are going to imagine that it is their's for ever, that it is their absolute and complete right, and, if he attempts to take it away from them he is, as we heard during the Economy Bill, robbing them or taking something from them
    1934
    which is really their's. As everyone knows, it is not their's. It was given them because the country could afford it. If the country had not built up such prosperity in the past we could not have afforded any social legislation whatever. If the country were as poor as Italy was a few years ago, before the War—it is now prospering—we could not afford any social legislation of any kind. It is only by her prosperity that she is able to afford this social legislation. It is much more important to put the finances of the country in order than to try to satisfy people by proposing further and most costly legislation.
    I should like to echo what my hon. Friend said about local loans. That is a very serious state of affairs. Local authorities have been issuing continually increasing numbers of loans ever since the War. It is a very easy way out of their difficulties. If a local authority gets into a difficulty, it can immediately issue a, loan. Until the money is spent it considers it can carry on for any length of time, and eventually, probably after two or three years, it can issue a new loan. I do not know what authority the Government can have over the issue of loans by local authorities, but it is a, matter that wants the most serious consideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He must recollect that every loan that is issued by local authorities is going to prejudice his case when he comes to issue what is much more important, the great conversion loans of the future, because I presume the supply of credit and capital for that sort of investment is limited, and he might have difficulty in finding the money.
    I am going to suggest two avenues where he might economise. One may surprise the Committee, but, at any rate, it came in answer to a question of mine on the Post Office. I discovered that there is a great deficit on the working of the telegraphic service, and it came out in answer to another question from the opposite benches, to my considerable amazement, that a portion of it, probably £250,000, was caused by Press telegrams being sent at a reduced or uneconomic rate. That is not right. All Press telegrams should be sent at an economic rate and it is a disgrace that there should be any service of any kind which is open to a subsidy of that sort. The right hon.

    1935
    Gentleman must certainly take that matter in hand at once, put these Press telegrams on an economic basis, and make them pay the proper proportion so that the service can become a paying service, because no service should be run on a permanent basis with what is nothing more or less than a subsidy.
    The other item that comes to my mind at the moment is merely the question of the Overseas Trade Department which, as a matter of fact, we have been considering upstairs. I think it could be easily done away with. It does absolutely no good. I know a number of small businesses regard it as an excellent thing to be shepherded to various fairs and exhibitions, but there is no business man who has a very high opinion of the Department. It has not been observable that our export trade has greatly profited by it. In fact, judging by the figures, I should say it is having a most depressing effect upon our export trade. There alone the Chancellor has a straightforward saving of about £300,000, or, if he has a few people to carry on the old Department of the Board of Trade, at any rate he will save £250,000. There is £500,000 that he might save. It is not a great deal, but there are two suggestions that have occurred to me to-day. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will attack these matters with a resolute spirit. He will find that, if the financial condition of the country is not put on a really stable and clean basis at the present moment, it will render precarious the whole of our social system. I believe if trade realises that the matter is really being seriously taken in hand, and if a reduction in taxation is made possible, as well as these arrangements that I have suggested for converting the loans, the financial condition of the country can be saved. I would urge the Chancellor to answer the question as to expenditure and not to say, as he said, or gave the impression in his Budget speech, that there is no possibility of a reduction of taxation and expenditure, but to give the country at least some hope that in the future it is going to have its annual expenditure greatly reduced.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: When I listened to the Chancellor of the Ex-
    1936
    chequer yesterday I was in some uncertainty whether to congratulate or to condole with him upon the role he had taken upon himself. He is inclined to act, if not to speak, in superlatives. When he is at a wedding he desires to be the most jovial guest there. When he is at a funeral he must be the most lugubrious of the mutes, and his only regret on the latter occasion, like that of the late President Roosevelt, is that he cannot play the principal part in the ceremony without taking his place in the hearse. Last year he gave us a Budget of a joyous character, and all was rosy in his presentation of the case. This year he chose to take a sombre tone. I do not take the sombre colours in which he painted his Budget too seriously. My own view is that, having set himself to raid the Insurance Funds of sickness and unemployment, it was necessary for him to take a gloomy tone in order to justify that attitude. There is always a sufficient margin open to him —though he receives the advice of his experts, he is responsible for the final Estimate—to take the cautious or the optimistic line. We are in the middle of a Parliament. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks confidently towards having at least another year and perhaps a couple of years before the end of this Parliament. In these circumstances, he will naturally not be in a very great hurry to take off taxation this year, but it will be very much his desire to give release from taxation in the last year or the last two years of his term of office, when the approach to the country is very much nearer than it is to-day.
    The sombre feature to me of this Budget is that, in the first part of it, the Economy Bill, of which this is merely a second part, the. right hon. Gentleman took from the common people of this country resources which they have looked forward to as their own, in order to relieve the burden of their misfortunes. In consequence largely of having relieved the Income Tax payers of the burden which they had borne before last year, he was obliged to take that course. The Economy Bill is passed, and we are not dealing with that to-day, but with the second half which is included in the Budget proposals. There are three main propositions in the Budget to which I desire to draw attention before I deal with a matter which I feel is one of

    1937
    special importance, and for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is specially responsible. The first proposal with which will deal is the Road Fund. In attacking the Chancellor's raid upon the Road Fund I am speaking not only for my own party in my constituency but, as I understand it, for all parties. In my constituency I have been specially requested on behalf of the Highways' Committee to resist the encroachments upon the Road Fund. The ground of that complaint is not a denial of the constitutional right of Parliament to spend money out of taxes in its own way, but that the money spent upon the roads to-day is inadequate.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated yesterday that this country was the best roaded country for an area of its size. What about the population If we are concerned not only with. the area but with the population, no such statement could possibly be made. Last autumn I spent some months in the United States of America. We have had pointed out to us recently the great prosperity of that country. What is it on which the United States are spending most lavishly at the present time? I have no hesitation in saying that it is their expenditure upon roads. I was in the State of California, which is about the area of this country but has a population of only a tiny fraction of what we have here. The roads there are exceedingly good and far more extensive in proportion to population than the roads in this country. If we are to have an expansion of trade, which we all hope may come in the not very distant future, we shall be taking a suicidal step if we refuse to spend on the roads the largest amount compatible with the national necessity. I look upon the roads as one of the principal forms of capital, and just as in the Economy Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer raided the human capital represented by the health of the people, when he took the surplus of the Insurance Fund, so I consider that in attacking the road fund he is dealing a blow at the material capital which goes to build up the prosperity of the country.
    The next sub-division of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals are the Protective Duties which he has introduced in various forms. He made a very interesting admission with regard to the Silk Duties. He said:
    1938
    "It is, however, my duty to admit that while the cost to the consumer has not indeed been increased by the Artificial Silk Duties, we have probably intercepted to a very large extent the reduction which otherwise would have reached the consumer in this country."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1926; col. 170:3, Vol. 194.]
    That admission is quite sufficient for my purpose and for the purpose of the party with which I am connected, when it is taken in conjunction with the fact that there has been an enormous fall in the general level of prices in this country during the past year. If the Silk Duties have had the effect of preventing a fall of prices in silk and artificial silk garments which otherwise would have taken place, they have prevented the fall in the retail prices of these articles keeping pace with the fall in the price of other commodities, and they have to that extent injured the trade in those articles and injured the consumer by preventing the cost of living there falling at the same time as the fall in general prices. These two things are very serious.
    The new protective taxes consist, in the first place, of a tax on commercial cars, which has been put on in defiance of the Prime Minister's pledge as to not being a subject suitable for safeguarding. It is put on merely for the sake of symmetry and convenience. Commercial cars and such things are chars-a-bane are subject in this Budget to three separate disabilities. In the first place, they have to face this additional Import Duty; secondly, they have an additional Licence Duty; and, in the third place, they are deprived of the advantage of the good roads which would otherwise have fallen to their lot. Dealing with the question of the Import Duties, I thought at first that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was under the impression that they would not raise the price here, but that the effect would be that the whole of the cars would be manufactured in this country. That cannot be true, because he anticipates to receive duty to the amount of £300,000. So long as there is the receipt of that duty, it must have the effect of raising the prices of these cars and to that extent injuring the industries of this country which use them.
    When these duties on cars were re-imposed last year, it was alleged that there could be no injury to industry, because it was luxury cars that were

    1939
    being dealt with. The removal of that reservation takes away the safeguard and thereby injures the industries in this country which are users of these commercial cars.
    Whatever argument could be advanced with respect to home production in regard to these cars, it cannot be applied to wrapping paper which is mainly manufactured abroad. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to wrapping paper is injurious to the trades which use paper for wrapping purposes. The effect will be small and it will be spread over a very large area, but it is none the less real for that reason. What does he propose to do to help the export trades, which use a great deal of wrapping paper in exporting their goods, to meet the injurious effects of the duty? Does he seriously propose to make rebates? If so, he will land himself in a great deal of cumbersome machinery.
    The third branch of taxation is the Betting Duty. I preserve a more open mind on that duty than does the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). I shall watch the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer detail, in order to see whether they can really meet the objections lo the proposals. The two objections are, that a Betting Duty cannot be imposed without in effect legalising and encouraging betting, and that practically they will have great difficulties confronting them. If the Chancellor succeeds in convincing me that these objections are unreal, I shall not take up a purely stand-pat attitude.
    The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's trouble really, he states, comes front the coal trade, and although he shares responsibility for the imposing of the subsidy he tries to escape blame on the ground that the evils in the coal trade were not of his making. There I join direct issue with him. The misfortune that befel the coal trade was to some extent at any rate, due to the course which he took. In support of that, I would remind the Committee of what was said by Sir Josiah Stamp, one of the most distinguished statisticians and economists, in a report last July, after being specially appointed by the Government to suggest what were the reasons of the trouble in the coal trade. He said:
    1940
    "In my view, therefore, the recent improvement in the exchange or decline in the price level, whether or not compulsorily brought about by the anticipation and then the realisation of the gold standard, is sufficient in itself to account for the special plight of the industry since March."
    I would not be quoted as saying that the whole of the trouble in the coal trade arose from that cause, but I think I am entitled to say that in regard to the crisis in the coal trade, the serious decline in industry and the increase in unemployment which took place in the late spring and early summer of last year, the return to the gold standard was the largest single cause in bringing about those effects. That may seem an extravagant statement to some hon. Members who have not studied the question. Therefore I am going to give them two figures which will, perhaps, surprise some of those who have not studied the question as fully as perhaps we have. The "Economist" publishes from time to time figures showing the index figures of wholesale prices. Taking 100 as the index for 1914, the wholesale price level for March of last year was 182, and the index figure for March of this year, 159. That is a drop of 23 points, or 13 per cent. Any hon. Member who knows anything about manufacture must realise that a fall of 13 per cent. not in profits but in prices must necessarily lie a very serious thing in relation to trade.
    What actually brought that about was this. First of all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it necessary that the pound should rise, to the level of the dollar. That was, as some of us feared, a serious thing. But worse took place, because not only did the pound have to rise to the level of the dollar, but it had to rise with the dollar, as happened during the succeeding months of the year. That is how it came about that we have had this 13 per cent. fall in prices. It is quite true, if everything had fallen in the same proportion, not very much harm would have been dine, but, as a matter of fact, everything did not, and could not, fall in proportion. For one thing, the cost of living could not, and did not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other day that it had fallen seven points, and quoted that as a sign of the benefit of his action. That fall of seven points, however, is on a total of 179, which, I think, is only

    1941
    about four per cent. So that, while the wholesale price level has been falling 13 per cent., the cost of living, corresponding more to retail prices, has fallen only four per cent. and that has been a great part of the cause of our troubles at the present time. Why is there that discrepancy? Such things as rents, royalties, debenture interest and Government Debt interest have not fallen, and, therefore, while the manufacturer may be able to get his raw materials at something like 13 per cent. reduction, he has to pay the same amount, of overhead charges, the same amount of debenture interest, and all such things as before, and he is placed, therefore, in an extraordinarily difficult position. That, of course, has mainly affected our extort trade, and has, in particular, dealt a smashing blow at the Coal industry. So while the Chancellor of the Exchequer has claimed that this matter of coal has caused his trouble, I will take him back from coal to gold, and say that he himself is largely responsible.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer made three attempts to defend what he had done. Incidentally, I am quite sure those who were here will agree with me in saying that he seemed less happy over his defence of that than over a good many other things. Instead of the buoyancy he usually shows, he seemed to me to have not even convinced himself. He said, in the first place, that we have certain payments to make to America, and that the return to the gold standard had reduced the amount we had to pay. That is an utterly absurd argument. Even if we do pay in gold, we have only got that gold by our own export of goods, and if there be a fall in prices, we do not escape in the least payment to America because of that fall. We have to send at least as much of our goods abroad in order to pay the debt to the United Sates.
    Precisely the same thing is true of his second argument with regard to the purchase of food from the United States and elsewhere. The fact that the pound has risen does not benefit us in purchasing food from abroad, because we have to purchase food from abroad by exporting commodities, and the fall in prices will affect them at least equally with the things we are endeavouring to import. Then, he said that it benefited us by raising the value of dividends on sterling loans.
    1942
    That possibly is correct, but that does not benefit the nation as a whole. It does benefit the holders of these particular stocks, and that is really only in keeping with the fact that the whole of this action benefits, in the main, all the holders of various forms of wealth bearing a fixed rate of interest whether they be holders of stocks abroad or stocks at home. It also benefits the City. It does benefit to a certain extent the financial houses. I am not in the least going to suggest that there are no benefits that arise, or have arisen, from this policy, but what I do say is that the tremendous injury to trade and commerce, particularly to our export trade, has far outweighed any advantages that may came to individuals or to individual interests in this matter.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer said —I forget whether it was yesterday, or some little time ago—that there were no responsible people who would have negatived the whole British policy of seeking to return to the gold standard. I am not prepared to say that we could depart permanently from a gold standard, but what I do emphatically say is, that there were two grave mistakes. First of all, the moment chosen was the wrong moment. It was the moment when British trade was first beginning to recover very slowly from the depression, and that was the wrong moment to give it a great blow on the head, and send it back. In the second place, if it were necessary then, or at any future time, to raise the pound in terms of the dollar, it ought to have been part of file arrangement with the United States, that the United States central banks should allow prices slightly to rise, in order to meet us, whereas, as a matter of fact, what has actually taken place is that American prices have fallen in terms of the dollar, and forced our prices to fall still more.
    I do not want, to take up any further time of the Committee, but I have thought it necessary to raise these points in order to meet the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was not his fault that he has had to economise, and that it was all the fault of the quite unexpected coal disaster whereas, I contend that the coal disaster and the injury to trade are, in part at: any rate, his fault for restoring the gold standard at the time and in the manner in which he restored it.
    Mr. ROY WILSON: I do not propose to-night to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and discuss here the question as to whether it was wise or not for this country to return to the gold standard. I am one of those people who believe, and believe profoundly, that we took a wise step last year. The view I have always taken since then is that, having committed ourselves to this course, no useful purpose can be served by any discussion now as to the wisdom of that course, but that it is the duty of everyone in this country to do what he can to make that decision a successful one, as, indeed, it has been successful, in my judgment. To-night I should like to begin, if I may, by offering my congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon what, in my opinion, and, I think, in the opinion of the City, and, indeed, in the opinion of all fair-minded people, is a courageous Budget, and, perhaps, the best Budget that could be produced in view of the very trying times in which we live. I do not intend this evening to weary the Committee with any criticism upon the new taxes provided for in this Budget. There will be plenty of opportunity for that at a later stage in the Debates on the Budget. But I would like to emphasise the point that has been made to-day, and, indeed, was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself yesterday as to the urgent need, the crying need, the imperative need for greater economy in the overhead administration of our national finances. I know that in the City of London, among people who are said to be authorities on finance, the view is held that it is, indeed, a serious state of affairs if we in this country are to accept the proposition that our present expenditure in this country is to be regarded as the minimum expenditure which the next few years is likely to see.
    I realise quite fully that it is not very useful to criticise in a matter like this, unless at the same time one is prepared to offer concrete suggestions to the Government in the serious efforts that, I know, they are making to effect economies in our national administration. And I should like to assure the Committee, as one who during the last few years, and particularly during the years when the trade and industry of this country were suffering so severely from
    1944
    the slump in 1921, came into contact during that period with many great business concerns which were obliged to face the question of economies, and cut down administration expenses, that I realise the difficulties with which the Government are faced in bringing their overhead expenses down to a more reasonable level. Some of the proposals which I venture to offer to the Government to-night, and, indeed, all of them, may have been considered, but I hope nothing will be lost by repeating them, if only that they may, perhaps, form the basis of discussion inside this House and outside with the object of assuring ourselves that we have, in fact, examined —and examined with due care—all the proposals which are likely, or which may be considered to be likely, to bring us some relief.
    My first suggestion to the Government is this. I, for one, believe that there will be really no practical economy effected in the various departments of His Majesty's Government until the decision is taken to ration all departments; to say to all departments, each of them in turn, "That is the sum that is to be allotted to you for your expenses during the next 12 months, and you have got to cut your coat accordingly, make your arrangements accordingly, and live within that sum appropriate to your particular department." I say that because I realise quite fully the very great difficulties the Chancellor of the Exchequer is up against, if he is dealing, department by department with the heads of departments, who can come forward with a very good case, not only for keeping up their existing expenditure, but even increasing it. Therefore, I do submit that the question of rationing each department should be carefully considered again, if it has already been considered by His Majesty's Government.
    My second point is this. I was very glad to learn from the forecast in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that some consideration is to be given at once to the question of co-ordinating the various defence services. I believe that if it were possible to form a Ministry of Defence for our three great Fighting Services, we should find that it would be possible to make some substantial savings in the administration of those Departments. Another suggestion I have to make is this.

    1945
    Why not consider the question of abolishing altogether the Ministry of Transport? Quite frankly, I do not see that the Ministry of Transport to-day is at all a necessity, and I think that it could be quite easily worked in with the Board of Trade, with very considerable overhead savings in connection with that particular Department.
    8.0 P.M.
    Now I come to a subject which I realise bristles with difficulties, that is, the question of the salaries of the Civil Service Departments and of civil servants generally. It is disturbing to see an increase of £11,000,000 in the Civil Service Estimates for this year. I am not going to suggest to-night that it would be fair or reasonable, or even practical politics, to suggest to the Government that the civil servants, who are serving admirably in their various Departments, should have any severe cuts in their salaries. But drawing from the experience which I have gained in the course of some years, I want to suggest to the Government, in all seriousness, whether it would not be possible to say to all civil servants over a certain salary, say £500 a year or £600 or £800 a year if you like—fix your own sum—that for the next three years there should be a halt in the automatic increases granted in connection with these higher salaries. What that might involve, I do not know, for I have no knowledge of the working of Departments or the contractual obligations between the Government and the civil servants, but I do believe that if that were done and a halt were called to what I may term the automatic increases over a certain figure, it ought to result in a substantial relief to the Exchequer.
    I will not refer to the suggestions made inside this House and outside as to the reductions of salaries of Ministers and Members of Parliament, although I do think that if, as time goes on, we see no daylight as to the end of this trade depression, that matter will have to be considered. Certainly, it would be a lead to the nation if everybody, Ministers and Members alike, receiving salaries from the State, would agree to a reduction of those salaries as the first step in practical economy. I know it will be said, and has been said, that any Member of Parliament; who wants to economise can voluntarily surrender his
    1946
    salary, but I do not regard that as a practical answer to the suggestion I have made.
    The last suggestion for economy I have to make is this—and I make it with a good deal of diffidence, because quite frankly I am not certain as to how it would operate. I should like to see the Government, if they consider it possible, extend at once unemployment benefit to domestic service, because I believe—and I am going to be quite frank with the Committee—that if unemployment insurance were extended to domestic servants, we should find many thousands of women who to-day are receiving unemployment pay taking up domestic work. I believe there is a large proportion of these women who are to-day taking unemployment pay who would very much rather work in domestic service if they could be satisfied that they retained the right to receive unemployment pay in the event of their being subsequently thrown out of work. If, as I believe, the estimate I have had given me is correct there is a shortage of something like 200,000 domestic workers in this country, and if we realise that, even supposing a quarter of that number, 50,000 women, were taken off the unemployment register by reason of the extension of unemployment benefit to domestic servants, that would in itself effect a very considerable saving to the Government in a course of 12 months in the matter of unemployment pay.
    I would like, before I sit down, to offer a very few remarks on one aspect of our national affairs, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred frequently in his Budget statement yesterday. He said, in the course of his remarks, that the attempt to help the coal industry to put its affairs on an economic basis had overshadowed and overwhelmed all other interests and claims. I suppose everyone in the Committee will agree with me that, if the Great War has taught us anything at all, it has taught us that any settlement of international disputes by arms and force is bound to involve great misery and hardship to the nations of the world. It is because of the realisation of that fact that the League of Nations has come into being. It is equally true to say that a good deal of our trouble in the last few years, and

    1947
    many of the difficulties we have had to face in getting back to more normal times in regard to trade, has been due to strikes, lockouts and threats of strikes. I want, if I may, in all seriousness to offer a suggestion to the Government which I beg them to consider. It is this. If the establishment of the League of Nations is likely to result, as we all believe it is, in the settlement of international disputes, is it beyond the wit of this Government to bring into being a similar sort of league in this country—call it what you like, a League for the Settlement of Industrial Disputes—consisting of say a dozen members, six representatives and members of trade unions in this country, and six representatives of employers, with a neutral chairman, which would deal with all industrial disputes, and whose judgment and findings on these industrial disputes should be submitted to the country before any strike or lockout was allowed to take place. This may be an ideal; it may be an impossible ideal, but I believe that the strike and the lockout are the most senseless weapons man ever invented for the settlement of industrial disputes. Although I am not going to develop the suggestion I have thrown out to-night in regard to establishing such a league, at any rate I think it is worth considering by us all, if only because we have seen in the last few days the splendid efforts which certain of the great trade unions are making now to help the Government in settling this grave shadow which lies over the nation in regard to the coal industry. I apologise to the Committee for, perhaps, straying from the purely financial side of the Debate, but I offer the suggestions, in regard to economies and the last suggestion, in the hope that they may be of some help to the Government.
    Mr. MORRIS: If I do not follow the hon. Member who has just spoken in the very interesting suggestions for further economies, it is because I desire to limit the remarks I have to make to two of the most startling of the new proposals in the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first is his proposed raid on the Road Fund. This is very important, particularly from the point of view of the rural
    1948
    areas. When the Road Fund was initiated, it was set up for three purposes: the maintenance of roads, the upkeep of roads and for the purpose of new construction. The Minister of Transport could spend the funds at his discretion as he chose, and he had complete jurisdiction and complete discretion, with one limitation only, namely, that one-third of the sum of the food should be spent on new construction, and not more than one-third. It was within his discretion to draw up regulations for the administration of the Fund, and under those regulations he classified. or had classified, the roads of the country under three heads, first-class roads, second-class roads, and, lastly, the great- bulk of the roads which come in the third-class—the unclassified roads.
    I understand that the roads in this country for which the inhabitants are actually responsible in the matter of their upkeep and maintenance, extend to 140,000 miles. Of these 140,000 miles there are only 38,000 which fall within the first or second class of roads. In respect of the first class, the Road Fund provides 50 per cent. of the cost of maintenance, and with regard to roads which fall within the second class it provides 25 per cent. As far as the rural areas are concerned, apart from the small amount of main roads, the great. bulk of the roads fall into either the second class or into the third class of unclassified roads. What has been the result? With regard to unclassified roads, these have not received a penny piece from the Road Fund at any time, and up to the present there are 171 rural authorities throughout the country who have never at any time received, in respect of the maintenance of roads, a single penny from the Road Fund.
    Surely it was the public duty of the Chancellor, rather than to raid this Fund to the extent. of £7.000,000—and, indeed, he goes further than that, because he proposes, in addition to the £7,000,000 taken this year, to take every year one-third of the taxation placed on licensed cars, an amount which is calculated this year to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £3,500,000, and which is going to be a progressive amount—instead of raiding the Fund to obtain this sum, surely it was the first duty of the Chan-

    1949
    cellor to ease the very heavy burdens that now fall on the rural community. They have been keeping these roads up, not only for their own purposes, but in the new conditions of transport these roads have to be kept up for traffic coming from other parts of the country, and they are maintained for the purpose of giving facilities, not only to the people in the rural areas themselves, but to people travelling from different parts of the country through the rural areas. It is a national charge, but they have not been able to obtain a fair deal from the Road Fund up to the present time.
    Let us see how this tax operates as far as they are concerned. Take the county which I have the honour to represent, Cardigan. A penny rate in that Division brings in somewhere in the neighbourhood of £900. The Division has a mileage which they must maintain —comparing it for instance with another county in Wales, Monmouthshire—of a, little less than the extent of the mileage of Monmouthshire, but a penny rate in Monmouthshire brings in. not £900, but something between £6,000 and £7,000. There is 50 per cent provided for the upkeep of first class roads, and there is a greater number of these and second class roads in Monmouthshire than there is in Cardigan. What is the position? Even in regard to the roads which fall within the first and second class, they are penalised as against the other area because of their low rateable value. The first charge upon this Fund should be for the purpose for which it was originally intended, and not for the necessities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he is called upon to balance his Budget, but to assist in the development of rural areas and rural industries. That has been the view of this House. This House passed a Resolution three years ago, on the 27th February, 1923, stating:
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the Revenue raised by taxation on mechanically-propelled vehicles should be adequate to cover the additional cost of road maintenance attributable to motor traffic, that the grants now paid to road authorities should be increased accordingly, and, since practically all rural roads are now used by motor vehicles, grants should also be allotted in respect of all these roads, whether classified or unclassified."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1923; col. 1875, Vol. 160.]
    So far no grant has been made in respect of these unclassified roads. It is
    1950
    the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government to see that the first charge on this Fund should be made in accordance with this Resolution. I protest against this raid on the Road Fund. A good deal more will be heard of it. This is adding to the serious burdens that have increased in recent years from Is. to as much as 3s. and 4s. in the pound upon rural ratepayers in respect of the burdens of these roads.
    I pass from the raid on the Road Fund to another startling change, and that is the Betting Duty. The House has been shy of dealing with the ethical side of this tax, but one cannot brush aside the ethics of this tax as if it were of no account. The Select Committee which inquired into the desirability and practicability of this tax were faced with the moral issue, and that the moral issue is important, as far as taxation is concerned, cannot be denied. As a general proposition, it will be accepted, I know, on this side of the House, and also in all parts of the House, that the State has no right to reap a revenue from a vicious undertaking. It is another question I know as to whether betting is a vice. That is the second question which arises. Let me deal with them from the point of view of the Select Committee. The Select Committee had the task of making an inquiry for the purposes of arriving at a calculation with regard to the incomes of bookmakers, and they made a very interesting set of inquiries. They turned for information, among other sources, to the Estates Duty in order to find whether it would give them some information as to the incomes made by bookmakers throughout the country, and they make this Report with regard to it:
    "The Estates Duty returns give no assistance, as all bookmakers die as gentlemen."
    It is a remarkable fact that bookmakers, when they come to die, die as gentlemen and not as bookmakers. Most other professions die as what they are or have been. But that is an indication from the ethical point of view that a bookmaker is not satisfied with the profession to which he belongs. He prefers to die as a gentleman. The case does not rest merely there. A great volume of evidence was heard, and it cannot be brushed aside as negligible, on behalf of

    1951
    the Free Churches of this country, on behalf of the Established Church, and also on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church. The evidence of the Free Churches was practically unanimous in treating betting as a vice. The evidence of the representatives of the Established Church was divided, as were the representatives of the Roman Catholic Church. What was the opinion given by some members of the Church of England, very distinguished members, and what was the opinion accepted by the Select Committee? The opinion accepted by the Select Committee was not the opinion of the Free Churches. They regarded that opinion as being an extreme one. It accepted the views put forward by Bishop Welldon and Dr. Lyttleton, not as representatives of the Church of England, but as former headmasters of distinguished public schools, and their view was that betting may be immoral and wrong in certain circumstances, but that in other circumstances it was neither immoral nor wrong. If a man was betting within his means, within his income, he was doing something which was quite right and which was not morally wrong, but if he was betting beyond his means he was certainly doing something both immoral and wrong.
    Accepting that test, what is the position of the State, assuming my first general proposition is accepted, that the State should not reap any revenue from what. is an admitted vice? That is the reason why we in this country have never placed a tax on a house of ill fame. Is the State in this case going to inquire into the Betting Duty in order to reap a revenue from that part which is moral and right, from those people who are betting within their means, and to decline a revenue from that part which is immoral? It may be answered that the State reaps a duty from the sale of intoxicating liquors; that the same thing applies to the trade in intoxicating liquor. If it is wrong in the case of the sale of intoxicating liquors it does not make it right in the case of the Betting Duty. Then there is the practicability of this Betting Duty. I do not know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to collect his revenue. The principle of the law of England has been against betting in recent times. The tendency of the law has been to put betting down.
    1952
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he is making no actual change in the law. I am not quite sure about that, because these resolutions indicate that the bookmaker himself must take out a certificate and pay £10 in respect of it, and he must register his place of business and pay £10 in respect of that registration. That is a change in the law. If he is not going to make any change in the law, how is he to recover the tax as far as the credit bookmaker is concerned?
    Mr. R. McNEILL: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was that he was making no change in the law as to the legality or otherwise of betting.
    Mr. MORRIS: Yes, I am coming to the question as to how he is going to collect the tax unless he is going to make some change in regard to the legality of betting. At the present moment the law is that money in respect of a betting transaction is not recoverable. I assume for the moment that the tax will be paid by the bookmaker on the bet that is made. Assume that the backer loses and does not pay the sum that is due from him to the bookmaker, what is the position then? Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to recover the tax due on the bet that is made, and if he is, on what principle is he going to recover that duty? If he is to recover there will have to be a change as regards the legality of betting, and that would be a great change in the law as it is at the moment. It may not make legal what is now illegal, but it gives the blessing of the Government's recognition to a form of betting which in itself is not legal. It must be remembered that credit bookmaking is not a legal form of betting to-day. It is merely a loophole in the law which cannot he got at; loophole which is due, not to the intention of Parliament, but to the invention of man subsequent to the passing of the Act. But those questions can he more properly debated later, when the terms of the Resolutions are before the Committee.
    I have no hesitation in saying that, although no great stress has been placed on the ethical view of the Betting Tax. that is, after all, one of the most important phases of this duty. That

    1953
    £150,000,000, or thereabouts, should be diverted from the ordinary channels of trade in this country, as we have been told is the case, is a very serious menace to the trade and development of the country. It is not very often that I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), but in regard to this duty I agree to a very large extent with what he has said. He described betting repeatedly as a vice. He said that for one family that is ruined by drink, 10 are ruined by gambling. I do not know whether his figures are correct, but one knows what gambling is, that it is merely the child of avarice and the parent of despair. It brings ruin to many homes. Whether or not the proportion is as high as the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire said, we do not know, but, we do know the ruin wrought by the drink habit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he is looking for revenue and not for trouble. He will certainly find a great deal of trouble in this duty. He cannot flout the opinion of the great Free Church and the Established Church, and the opinion of many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in this House. It is a great pity that this new departure was made in order to find revenue in this time of stress.
    Mr. RAINE: In common with many other speakers yesterday and to-day, I would like to add my congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his introduction of a very bold Budget. I do not think any part of it has struck a more courageous note than that whereby he has added £10,000,000 this year to the Sinking Fund, in order that the total amount of the Sinking Fund, settled by Parliament two or three years ago, shall not be interfered with. That is further evidence that we are building our finance on a solid basis and are firmly establishing our credit. If the Chancellor's proposal is carried out it will mean that a year hence he will have half a million less interest to provide, and, if he is able to set aside the whole £60,000,000 during the current year, it will mean a saving of £3,000,000 for interest in next year's Budget. This is one of the directions in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to obtain an ever-increasing reduction in expenditure.
    1954
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought in a new regulation with regard to the collection of Income Tax, namely, that it shall be on a one year's instead of a three years' average. Perhaps he is not, aware that at their last meeting the Associated Chambers of Commerce, by means of a card vote, decided by a three to two majority against any alteration of the present system. No doubt there are very cogent arguments on both sides of the question. If in the change over from one system to the other the Chancellor of the Exchequer carries out what he promised yesterday, namely, that no hardship would be caused, then no very great harm can be done. Other speakers have suggested that the Chancellor should ration the various Departments. I cordially agree with that suggestion. But I would go a step further and suggest that the Departments in their turn should ration the grants which they make to municipalities and other local authorities. I speak as one who has been a member of a local authority for a long time. I have often felt that if, instead of the continuous interference from London with this that and the other thing, we were told at the beginning of the year that we would have so much money to carry out particular work, and that if we spent more, wisely or unwisely, there would be no more for us the following year, it would make for greater efficiency not only nationally but locally.
    I would like to say a few words on the Betting Duty. Seeing that I am not a betting man, and do not even indulge in the luxury of putting a half-crown on golf in the way that the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) confessed that he did, I may be able to make some impartial observation on the subject, more particularly as for some years I have served as a magistrate of my own borough. Ever since I knew anything about the subject I have thought that there is a great deal of injustice in the matter of betting. People like myself, if we are so inclined, can go to a telephone and put our bets on, and no one is any the wiser, but those who are not so fortunate as to have these facilities and must pay cash are liable to be interfered with by the police. Many a time, when we have had these people at the court, I have

    1955
    felt very reluctant to pass sentence on some of them, because I felt that we were not getting at the right people. It is the tout who is brought into court and is punished. He is the servant of some obscure bookmaker, and we do not get at the bookmaker at all. But it is impossible to get away from the fact that the magistrate has to administer the laws and not to make them.
    I am sorry that the Chancellor has not gone further in this matter and entirely legalised betting. Why should we any longer keep up what can only be called the hypocrisy of the present position? If betting were legalised, I for one would advocate most strenuously that at the same time all the street betting should be at once ended, and that instead of being able only to fine these people we should be able to put them in prison. Street betting is the curse of which many opponents of this tax make so much capital. If we were to register all bookmakers, whether small or large, we could stipulate that their good conduct during the year would decide whether or not their licence was to be renewed for the following year. Generally speaking you would, ipso facto do away with the very undesirable element which is mixed up with betting. I have no hesitation in saying that no Act of Parliament will eliminate the desire in almost every human breast to take part in the game of chance. If you legalised betting you would also do away with a lot of the betting that now takes place, because the spice of illegality would be taken out of it. Far more than that, you would he able to sue in the Courts, and sue successfully, for the payment of some of the bets which these scamps refuse to pay, hiding themselves behind the Gaming Act. Only a fortnight ago there was published in the newspapers the details of a most disgraceful and unsportsmanlike case. A certain person opened an account and won a very large sum in the first month. He very naturally took the cheque when it was sent to him but, later on, when he lost about half the amount—a sum of £400 or thereabouts—he refused to pay. The bookmaking firm brought the case into the Courts, not because they had any hope of recovery but in order to expose the position.
    1956
    With regard to the Silk Duties and the various other duties, whether those classified as the McKenna Duties or those which have been put on for revenue purposes, it is gratifying to know that all the gloomy forecasts have been falsified. I am one of those who, along with many thousands in this country, do not believe in these duties per se, but like other people I have arrived at the conclusion that it is more than time for us to look after our own people, in the same way as the foreigner looks after his people. We have had the spectre of unemployment in my constituency for four years, and, in such circumstances, one is inclined to take almost any step to reduce the amount of unemployment. I am not going to argue as to what might have been, in regard to various trades which we had in this country, because this is not the time for a general discussion on the question, but, I think, had we taken some of these steps in years past, we would not have the unemployment which exists to-day, and, certainly, I do not think that the constituency which I represent would be in such a parlous state as regards unemployment as it has been in during the last three or four years. For these reasons I most heartily support the Budget.
    Major McLEAN: I wish to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government on their decision not to renew the Trade Facilities Act and also on their decision to terminate the disputes as to assessments under the Excess Profits Duty. I think these decisions mark one more milestone on a hard and difficult road which is leading us away from the finance of the War years. As regards the new taxes I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his proposals and I should like to mention particularly the extension of the McKenna Duties to commercial vehicles. In this connection I make reference to the increased duties on road vehicles. I regret that, so far as I can see, no distinction has been drawn between the road vehicle, tyred with rubber, and other road vehicles. A great deal of the damage done to our country roads is due to vehicles which have not rubber tyres. I welcome the Duty on wrapping paper and I am glad the Government have not been deterred from including this duty in the Budget by what I may term the sustained eloquence of hon. and right hon. Gentle

    1957
    men opposite on a similar duty last year. As far as the betting duty is concerned, I confess that to some extent, I was and still am, troubled by what may be called the moral argument. Perhaps I can very shortly indicate my views if I say that, on this emit at any rate, I agree with the arguments addressed to the Committee by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). There is one small item in the Budget, namely, the remission of Excise duty in the case of home-grown chicory, which may be regarded as a trifling matter, but I hope and believe that the remission of this duty will encourage some farmers in our arable districts to grow this crop, and I trust they will find it profitable.
    As regards the Road Fund, I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is no binding obligation on the Government to use the whole of the Road Fund, and neither more nor less, in the construction and upkeep of the roads of the country. On the other hand, I can conceive a case in which if, as a result of evidence, it was clear that the roads of the country were deteriorating, it would be the duty of the Government to use, not only the whole Road Fund, but other funds as well for the upkeep of the roads. I do not suggest, however, that such a case has arisen. I congratulate the Government on being the first Government to recognise the claim of the unclassified roads to a grant under the Road Fund. I think the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) was not quite fair to the Government in that respect. The Government propose to grant £1,250,000 for this purpose.
    Mr. MORRIS: That is for the first time, and I pointed out that, as it is being distributed between 171 authorities, it will come to about £7,000 apiece.
    Major McLEAN: I agree that it is questionable whether the, amount is sufficient but I assure the hon. Member that this grant will be very welcome to our unclassified roads and I think the Government are to be congratulated upon making it. One wonders how this sum has been arrived at. First, there was to have been a grant of £750,000 and another £500,000 has been added. The inference is obvious that the amount has been arrived at not on the basis of the require-
    1958
    ments of unclassified rural roads, but on the basis of the amount which the Government can afford to give out of the Road Fund. Looking at the matter from the Government point of view, it is quite clear that a local authority has no right to expect the Government to help it to any great extent, unless it is doing its best to help itself. Naturally, I look at this matter from the standpoint of my own county of Norfolk which is one of the most highly rated in the Kingdom. I will not weary the Committee with figures, but to take only two instances, the highway rate in the current year is 3s. 7d. compared with 1s. 2d. in 1913–14 — and we cannot disregard the fact that some of these ratepayers also pay rates to their district council. To take only one district, the rural district council of Swaffham has a highway rate this year of 1s 11d. compared with a former rate of 9d.
    Notwithstanding the great efforts which the Norfolk County Council and other local authorities are making, I do not think there can be any doubt that the present rate of maintenance and improvement is not overtaking the wear and tear of modern traffic conditions. On the contrary, deterioration especially of the unclassified roads is taking place. While that is true of Norfolk or any other part of the country there is a very serious situation and one which will have to be faced, and the longer we postpone facing it the more difficult will it become. It may be said that local authorities so situated ought to apply for increased grants, but that does not really apply up to the present to the unclassified roads. So far as the classified roads are concerned, many of these authorities are so hard pressed that it is doubtful whether they can afford to put up the extra £1 that is required for every £1 the Government give for Class A roads, or the extra £3 which they have to put up in order to get £1 from the Government for a Class B road. I suggest that the time has come when we ought carefully to go into the question of the finance of our roads, and to make grants in greater proportions to those authorities that are the most hardly pressed, provided always, I agree, that they are doing their best to help themselves. How can we arrive at a method of giving help to such authorities? There may be

    1959
    various ways suggested, but I would like to indicate one which I think would be fair and easily worked. It is not a question of considering the amount of the financial resources of any county or district. You have to consider, not only their financial resources, but the expenditure to which they are subject. I will take, on the one hand, the assessable value of a county or district, and I will take, on the other hand, the road mileage, and to a county where you find the amount of money available for each mile of roads is low, I would give a larger grant than to a county with a much larger amount of money available per road mile.
    Let me give some figures, which, I agree, are round, and which are chosen purposely as simple figures in order to illustrate my argument. In Norfolk we have about 400 miles of Class A roads. 470 miles of Class B roads, and 4,400 miles of unclassified roads. If you are going to use this system of giving larger grants to the authorities most hardly pressed, you have to reduce those roads to some common denominator. For the sake of argument only, let us say that a Class A road is worth four miles of unclassified roads and that a Class B road is worth two miles of unclassified roads. On that basis the 400 miles of Class A roads come to 1,600 miles, the 470 miles of Class B road to 940 miles, and the 4,400 miles of unclassified roads remain, of course, the same, giving a total of 6,940 miles, or, let us say, 7,000 miles. On the other hand, the assessable value of the county is £1,585,000, or, to take round figures, £1,500,000. On those figures, if my arithmetic is correct, I think you will find that the assessable value per road mile of the county is about £200. Many counties will have a very much higher figure, and some counties will have a lower figure, but I suggest that to take that proportion of the assessable value to the road mileage of the county would give a very fair basis on which to base increased grants to the most hardly hit local authorities.
    I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he brings forward his proposals next year, and the Government to inquire into this question of the finance of our roads, and if they find, as I say, that in some of the country districts, not only are they not keeping pace with the
    1960
    wear and tear of the roads, but that in many cases the roads are actually deteriorating, and in some places becoming quite impassable, that is a situation which, I think, it is up to the Government to face, if, all the time, the local authorities are doing what they can to help themselves. If the result of such an inquiry should be to prove that what I have asserted is correct, I hope the Government will find some way of giving increased help to those authorities that are so hardly pressed.
    Mr. GILLETT: It is hardly to be expected that I should join hon. Members opposite in congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his Budget statement. As a. matter of fact, if I express any opinion, it must he one of disappointment at the dulness and the uninteresting aspect of the Budget, which is rather different from what one has become accustomed to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One thing in regard to which I was specially disappointed was that there was no definite statement made as to the monetary policy of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, seemingly well contented with what he had done in his last Budget, dwelt upon the gold standard and the tax upon silk, and seemed quite content with the result, but whatever we may think about the return to the gold standard, and however important it may he that everybody should try to make it a success, now that the step has been taken, to my mind, it is no use hiding from ourselves certain results that have accrued to-day and that are having a very important bearing on the problem that is before the Committee this evening.
    I always feel that all the talk about economy has a certain aspect of humbug about it, because everybody is very keen on economies in the things in which he does not believe. One hon. Member has made the suggestion that Members of Parliament might economise on their salaries, and things of that kind. Personally, I am not an enthusiast on that aspect of the question. Hon. Members opposite would probably make some other suggestion, but if I proposed to them that they might economise on Singapore, they would tell me it was impossible. You have only to go round to the different benches, and you will

    1961
    find supporters of economy on every bench, but when you come to discuss the subject upon which you will economise, you will always find that they are ready to economise on the things in which they do not believe. To my mind, there are only two things on which any large saving could be made. One is in connection with the debt, and the other is in connection with military expenditure. The second one hardly comes before us specially this evening, so I will not touch upon it, but in connection with the debt, I should have been glad to know, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have told us a little about it, what his views on the present position of the money market are.
    No one can dispute that the return to the gold standard has had a profound effect, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his very airy and pleasant way, when he spoke about it said the, Bank Rate was no higher. As a matter of fact, that statement was quite correct, because a year ago, when he spoke, the Bank Rate was 5 per cent., and it is 5 per cent. today, but if he had taken the year that had preceded his last Budget and had looked at the Bank Rate, he would have found that for about three-quarters of that year the Bank Rate stood at 4 per cent., and that it rose to 5 per cent. a short time before his Budget was introduced. To-day, we have a 5 per cent. Bank Rate, and we have had it at 5 per cent. nearly the whole of the year, with the exception of two or three months when it fell to 4½ per cent. The right hon. Gentleman indicated in his speech yesterday that the Bank Rate was the same, very much as if he were arguing that the return to the gold standard had had no effect whatever upon the Bank Rate, but when you come to the practical outcome of the Bank Rate and its connection with the Government Debt, you find that it is the effect it has upon the amount of money that has to be paid for Treasury Bills. I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a short time ago, asking him what amount of interest had been paid during last year and the previous year on Treasury Bills, and the answer I received was that in the year 1923–24 there had been issued £2,470,000,000 three months Treasury Bills, and the next year the issue was £2,400,000,000, or about £70,000,000 less,
    1962
    but the interest on Treasury Bills in the first of the two years was £17,300,000, and last year it was £20,800,000.
    Therefore, so far as I can see, the result on a rough comparison—because the total amounts are not quite the same —is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to find an extra £3,500,000 in order to finance his Treasury Bills during last year, and that has to be set against the return to the gold standard, because no one can doubt that, to a large extent, the policy of returning to the gold standard was the outcome of the high Bank Rate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also referred in a rather light way to the inflow and the export of gold, and to the demand of India. The insatiable demand of the Indian people to consume gold gives the City a very great deal of concern, and the position is that having returned to the gold standard we now have to face up to these difficulties. We had a somewhat unexpected drain, which went on for some time, and now we are waiting in the City to see whether any gold will come in. This is the time of year when gold ought to be coming in, in order that we may have sufficient to withstand the drain in the autumn, when the demands of the United States begin to come upon this country.
    What I want to know is whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any views upon the outlook. I gathered from something he said in his speech that probably there would have been a reduction in the Bank Rate if it had not been for the present coal crisis. We are all in the dark as to the views of the Bank of England on the amount of gold that ought to be held before a reduction in the Bank Rate can be justified. Hon. Members, acquainted with the City, will remember that before the War one could fairly well judge when the Bank Rate was likely to rise or to fall, because one knew fairly well the amount of gold necessary to justify a reduction in the view of the Governor and the Directors of the Bank of England. We have had such a short experience of after-War history and conditions that we have not to-day a notion of how much gold it is regarded as needful for the Bank of England to have before a reduction would be justified. Personally, I was surprised when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said,

    1963
    or suggested, that we might have had a reduction by now if it had not been for the coal crisis, because it seems to me that we have not seen gold coming into the Bank of England recently; although there is talk of mysterious amounts of gold in the vaults of the Bank of England, or other places, yet, as far as the market is concerned, there is no information.
    I should have been glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he, at any rate, had an optimistic outlook as regards the money market policy, because in pre-War days we knew perfectly well that if certain things took place other things would inevitably follow. One could usually expect that with bad trade one would have easy money. To-day we have bad trade, but we do not seem to have easy money; it is a case of getting the worst of both worlds. In the old days there used to be some slight recompense, but to-day there is nothing as a recompense, and the fact which impresses the money market when they consider the outlook is that we are not getting in the gold that we might have expected. This has had a certain limited effect upon our floating debt, and must continue to have, and the Chancellor must go on finding interest at the rate of about 4¼ per cent. on his Treasury bills until the Bank of England can reduce the rate. Another effect of this return to the gold standard—it did not absolutely accompany it, but it followed automatically a few months after—was that the voluntary understanding in the City not to finance foreign loans was also abandoned, and towards the end of last year there was an outburst of lending.
    9.0 p.m.
    If we look at the rates at which loans have been issued recently, we see a distinct rise in the price of issue until, as the "Times" very truly remarked, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is faced, as he is in the next two years, with the fact that about £400,000,000 of debt is falling due and that he cannot convert those loans at any advantage whatever to himself. The "Times" distinctly states that, and I think it is quite correct. It seems to me that one of the most effective ways of saving would have been to convert the loans at a much lower rate of
    1964
    interest, but, linked as we are now to the United States and the gold standard, it appears exceedingly doubtful whether in the near future we shall see a, sufficient reduction in the rate of interest for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have any opportunity of converting his loans on a better footing than they are at the present time. Therefore, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been very optimistic in his Budget outlook, I cannot say, speaking from my small experience in the City, that I can share his optimism or see anything to be specially cheerful about.
    I referred earlier to the fact that we have talked about economy, and I was rather surprised to hear from the Financial Secretary, speaking on the other aspect of this question—one aspect is how much we can save, and the other is where and how we are going to tax—that he was amazed at the statement of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer that Income Tax was not a burden. Many of us forget that, whilst a number of years ago all taxes were looked upon as an evil, at the present time it is said that it is not mere taxation that is the evil but the way in which the taxes are being spent—that it is an evil to get money from the public and then not to use it for the benefit of the nation. I do not myself consider it an evil to raise money from certain wealthy quarters for old age pensions, and I doubt whether any hon. Member would challenge a statement of that kind. Therefore, we come once again to the problem of the expenditure and whether we think that evil or sound. The right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young), who at present is mid-way between the Liberal and Conservative parties—I do not know at what stage he has arrived—gave us a very interesting address about Income Tax, and said it was essential that we should reduce Income Tax. Personally, I do not look upon Income Tax as a burden upon industry, in except in so far as it falls upon the. reserves of industry. I do not accept the theory of many hon. Members that we need a saving in Income Tax and in Super-tax in order that people may be wealthier and have the capital for new industries. I believe that if we spread the wealth amongst the population it would be quite easy, by our financial system, to raise

    1965
    money to-day. Their theory is a survival of the old ideas prevailing when wealthy men provided the means for developing private businesses. With joint stock companies, one can raise large sums of money from vast numbers of small people. It may be easier to raise it from a few wealthy men, but it can be raised on the money market quite easily.
    As to the result of Income Tax, one hon. Member took the view that it acted in a depressing way upon business incentive, but industry to-day is not managed by the owners of the capital but by managers, and the vast mass of these men are paid a fixed salary. They may have a limited number of shares in the company, but to a very large extent, the payment they receive is by means of a fixed salary, and to that extent only are they influenced by the income Tax or the Super-tax they pay, and it seems to me that the effect of the tax is rather to make them anxious to increase the success of the company so that they can ask for higher salaries and thus neutralise the taxation they have to pay. I listened to all the appeals for economy, but apart from what I have said in regard to debt and military expenditure, it seems to me that the proposals will be largely futile. I cannot see why the Civil Service clerks getting over £500 a year should be asked to forego part of their pay when you are not asking the clerks in big banks to forego any part of theirs. It seems just as futile as asking those who have invested in Government stocks to accept a reduction of 1 per cent. in their interest while you leave the interest received from private companies untouched. If you want economies they should be spread over all the taxpayers.
    My feeling in looking at this problem is that I cannot share the optimism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suppose every Chancellor of the Exchequer has to draw a cheerful picture and state that everything he proposes is for the best. To talk about a reduction in unemployment and to forget the increase in the number of people coming under the Poor Law is a very one-sided picture. Many of us who look closely into these matters can see dark sides of the picture upon which the Chancellor has not laid stress. It was very clever of the right hon. Gentleman to get £5,000,000 from the brewers, and I have a feeling of admira-
    1966
    tion for him for securing a, hidden reserve of that kind. The Chancellor told us how he proposes to shake the tree in order to obtain the fruit, but he does more than that, he goes into the next garden to steal the apples, to add that to his own store.
    The policy of shifting the burden of taxation from the shoulders of the nation on to the municipalities is one which the right hon. Gentleman is much too fond of. I can only say that however much I may differ in regard to economy on the lines laid down by hon. Members opposite, I support economy in administration. The real economy, however, which is needed is to obtain the money from those who have ample funds, and spend it in the interests of the vast mass who are still suffering for want of it. The policy of a return to the gold standard has a very dark side, and I think the number of unemployed is partly due to it, and the fact that the Coalition Government did not tackle the debt problem before deflation took place is an evil from which we are suffering, and shall continue to suffer as long as this vast mass of debt remains. I do not think the people of this country are going to be satisfied by little economies of the kind which are now proposed while this problem of the debt still remains unsolved.
    Major KINDERSLEY: I do not propose to follow the last speaker in all his arguments, but I suggest that some of the unique information he has given as to the way financial affairs should be carried on might be communicated to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. Before I come to deal with the speech of the Chancellor and his, Budget proposals, I should just like to call attention to the speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). He spoke about there being no difference between the re-imposition of old taxes and the imposition of new taxes, and he said, "What does it matter because it is one and the same thing, and it falls on all the taxpayers." Speaking of the surplus of £26,000,000 the same right hon. Gentleman said that last year the present Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the burden of the Income Tax and the Super-tax, and he further stated that this money had been completely thrown away. Surely the

    1967
    right hon. Gentleman is not justified in saying that, because when a tax is remitted the whole body of taxpayers must benefit.
    Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley came to the question of Treasury bills, and he seemed rather confused in his account of what happened. First of all, he said that the savings of the working classes were not invested in Treasury bills, but only the money of the banks. I should like to point out that the money in the banks is not only the money of the working classes, but of all classes of the community, because the banks are a great pool of the savings of the community as a whole. The interest on the deposits which working class people have in banks is paid inter alia out of the profits which the banks make out of Treasury bills. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the big bankers said to the Treasury, "You shall not have our money except at 4¾ per cent. interest." But the bankers do nothing of the kind. What happens is that the Treasury asks for tenders for Treasury bills every week, and if the bankers do not tender at the right price or tender at too high a price, they do not get any Treasury bills, and it frequently happens that they do not get any. There are very large sums of foreign money which go into Treasury bills, and therefore it is quite impossible for the banks to lay down to the Treasury what rate it shall pay for their money. It is quite impossible, and it is not the way in which the money market works in the least. I want to make that clear, because otherwise the Committee might go away with a misunderstanding of what actually happens.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley said that the real remedy for all our troubles was to double our production of wealth, and then we should halve our taxation. On this side, we all cordially agree with that. It is what we have always asked hon. Members opposite to help us to do, but, instead of that, they are crying for the moon, and seeking after a policy of Socialism which has never been successfully tried anywhere. They are putting spokes into the wheel of the present financial and commercial system, and, by so doing, are
    1968
    stopping that increase of production which we on this side all feel is so desirable. If they would only give up their, as I think, foolish dreams, and throw their weight into trying to make the present system work, I think we might realise what their own ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests, and might easily double the production of this country and so halve our taxation.
    I now come to one other argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley. He was, I think, dealing with the Super-tax and the McKenna Duties, and he said, "If it is true that the foreigner pays part of these duties, why do you not put a tax on cotton and on foodstuffs?" I do not propose to tell the Committee why, but, if the right hon. Gentleman knows so little about the arguments of those who are in favour of Tariff Reform as to be able to ask a question like that, I still have hopes that, when he has learned something about our arguments, he may yet be converted.
    I now want to deal, if I may, with the Budget speech, and to say a word about the gold standard. I am one of those who believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was absolutely right in returning to the gold standard when he did. He has been criticised to-day by, I think, one or two speakers for being precipitate in returning to the gold standard. They said that it might have been all right if he had returned to the gold standard later on, but why do it at that moment? The answer is that he was faced with this position, that the Act which prohibited the export of gold expired at the end of last year, and something had to be done. Personally, I believe it would have been a great blow to the credit of this country if we had shown that our financial position was not strong enough to enable us to return to the gold standard when we did, and that we were obliged to renew the Act forbidding the export of gold. The reason the Chancellor had to take the step then was because circumstances compelled him to face the position.
    I cannot enter in detail into the arguments about coal prices and all the other evils that have been enumerated by hon. Members opposite as following the return to the gold standard, but I do say that certain evils have been eliminated. When I spoke on the Budget proposals last year, one of the evils which I pointed out

    1969
    would be eliminated was the speculation in exchange. Speculation in foreign exchanges is one of the great curses of our time, and the return of the pound to parity with the dollar has practically eliminated speculation in American exchange. To-day, great speculation is going on in the franc, and if is only when currencies are unstable that they can become the prey of the speculator, who only makes matters worse. That is one great advantage that we have reaped from the return to the gold standard.
    There is another advantage, namely, that we have stabilised, or tended to stabilise, wages on a common basis. Our example has been followed, and undoubtedly will be followed, by other countries as soon as they can do so, and I would tell hon. Members opposite that really a general return to the gold standard would be a far better way of stabilising world wages than any attempted agreements such as the Washington Convention, because you cannot be certain that conventions are always read in the same sense or kept in the same spirit, whereas you can be quite certain that these economic factors will compel a world adjustment, and you are much more likely to see a world adjustment of wages if all countries base their currencies on a common standard. Then I think we may justly claim that the drop of seven points in the cost-of-living figure is due to the return of the gold standard. It is one of the things to which we looked forward, but I am perfectly free to say, and to admit, that everybody knew that the return to the gold standard would for a time—it was difficult to say how long; experts differed—cause a certain amount of hardship and dislocation. Nobody denied that, but what we did say was that when we got through that period, as I believe we now have, then the advantages would outweigh any temporary disadvantages of that kind.
    There is no doubt, also, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can claim that the reduction of our Floating Debt to 704¼ millions from about 1,400 millions in seven years is a very great achievement, and I would beg him to go on, because this Floating Debt is a very great danger to the financial stability of the country. I think more than one hon. Member has already mentioned that we have here a debt which has not a fixed rate of
    1970
    interest, which is not funded, and on which, therefore, the rate of interest varies with the rate for money for the time being, and if we had, owing to causes beyond our control, a considerable drain of gold front this country now that we are back on the gold standard, and should we have to put up the Bank rate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to pay a higher rate of interest on that Floating Debt, and it might upset his calculations very considerably. Therefore, I would urge him to take every step to continue this good work of funding, and, on this whole question of debt, I welcome very much the announcement of the early decease of the Trade Facilities Act. As far as I can see, the only real hope of getting any big reduction in our taxation is by reducing the rate of interest on our debt, and, if we are continually creating fresh securities, guaranteed by the Government, into which money will flow as trustee securities, there is no doubt that we are putting back the day when that conversion can be carried out.
    In this connection I would like to ask the Chancellor to consider this. I do not want to go into the question of the Electricity Bill—it would not be in order —but I would beg him fully to consider whether it is necessary for the Government to guarantee £33,500,000 for the purposes of that Bill, and whether the ends of that Bill, of which I entirely approve, cannot be achieved without it? It is a pity to take this wise step of stopping the issue of the trade facilities guarantees, and at the same time add another large sum by this guarantee. I know cases where, owing to the operation of the three years' average in relation to Income Tax, businesses have been closed. The partners in one case had a good result in one year and could not face the possibility of having to pay Income Tax on that good year over the three years' period. That business had, almost in self-defence, to be dissolved. That should not be. I think the abolition of the three years' average is a move in the right direction.
    I want to say a, word or two about the Betting Duty. I know that this moral issue is going to be raised. It has been raised to-night. It has been raised by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris), and I think what he said should

    1971
    be a lesson to everyone of the appalling muddle you get into when you begin to discuss this moral issue. He said he did not believe it was necessarily wrong to bet. I agree. I do not think you can say it is wrong.
    Mr. MORRIS: The hon. and gallant Member is misinterpreting what I said. I was quoting the evidence of Bishop Welldon before the Select Committee.
    Major KINDERSLEY: Well, we will take the gentleman quoted. He apparently said he did not believe betting was wrong. It depended on the circumstances and whether you bet beyond your means. I think that is quite fair. You can say exactly the same thing about drinking. I do not believe it is wrong to drink a glass of beer, but if I drank too many glasses, well then, I suppose it becomes an evil. There are those who argue—and they are perfectly consistent —that to bet is wrong, whether it is a penny or anything else, and to drink a glass of beer is wrong, but they have to convert a large number of their fellow-countrymen to that view, and then at all costs stop drinking and betting. That we understand. It seems to me that if a thing is lawful in itself, the State is perfectly entitled to take a revenue from it as they do in the case of alcoholic liquors. I see no difference between the taxation of betting and of liquor. Excess in both is undoubtedly a very great evil. Those who know anything about the poorer parts of London or great cities know that betting is in some respects as great an evil as drinking. That does not alter the case that if a thing is lawful you cannot make it a moral issue and say the State is morally wrong in taxing it. The State deals with what is lawful. Religious bodies and so on deal with what is expedient. It is a different thing altogether. There is one point on this Betting Duty, and that is the point raised by the right. hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). I think there is a point that you may possibly increase street betting. I do not know anything about betting. I do not bet and do not profess to understand it, but it seems to me that a different type of client goes to the credit bookmaker from the type that makes use of the street "bookie." I do not think
    1972
    that those clients are likely to go to the street "bookie" even if he gives longer odds than the others. At the same time I hope the Chancellor will consider the point.
    I come to the question of the Road Fund. Here I cannot feel, as some Members do, that the Chancellor in the circumstances, and under the great financial pressure, is prohibited from doing what he has done and taking a certain amount from the reserve and from the annual income of the Road Fund. That is a doctrine you cannot possibly uphold. I think the beer drinker might just as well claim that all the tax he pays should go to the improvement of the public-house. You cannot mark revenue in that way. It is perfectly true this Fund was started for the improvement of roads, but it has grown out of all recognition and will continue to grow. I do not believe that under the great financial pressure from which we are suffering to-day the Chancellor has done anything contrary to sound finance or Parliamentary pledges in taking what he has taken from the Road Fund. The Chancellor has shown great courage and great resource in framing his Budget, and I particularly would like to say how glad I am—and I think I can say this from the point of view of the City too— that, he had the courage not to dissipate his surplus in the relief of taxation but to use it to increase the Sinking Fund. It is entirely sound and I am perfectly sure will meet with the approval of all sound financial opinion. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to realise that financial opinion is rather aghast that we have to face Budgets of £800,000,000 or £810,000,000. It is a burden which the country cannot really bear. I grant that from the point of view of your export trade it is possibly true that your rates send up your cost of production whereas Income Tax is paid from profits. At the same time the imposition of taxation is always an evil and it does take from that pool of saving which should be in the hands of the people and which should be used in fresh enterprises.
    People tell me to-day that enterprise is being stopped—I have talked to many people in the City about this—because a man feels that if he is going to venture his money, and run a risk, it is not worth doing it because the State takes

    1973
    so much of his remuneration. There is no doubt about it, this heavy taxation is stopping enterprise in that sense. It is also diminishing the pool from which fresh enterprise must be financed if we are to provide for our increasing population. Unless we can each year set aside for investments in fresh enterprise a large amount of money we shall not be able to provide for our increasing population, and the standard of living must fall. For these reasons I beg the Chancellor to realise that, while we appreciate many points in his Budget and the way he has provided for the expenditure he has to meet, we are very alarmed and disturbed at the size of that expenditure, and we beg him to take every step to reduce it. If he will do so, I think every one on this side will be prepared to give him cordial support in whatever steps he deems it necessary to take.
    Major OWEN: It seems to be the general thing for hon. Members opposite to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure he would much rather they changed their tone and would proffer him their sympathy rather than their congratulations. It is well known that certain nations always sing in a minor key, while others sing in a major. Last year when the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget we would all have come to the conclusion that he belonged to a nation which always sings in a major key. But yesterday, in spite of the blare of trumpets that accompanied his entry last year, he slipped in quietly behind the Chair, and the House was attuned to the very minor key in which he was going to address them. By his very attitude he sought not the congratulations of the House but rather its sympathy, and it is to offer him my sympathy rather than my congratulations that I rise to-night. It is, indeed, a very necessary thing, and a thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at such a time as this needs in very great measure from those who sit in this House. What strikes everyone at once in this Budget is that the ordinary return of taxation is decreasing. Until quite recently it was to be expected that there should be an increase of somewhere about 2 per cent.—a naturally increasing return of taxation. Last year the returns from taxation, instead of increasing naturally, de
    1974
    creased by £2,000,000 below the Chancellor's estimate. This year, again, the yield from taxation, as it existed last year, will, according to the estimate of the Chancellor, be £2,000,000 less than it was last year. In other words, as it appears to those who advise the right hon. Gentleman, instead of our taxation gradually increasing year by year as the population increases, and in accordance with the improvement in the prosperity of the people, we have come to a point where the yield gradually gets less.
    If we look at the other side, we find that, since the present Government has been in power, instead of a gradual decline in expenditure, as was witnessed in the War, we have got an increase in expenditure year after year. Last year the Chancellor estimated that it would be in the neighbourhood of £799,000,000. Actually it was £807,000,000. I am not including the coal subsidy in the figure. On ordinary expenditure, which was not unusual and not out of the way, but expenditure which we are to meet year after year, there was, over and above the amount estimated by the Chancellor at the beginning of the year, an additional sum of about £8,000,000 required. This year, in spite of his Economy Bill, raiding this surplus here, and that surplus there, taking it from the capital of the country, the total expenditure is £812,000,000. Last year the expenditure was £19,000,000 greater than the low level year of 1923–24. This year it is an additional £5,000,000, that is £24,000,000 above the expenditure of 1923–24. Instead of going to the root of the matter and decreasing expenditure, the right hon. Gentleman brings in a new fangled tax which every Committee that has examined it has turned down as being impracticable and impossible.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Not impracticable.
    Major OWEN: Impracticable and impossible is what they usually say. But we will come to that later. Let us see where the right hon. Gentleman can reduce expenditure. Owing to the monetary policy pursued by the Government, it is practically impossible for him to-day to convert any of our War Debt at a rate that will pay the Government, and decrease what we have to pay in interest on the loan. We cannot do very much on that score. I am not one of those who believe in reducing the rate of

    1975
    interest payable to those who lent their money to the country at a time of stress and danger, but if the Government had pursued a monetary policy more favourable and more useful from the point of view of trade and industry, we should today be able to carry on conversion at similar rates to those conversions which have taken place already.
    Much money, running into millions of pounds, could be saved on Civil Service administration. We find an increase of £9,000,000 this year in the administrative expenses of the Civil Service. The only real source which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could tap, and should tap, is in the Defence Services. Let the Committee understand quite clearly that I am not one of those who believe in a small or inefficient Army or in an inefficient Navy. I joined the Army during the War, and I knew what it was to fight in an Army that was unprepared. In the years before the War, the years of great competition in armaments, we spent on armaments a sum equivalent to 3 per cent. of the total national income. We spend the same amount to-day, in a time of peace, after a War which has exhausted the military capacity and the military desire of European nations, and at a time when we were led to expect that we should have a period of peace and prosperity. Nevertheless. We find that we are spending to-day the same ratio to the national income that we spent in the years of the great competition before the War. Prior to that we considered that we were keeping within the limits of safety when we were spending a sum equivalent to 2 per cent. of the national income. It is time that we reduced it to that level to-day.
    With every desire not to see our country falling behind any other nation but with a desire that we should place ourselves in a position that we can afford, I maintain that we could save on that ground alone a sum equivalent to £36,000,000 a year, without doing any harm to the country generally, or to its safety among other nations. How do we stand to-day with regard to the sum payable in taxation in proportion to national income? In the year 1913, the approximate total national income was £2,300,000,000 and the tax revenue of that year was £163,000,000, while
    1976
    the ratio of the tax revenue to the national revenue was only 7·1 per cent. There were plenty of economists in those days who said that we were getting beyond the margin of safety and getting into the margin of danger. In 1920, the approximate total national income was £5,600,000,000, the tax revenue £1,032,000,000 and the ratio of tax revenue to national income 18·4. In 1922, the ratio of tax revenue to national income had risen to 22·2, a point of very serious danger for the country. By last year the approximate total national income was £3,900,000,000, the tax revenue £684,000,000 and the ratio of tax revenue to national income 17 to 17½ per cent. That is a serious position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to face. If he does not face it and if the Government do not face it, then the words of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) will be verified, that this is a Budget showing nothing but extravagance and profligacy, and all we can expect for this country, whatever party rules the country, is bankruptcy and disaster. We have to reduce tat ratio as between the tax revenue and the total national income.
    A great deal has been said on both sides in regard to the Betting Tax. I am not going to say anything about the moral question. It may be a vice. I am not expressing any judgment. In many cases it is a vice. That it is a folly, no one can doubt, and that it is a luxury that few can afford still fewer can doubt. What is likely to happen? If the professional bookmaker who is now carrying on what is supposed to be a legal trade, is taxed, he will very naturally, as always happens, put the incidence of the tax on to the one who does the betting —the backer. The backers will find that the tax is absorbing all their winnings or a large portion of them, or that the tax is increasing their losses. The result will be that the volume of taxable money passing through the hands of the professional bookmakers, those who carry on a credit system or on racecourses, will very soon diminish, but the fact that the volume of taxable money will diminish does not mean that the amount of betting will decrease. The only result will be that the betting will be driven underground into offices and factories and workshops. It is there now, but the volume will be increased. That is the

    1977
    natural thing to expect. The consequence will be that the tax will be evaded to a very large extent by habitual betting men, and the fact that. it will have been driven underground into offices, factories and workshops and out of sight will not be compensated for by the estimated increase of £5,000,000 in revenue. That £5,000,000 will never be obtained, because the form and the way in which the tax is being imposed is calculated to drive the betting from the legal forms which are allowed at the present time into the illegal and hidden forms that are doing so much harm throughout the country.
    Let the Committee consider, the Road Fund. The Chancellor of the Exchequer considers that he has a perfect right to set on one side the agreement made when this Fund was first established in 1909. The understanding that that time was that all the proceeds from this tax would be employed in improving and increasing the first-class roads throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said, "Oh, yes, that was perfectly all right when the Fund was established, but the Fund has grown out of all recognition." The only answer to be made to that is that the needs also of the country have grown out of all recognition, and every penny that is obtainable from that Fund is required for the improvement and betterment of our toads. I think I have said enough to justify my opening remarks that what we have to do to-day is not to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but rather to sympathise with him in his exceedingly difficult position.
    Mr. PENNY: I regret I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down who said he could not congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Budget which he has presented. I consider it an extremely sound, sane and sensible Budget which will commend itself to the country at large, and although it is accused of being dull, I do not think it detracts in any way from the Budget; that it is not spectacular, since it is based on sound common sense and was presented with that cheerful lucidity which is a joy to the Government supporters and at, the same time confounds the right hon. Gentleman's enemies, that is, of course, if he has any. I must say that I think one of the wisest provisions of the Budget is that
    1978
    in regard to Debt redemption, which carries out the policy inaugurated by the Prime Minister, and will be received with the greatest satisfaction throughout the country. I also think the guarantee of a 10 years' preference to all articles which come under the purview of Imperial Preference is an exceptionally wise step for the simple reason that it gives security and confidence, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman most heartily upon having done this.
    10.0 P.M.
    I am very glad, indeed, to find that no more loans will be granted under the Trade Facilities Act to bolster up projects and companies which, if they want these facilities, should really go to banks, and relieve the State from the possibility of any further burden. I am also one of those who feel pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has brought in this Betting Tax. I think he very much underestimates the amount of revenue which he will receive from that tax. To my mind, looking at it from the moral aspect of which we have heard so much, it is all sanctimonious humbug for us to say it is immoral to legalise betting. We all like to have our little bit on. I am not ashamed of it. Everybody likes to feel he can pick out a winner and that his knowledge may bring him in something. As the bookmaker says, "If you don't put it down, you can't pick it up." I sincerely hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not stop half-way, but that he will legalise street betting, because I do really think if this be done, it will be a great protection to the man who bets. At the present time, there are all sorts of subterfuges taking place with regard to the street bookmaker, and if he does not pay the money should the backer win, there is no redress whatever. If it were made legal, it would be a protection, both to the bookmaker and to the backer, and would not increase betting.
    The thing that I regret more than anything is that no definite steps have been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as far as I can see, to reduce the great expenditure which takes place in the State Departments. Excepting for the reference he made to the unification of the defence forces, nothing has apparently been done. It seems to me that the tool employed is the rake to pull in new Revenue, instead of getting the axe to work to cut down expendi

    1979
    ture. There is no doubt from what I have seen as a member of the Estimates Committee the Departments of the State are very extravagant, are very swollen and overlap, and can be cut down to a considerable extent. I think it would help the Chancellor of the Exchequer very much if he were to see that the terms of reference of the Estimates Committee were extended, so that the Committee could give him more advice in securing the economy which this country so much wants at the present time I do not speak against the Civil Service, because I do not think there is a class of the community to whom we owe a greater debt. These officials are ready to work all hours and put in the best for their country. But we have to remember that there is a great amount of dissatisfaction amongst the clerical workers of the City, who realise that by our heavy taxation we are checking the expansion of trade, and we are endangering the security of their own employment. They realise at the same time that the civil servant is a man who has an adequate salary, who has security of employment, and at the end of his service receives a pension. The clerical worker in the City is not in that happy position. He has an adequate salary, perhaps, but he himself has to put by a sufficiency to provide for a rainy day.
    Therefore, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look into this question, to see where overlapping can be done away with, and where extravagance can be checked, so that he will not present to this House the huge Budget which we see year by year, and which, from what he states, he sees very little hope of reducing for years to come. I know that he will experience terrific difficulty in cutting down in the Civil Service. It is growing more and more a huge vested interest in this country, and will dominate Parliament presently, if steps such as I suggest are not taken. I would suggest, as has been suggested on many occasions, that the only way to do this is to take a firm and courageous stand, and ration the Departments, the same as would be done in any business, by saying, "So much we can afford, so much we can allow this Department, and you will have to do your best with it." I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer, through stress of circumstances, has found it
    1980
    necessary to override the pledges made with regard to the Road Fund. I dislike assigned revenue of any kind, and I think it is a lesson this House should learn that we should not pass legislation where revenue is assigned. It always reminds me of the days when I was young, and had to take something unpalatable which the nurse used to mix it up in jam. That is why I think legislation hedged about with promises and restrictions should be avoided for it usually covers up something distasteful.
    I feel that the Chancellor should be a little more generous in regard to the provision he is making for the repair and upkeep of the roads. The incidence of the taxation was never equitable. The ordinary motor car had to pay far more than the heavy lorry or char-a-banc which certainly did far more damage to the roads. Motor car users, therefore, will have a grievance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not seeing that the roads are put in that condition which they are entitled to expect, seeing that they have been called upon to pay the heaviest part of the tax. I would also like to bring to his notice, as he spoke about giving consideration to a tax on petrol, that it was the heavy licence duties on big-powered engines which acted as a deterrent to American motor cars coming over here. Though at first blush it may look as if a tax on petrol was the best way, I would like him to thoroughly examine that question before he brings it into operation Then there is the question of toll gates and toll-bridges to which I have so often called attention in this House. There are 64 toll gates and 127 toll bridges in this country, all of which form a heavy burden on industry in the districts in which they are, especially upon agricultural produce. Here again Scotland has always an advantage over England because by the Roads and Bridges Act of 1878 they were abolished in Scotland but here we are still going on in the same way. It is a national, and not a local question. Could not the Chancellor possibly see his way to make some generous allocation for the freeing of these toll gates and toll bridges, and also for clearing away dangerous corners?
    I am afraid I cannot elaborate many other points, because there are so many Members of the Committee present who

    1981
    wish to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would, however, ask him to consider the question of putting a poll-tax on aliens. We want every job in this country for our own people at the present time. I do not say that we should turn them out, because many of them do good service to the country, but if they wish to enjoy the amenities of this country they ought to be called upon pay for them. Although the amount of revenue may be small, the Chancellor is looking in every direction for revenue at the present time, and, therefore, let some of those who want to come and live over here pay for the pleasure of doing so. Again, there is the question of a tax upon advertisements on hoardings. It would help the Revenue, and save our countryside from the disfigurement which is going on at the present time. In my own constituency there are various areas where these hoardings are depreciating the value of property, both from the selling and the rating points of view. He might consider whether something might not be done in that direction.
    The last point I wish to raise in regard to that very vexed question of the cooperative societies, about which I may possibly incur the anger of hon. Members opposite. Seeing that trade is so difficult in this country, I feel that in common justice to ordinary traders the co-operative societies should be placed in an identical position with the other traders in this country as regards taxation. They contend that there will be claims for repayment of taxation. on the amounts paid to shareholders, but that is purely hypothetical, and should not weigh with the Chancellor. I feel strongly that nothing should be done to make it more difficult for ordinary traders to compete, owing to one section of the community having a pull over them such as the cooperative societies have at the present time. Having put those points, I do sincerely trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will continue to strain every effort to secure economy in administration and to reduce the heavy burden of taxation under which we are staggering, and which is retarding our industry to so great an extent.
    Mr. KIDD: The proposals of the Chancellor have brought forth a variety of criticism from every part of the House.
    1982
    After listening all day to the various suggestions from budding Chancellors, I have come to the conclusion that the only point on which there is perfect unanimity is that in the preparation of the Budget of to-day the Chancellor is set a task rather like that of making bricks without straw. There are one or two observations from both sides of the House to which I would like to devote attention. My hon. and gallant Friend rather worked himself up into a state of indignation about the cost of running this country, which has risen from about 7 per cent. of the national income in 1913 to something like 17 per cent. in 1925. There is no mystery about that. An addition has inevitably been made to our debt during the War and that addition by itself explains the difference between 7 per cent. and 17 per cent. The right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young), in his most attractive speech, must have awakened sympathy on both sides of the House when he expressed the wish that we could establish, as in foreign policy, some continuous national financial policy. After all, that is a gospel which on no part of the House will get support on the platform. No man will go on a platform and preach this doctrine. We think that some of us are more given to offering this or that bribe, but we are all inclined that way. It is an easy way of making ourselves popular by giving away something belonging to somebody else. It is much more popular than preaching the gospel of perfect reason so beautifully expressed by the right hon. Member for Norwich.
    We come back now to these hard facts. Not a single Member in any part of the House has pointed to one single item that we can eliminate from the expenditure side of our account. Our expenditure to-day is fixed to such a large amount that any criticism we can offer on the expenditure side must of necessity be niggardly and really of no help towards a final solution of the country's difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) struck the right note when he said, as I understood him, that the one cure for the nation's position at the moment was to double our production. You cannot disturb the expenditure side very much. There has been a great deal of criticism about the

    1983
    Betting Tax, and we have heard complaints about this being taken from that fund and this being taken from the other fund. Do you think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other Chancellor of the Exchequer, would gladly seek these devices if he had an abundance of revenue to play with? I think he has acted quite rightly with regard to the Road Fund. I think his Economy Bill in law and in equity is quite sound. With regard to the Betting Tax, he does not discuss in these days the question of morals. It is sufficient for him that. a certain section of betting is legal, and that another section, street betting, is illegal.
    I share the objection of the man in the street who puts a shilling on a horse that he should be regarded as a criminal while another man who puts his bet with a bookmaker by telephone is supposed to be a gentleman. But those who put forward this question of equality should realise that it is not the function of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the preparation of a Budget to bring in legislation which will create that equality. On the other hand, the Chancellor—we give him credit for opinions which would never identify him as an elder of the Scotch Kirk—when he finds that betting on a racecourse is perfectly legal says, "I will tax it." There is no objection to that, and, therefore, against these two critics of his Budget proposals he has a complete answer. To the one who contends that there should be equality in this respect he has the answer that it is not for a Budget to legislate to create this equality, and to the man who objects to betting on moral grounds, while he may have a certain sympathy with that point of view, he can argue that it is sufficient for him to find that betting is legal and he is going to take from that legal sport a certain amount of tax. All these devices are proof of the necessities of the situation. The only constructive suggestion that has been made in this Debate is this proposal to double our production, and I ask the hon. Member for Collie Valley what he and his party are doing to assist double production. What is the good of preaching the gospel of double production and all the time in the country, if not in this House, preach a gospel which tends not to double production but to paralyse production?
    Mr. SUTTON: It is done by the employers.
    Mr. KIDD: That is the sort of contribution we hear when one speaks of promoting double production. Nothing disturbs the workers of the country more than the contrast between the American situation and our own. He sees the American workers prosperous, and cannot understand how two peoples, speaking the same language and reading the same literature, are so different as far as wages are concerned. He hears no sufficient explanation, and it is beginning to dawn upon the worker of this country that it is because of the different attitude of the American unions towards industry as compared with the attitude of the unions here. The worker is realising that the policy of industrial aims only has led to an elasticity and adaptability in American industry which secures a common outlook by all engaged in industry. Every man engaged in industry in America is there, in a sense, in a common character. You might have variety and degrees of interest, one man earning £5, others £10 or £20 a week, but there is no hostile influence at play to disturb the common outlook of the American worker in his industry, and the result is such a co-operative effort that you have production on a huge scale, with diminishing cost per unit of article, and a largely increased wage fund.
    What we want to know from the right hon. Member for Come Valley is, why cannot he preach that American gospel to his Party here? Once he has done so, once he has persuaded his party to adopt the American system, once the trade unions of this country pursue the policy of the American unions, once there are established such conditions as will procure the same common outlook and the same co-operation in industry, then we can be sure that we will have a production quite as large as that in America and a wage fund to correspond. According to the right hon. Gentleman that is the only way in which we can redeem the national situation. I ask again, what are his party doing to stimulate production? They have the American example to guide them. It is not a Tory theory; it is not a theory at all; in America it is an accomplished fact. We have heard much said about the large home market of America. The largest home market

    1985
    that America has is their home market arising from the largely increased capacity of her workers to consume. That increased capacity of her workers is the direct result of the prosperity which in turn follows the peace engendered by the gospel which I am adumbrating.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Go and tell the coal owners that that is so.
    Mr. KIDD: What is the right hon. Member for Colne Valley doing, and what is his party doing?
    Mr. SEXTON: What is your party doing?
    Mr. KIDD: This extra production is hindered by the party opposite, and by them only, for the simple reason that for party purposes the interests of the British working man are to be subordinated. Until you lift that fog from British industry, we shall not redeem the national situation. I would warn the Committee of this: Expenditure is largely steady, and you cannot reduce it except in a niggardly way. Therefore, if you are to recover national prosperity, the recovery must be on the revenue side of the balance-sheet. I do not care whether it be a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer or a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer or a Coalition Chancellor of the Exchequer or a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer. Once he has exhausted every effort, with a proper regard for the security of the country and with sympathy for the social services, we find that he cannot seriously diminish his expenditure. It is along the other side of the account that we are to find redemption. We shall only find it by the simple policy of imitating the methods of America and by double production.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I do not propose to follow the last speaker at any great length, but I would say, in the first place, that it is impossible to compare America and this country in the way that the hon. Member has done. You cannot compare for one moment the natural resources of America with the resources of this country. You cannot compare volume of production per worker with the volume of production per worker in this country. We get this kind of talk from the mineowners with regard to the pro
    1986
    duction of miners in America, but there can be no comparison between the output per man, in the mines in America and the output here. One must consider the differentiating factors such as the fact that in America they work seams of a different kind; they work five, six and seven feet seams and use a great mass of machinery.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: 30 feet seams.
    Mr. KIDD: I referred to the production cost per unit article. I was not referring to coal, but to something which is comparable with production in this country.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member was replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) who said that the only real remedy, if we could get to it, was doubled production, and the hon. Member's reply was that we could only get it by adopting the American system. I have not time to reply to him at length, and I am only saying that one cannot compare America and this country in that respect. Moreover, there is something deeper still. We must have regard to the experience of the organised and un-organised workers of this country for the past 50 years. The system which the hon. Member has suggested is a system of payment by results as it obtains in America. What has been the experience of the worker in this country? When they have by increased labour and greater productivity earned a higher reward, the next move of the British employer has been to cut the piece rates. That is the experience of the organised worker in this country. I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) for waking up this dull Debate, for it has been dull since about seven o'clock, but I beseech him, especially in this kind of crisis, instead of giving lectures of this kind only to our side, to take the same course with regard to the employers of labour in this country who have kept back our workers decade after decade—our workers who are as fine as are any in the whole world —from the attainment of the legitimate results of their labour, given freely and fully. Instead of making the kind of speech which we have heard from the hon. Member for whom I have every respect, it would be better if he talked to both sides, and not to one side only. If we got that kind of spirit, perhaps we would be able to treat with him.

    1987
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a prophet, and he seemed to think that we were looking for an occasion against that prophet. I think it is a dangerous simile. There are many of the past prophecies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which we shall not have great difficulty in finding an occasion against him, so we were not at all perturbed about that aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote, at a later stage, some of the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the role of a prophet some years ago. The Financial Secretary said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley had not produced any arguments in support of his statement that Income Tax was no burden on industry., I wondered whether the Financial Secretary really heard all the speech of my right hon. Friend, or heard it perfectly. What my right hon. Friend did say was that the statement that Income Tax was a burden on industry was too often exaggerated, which is a very different thing from saying that it is no burden at all.
    Those who are versed in the effects of fiscal policy and taxation on industry will see at once that Income Tax has an effect upon the rate at which you can borrow capital for the industry of the country. People who are lending money consider the return which they will get upon it, and the rate of tax which will be levied upon the return when they get it, and that does affect very often the rate which you have to pay for the capital employed in your business. When we have said that, we do not admit for a moment that Income Tax is anything like the burden upon industry that we have been led to suppose by many speakers to-night. We think it is far less a burden upon industry than the rating burdens which are at present placed upon it. I know that, if I were to take Sheffield as an example, and to take the present rating burdens upon industries there which have been depressed now for four or five years without cessation, the companies and firms concerned who have paid no in-
    1988
    terest upon their ordinary share capital, or indeed upon their preference capital, in many cases, would much prefer a real relief from the rating burden to a reduction in the Income Tax. That would be the biggest possible contribution which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could make towards the recovery of those industries.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was a little confused, I thought, about my right hon. Friend's argument concerning the raiding by the Chancellor of the Sinking Fund, and he could not understand why we took- a different view from the Chancellor about the use of the surplus which accrues from the last year's Budget. I should have thought the Financial Secretary would have realised that the £50,000,000 which is put to a Sinking Fund every year is surely to be taken as exclusive of Treasury balances which accrue at the end of each financial year. If we take that perfectly orthodox view, we are surely right in saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going back and raiding a balance which has already accrued and been put into the old year's Sinking Fund, in order to balance his Budget in the present year, and I think that, on reflection, the Financial Secretary will come to the same view as we have taken. The right hon. Gentleman will reply both to my statement now and to my right hon. Friend to-morrow, and then he will be able to explain, as he tried to get my right hon. Friend to explain, why that is utter rubbish, which I think was the phrase he used.
    There was one part of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which interested rue very much. He said, at the beginning of his speech:
    "The consuming; power of the people is maintained. It is more than maintained, it is increasing. It is increasing faster than the population, but it is not increasing very rapidly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1926; col. 1687, Vol. 194.]
    I take it that he formed an opinion like that on the Customs figures for the year. If not, we shall be interested to hear later on what ground he has formed that opinion. A little later on in his speech yesterday, he said:
    "However, speaking generally about the Customs and Excise, I feel bound to say that they show only moderate resiliency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1926; col. 1688, Vol. 194.]

    1989
    I think the one statement rather detracts from the other, but I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman to-night this fact, that our experience in distributive industry is that the consuming power of working-class people is not increasing, as would be supposed from his statement yesterday. I have had to make considerable inquiries in the consumers' movement in the last three years for the submission of evidence to bodies like the Colwyn Committee on National Debt, the Balfour Committee on Trade and Industry and other Committees appointed by the Government, and, invariably, we have been asked what our experience has been as to the habits of the people in regard to consumption. Our experience in the last few years has been that the standard of demand of the working classes respecting simple commodities has consistently declined. The trade returns show that more margarine has been substituted for butter. We find that workers who before the War were ordering bespoke tailored suits, to-day are buying only cheap ready-made suits. We are not speaking from theory, but from our own experience of our own factories supplying 12,000,000 to 14,000,000 organised consumers. We find in the boot factories that people require and demand a cheap-class article of a lower grade, because they cannot afford the type of article they had before the War.
    In those circumstances, how can the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us that the consuming power of the people is maintained? It may be perfectly true, as he said in his Budget speech, that the nation is richer than it was a year ago. From our experience we think that the nation is richer, but we find that the worker is poorer. We are led to that view, as was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) this afternoon, by our experience as to the accumulated wealth of the country, the returns from Inland Revenue since the War, and the declining wages of the worker. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley said this afternoon that he thought wages had declined in the last four years by about, £500,000,000—I think that very conservative estimate of the decline —whereas each year there has been a continuous increase, judged by the In-
    1990
    come Tax and the Super-tax of the wealth of the rich.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Are you referring to real wages or nominal wages?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Real wages.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: £500,000,000 decline in real wages
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Yes, I think so, in real wages; but I would like to look into that and I do not want to commit myself by a reply to an interjection. It is very much to be regretted, in these circumstances, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Budget and in this Budget should be moving away from an almost unbroken continuity of reduction of indirect taxation to an increase of indirect taxation and a reduction of direct taxation. He seems to have changed his views very much since the days when he was in charge of the trade of the country. If I remember rightly, his first Cabinet appointment was at the Board of Trade, and in those days he made many speeches of which he and his friends were so proud that he published them in a book called "The People's Bights." In one of those very brilliant speeches, if I may say so, he said this in regard to the increase of indirect taxation:
    "Mr. Balfour and his friends seek to arrest the tendency to decrease the proportion of indirect to direct taxation which has marked in unbroken continuity the course of the last 60 years. We, on the other hand, regard that tendency as of deep-seated social significance, and we are resolved that it shall not be arrested. So far as we are concerned, we are resolved that it shall continue until, in the end, the entire charge shall be defrayed from the profits of accumulated wealth."
    I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer were taking a view to-day more in accordance with that statement. That old economist, John Stuart Mill, said that war always makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, and we have now a greater gap shown between the wealthy of the country and the poor, and I regret that at this time the Chancellor should so far go back upon his published eloquence and wisdom as to increase the proportion of the taxation to be paid by the indirect taxpayer and reduce the charge upon the direct taxpayer. [Interruption.] Well, I will tell the right hon. Gentleman. He is quite right that in saying, when he was

    1991
    speaking in 1909, the proportion was about 50–50. At that time he was arguing for a continuity in the decline of indirect taxation. It continued to decline until in 1922–23 it went down to 39 per cent. in 1924–25 it was 37·3 per cent., and last year it was raised to 38·4, and I should say that, it will be 39·75 per cent. in the next financial year. With regard to the present Budget I am afraid we shall be seeing a still larger proportion of our taxes raised by indirect taxation. I urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that is not the way to secure the highest amount of prosperity for the country. We believe that the more you can relieve the mass of the workers from taxation of that kind, the larger is their demand for goods and services.
    In discusing the Budget of 1923–24, the present Home Secretary put forward the plea that there was a larger amount of labour required for luxury production than for ordinary goods and service in the case of the working classes. We do not believe that. We believe that the greatest amount of employment is secured when there is a reasonable standard of living for the mass of the people quite apart from luxuries, and if the Government wish to assist in that direction they should do all they can to relieve them from taxation and increase their purchasing power in that direction. We think it is all the more remarkable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be moving at this time for more indirect taxation when he has relieved the Super-tax payers to the extent he has relieved them in the past.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I increased the Death Duties, and the hon. Member might mention that.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The Death Duties are only paid once, and the relief given to Super-tax payers is permanent.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The amount of the decrease in the Super-tax and the increase in the Death Duties is £8,000,000 in a full year, and they exactly balance.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I think the balance will he found to be very much in favour of the Super-tax payer who is relieved year after year by means of this Budget.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We can increase them.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: We shall see. It is not possible to deal with this subject by question and answer across the Floor of the House. It is, in our judgment, quite wrong to be increasing indirect taxation and relieving the rich to that extent, and at the same time to tell us that it is impossible to relieve the food of the people from direct taxation. I was very interested to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer state in his speech that the consumption of sugar per head of the population is not only equal to but larger, rather, than before the War. A considerable factor in that was the reduction of the Sugar Duty in the 1924–25 Budget of my right hon. Friend; and, more than that, it has been a considerable factor in providing employment in many industries. Sugar is a raw material that is used in many industries, and we have found a considerable relief in connection with our manufactures of articles like jams, confectionery, pickles and so on, and a very considerable increase in the employment afforded in trades in which unemployment was very heavy until that time.
    Moreover, we have seen the benefits of cheaper food reflected in the purchasing of people in our stores from week to week, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will believe me when I say that we are very often able to test far better by the weekly purchases of known members in working class circumstances in the stores than he can possibly hope to do just by technical opinions given to him by people who get much of their information from books. We were able to notice that, as soon as the Budget of 1924–25 was in operation, there was a distinct gain of purchasing by the working classes in other directions as well as in the case of the articles relieved from taxation. We, therefore, urge him to go on with the good work, and we shall urge him on the Finance Bill to do so.
    We want to say something else to him, and that is that he will be making a very great mistake if he is led, by some of the suggestions made by his back benchers to-night, into extending the policy of Protection. I could not help thinking, when I was listening to the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Major Kindersley) about Tariff Reform

    1993
    that it would be best for him to try his arts first of all upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it seems to me that so far the Chancellor has resisted anything like a. wholesale move towards Protection, though he is yielding far more to the, Protectionists on his side than some of us like to think. We on this side hold the view that Protection is no cure for unemployment. No variation of view can be found on this side as to that, though variation of views may be found on some subsidiary aspects of the question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer advanced the wonderful theory during the Debate that, in the case of some of the taxes he has proposed, the foreigner has paid the taxes.
    Major HILLS: Hear, hear !
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I am very glad to hear that cheer from an economist like the bon and gallant Member for Ripon.
    Major HILLS: Certainly, in some cases.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I would like again to quote the view of the right hon. Gentleman in his more sane days, when he was in charge of the Board of Trade—
    Major HILLS: His salad days.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Well, I would say his more sane days. This is what he said then:
    "Will the foreigner pay? Of course, the first thing that will be said, I have no doubt, will he that they will find the money by taxing the foreigner. I hope you will not expect me to waste much time on that mischievous, foolish policy. I think it is a safe general rule to say that every tax which a British Chancellor of the Exchequer can impose will be paid by the people of Great Britain and Ireland."
    That does not sound very encouraging for the argument used to-day, that the tax is paid by the foreigner.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think there is no doubt whatever that in this particular case it is paid by the foreigner. I was careful to say that the exceptional circumstances in this case, in my opinion, precluded the drawing of a general rule, but the fact remains.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: There is not the slightest doubt that another argument the right hon. Gentleman used in the same speech will also apply in this case, that that may be so quite tem-
    1994
    porarily, but that ultimately the whole burden of this tax will be borne by the consumer.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I said that the consumer has been deprived, in my opinion, of a reduction which would have accrued to him by now.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Then, in fact, the foreigner has not paid the tax, but the consumer has paid it, because he has not benefited by the fall in prices that he was properly expecting to get with a new and expanding industry. I think that that answers the case perfectly well. We think it is most unfortunate that the Chancellor should be following such a policy, even though he himself quite clearly, from his intervention, now hankers after the old Free Trade days and the Free Trade doctrines of his youth, and cannot be easily won away from them. We think it most unfortunate, in present circumstances, that he should be opening the door, however slightly, to the policy of Protection in, this country. It is unfortunate that in connection with that he is going to stabilise the preference to the Colonies for 10 years. I know there will be differences of opinion on that in all parts of the House. Many of us think he is making a great mistake in stabilising the preference for 10 years. He knows full well, from his long experience in Government, how easy it would be for a Dominion to say to us that we have been guilty of a breach of faith if there is a change of Government and the policy of preference has to be done away with by the removal of a tax upon food.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is safeguarded.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Perhaps the Chancellor will tell us what the safeguard is.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The safeguard is that the preference falls if and when the tax is reduced below the level at which the preference is now paid.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Of course that is so, but the very utterance of his policy gives the Dominions hope to believe they are going to get the present stabilised preference for a minimum period of 10 years. If there is any proposal to depart from that by a reduction of the preference, we should then be charged with

    1995
    breach of faith. His Protection policy and the Imperial Preference policy are unfortunate because of the move in the world to a better policy. We are now having an International Economic Conference prepared for at Geneva; Preparatory Committees have been set up. It would have been far better for a country with the influence and importance of our country in the Council of the League of Nations that we should have held our hands from fiscal changes of this kind, and gone to the International Economic Conference prepared to argue for a fiscal policy which would help to recreate the markets of Europe.
    I do not underestimate the value of Empire markets. They form 23 per cent. or 24 per cent. of our export trade. We still have an export trade to Europe of 33 per cent. to 34 per cent, of our total exports. If we could only get a good economic understanding through the League of Nations at this new Economic Conference and get to a freer trade policy between the nations of Europe, I believe we could get a bigger market in Europe than we could hope to get from our Dominions for some time, with their present population. However you may strive through the League of Nations for political amity, these things will soon become scraps of paper unless you can move towards the abolition of economic strife. It would be futile to arrange for political agreement when you could get economic agreement as well. The kind of thing that is happening as the result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy is this. France will be negotiating on the one hand for debt., and will, partly as a reply to our tax on silk, put up tier duties against us to 30 per cent. You will have a tariff wall accentuated if the Free Trade countries of the world go into the low and sordid fiscal strife that some of the other countries have gone into. The Chancellor knows when that is carried to its logical conclusion you have all the elements which lead to fiscal strife and bloodshed between nations later on. I should have thought when he remembered all the passages of his speeches cm the fiscal question in that direction the would have held his hand till the international Economic Conference had been able to consider them.
    1996
    I hope we shall have plenty more opportunities of discussing some of the duties which are the subject of such fiscal controversy on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a great mistake if, whilst dealing with many other important parts of his financial policy, he overlooks that the prosperity of the country, as of every other industrial country, must ultimately rest on the consuming power of the people—I think he has said that many times in the course of his long political life—but we shall not do that by setting up fiscal barriers. We shall not do it by increasing the proportion of indirect to direct taxation. We want in fact a better distribution of the wealth that is produced by labour if we are to maintain in the main the consuming capacity of the people of the country and we shall continue to press that point of view upon the House and the Government.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.— [Commander Eyres Monsell.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  FINANCE [NATIONAL DEBT].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision, among other matters, for amending the Law relating to the National Debt, it is expedient—

  (a) to charge on the Consolidated Fund the principal and interest of any securities issued under the said Act in exchange for War Savings Certificates or National Savings Certificates, and any expenses incurred in connection with such exchange and the issue of the new securities; and

  (b) to charge on the Consolidated Fund any additional remuneration to the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland in respect of the management of securities issued as aforesaid."—[King's Recommendation signified.]—[Mr. McNeill.]

  Resolution to he reported To-morrow,

  FINANCE [SINKING FUND].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision, among other matters, for amending the Law relating to the National Debt, it is expedient to authorise as respects the current financial year the issue out of the Consolidated Fund, in respect of the New Sinking Fund (1923), of the sum of ten million pounds in addition to the sum now authorised to be so issued in that respect."—[King's Recommendation signified.]—[Mr. McNeill.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  MIDWIVES AND MATERNITY HOMES BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.
  Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  ROYAL MR FORCE (CONTRACT).
  ROYAL MR FORCE (CONTRACT).
  NYASSALAND (DEPORTATION).
  NYASSALAND (DEPORTATION).
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  CANADA, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND (POPULATION).
  CANADA, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND (POPULATION).
  NECESSITOUS AREAS (COMMITTEE REPORT).
  NECESSITOUS AREAS (COMMITTEE REPORT).
  CEMETERIES AND BURIAL GROUNDS (LOANS).
  CEMETERIES AND BURIAL GROUNDS (LOANS).
  WEST DERBY BOARD OF GUARDIANS (BROCHURE).
  WEST DERBY BOARD OF GUARDIANS (BROCHURE).
POST OFFICE.
  CASH-ON-DELIVERY SYSTEM.
  CASH-ON-DELIVERY SYSTEM.
  AUXILIARY SORTERS.
  AUXILIARY SORTERS.
  MOTOR VEHICLES.
  MOTOR VEHICLES.
  INTERNATIONAL SERVICE (SAMPLES).
  INTERNATIONAL SERVICE (SAMPLES).
  BRITISH CREWS IN FOREIGN PORTS (LETERS)
  BRITISH CREWS IN FOREIGN PORTS (LETERS)
  STAFF AND VOLUME OF WORK.
  STAFF AND VOLUME OF WORK.
  GERMAN REPARATION (PAYMENTS).
  GERMAN REPARATION (PAYMENTS).
  TAX COLLECTING SERVICE (REORGANISATION).
  TAX COLLECTING SERVICE (REORGANISATION).
  ESTIMATES.
  ESTIMATES.
  COAL MINING INDUSTRY (EXPORTS).
  COAL MINING INDUSTRY (EXPORTS).
  FOOD COUNCIL (PRICES).
  FOOD COUNCIL (PRICES).
MOTOR TRAFFIC
  SPEED LIMIT.
  SPEED LIMIT.
  DRIVING MIRRORS.
  DRIVING MIRRORS.
  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.
  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.
  EDUCATION (INSTITUTION CHILDREN)
  EDUCATION (INSTITUTION CHILDREN)
  TRADE UNIONS (POLITICAL FUNDS).
  TRADE UNIONS (POLITICAL FUNDS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MESSRS. HOARE TRUSTEES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, with regard to the first Bill on the Order Paper this afternoon, I would ask your Lordships to postpone the Third Reading until to-morrow. I have had a communication from a noble Lord opposite, Lord Olivier, whom I am sorry not to see in his place, telling me he would like to discuss a point on the Bill with me. I have not had an opportunity of seeing him yet, but I have no doubt if your Lordships will give me twenty-four hours I shall be able to settle the point. I would ask therefore that it be put down for Third Reading to-morrow.
Third Reading put off till to-morrow.

DUNFERMLINE AND DISTRICT TRAM WAYS (EXTENSIONS) ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, this is merely a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dunfermline and district tramways. I beg to move that it be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

LEGITIMACY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I propose to make one or two observations before your Lordships go into Committee on this Bill. On a previous occasion a certain course was taken by this House and I confess I am somewhat surprised that the Lord Chancellor has not had regard to the obvious feeling shown by the independent members of the House on Lord Buckmaster's Bill two years ago. I am not prepared to challenge the principle of the Bill, but there are three points on which I would remind your Lordships that strong objection has been taken in this House.
In the first place, as the Bill originally stood, there was no necessity for the registration of children who were to be legitimated under the Bill. It was felt that as a result there might be very serious mistakes and, possibly, great lapses of justice. The question of registration having been fought out three years ago, the Lord Chancellor has included it in his Bill, but the child may be registered or not so far as the Bill is concerned. I think that we have been really following a false trail, because by the provision in the Schedule, whether a child is registered or not the fact does not in the slightest degree affect his legitimacy. In other words, a man may marry and legitimate a child born twenty years before and, having done so, he is not bound to make any announcement by which the legitimate heirs may try the case out, though possibly on his death it may be asserted that three or four children were born and there may be no power whatever on the part of the legal heirs to contravene that supposition.
There is another point with regard to this Bill upon which I have some criticism to offer. It would be perfectly reasonable, if the noble and learned Viscount were to consider making it necessary for the child who is registered, to establish legitimacy according to the Legitimacy Declaration Act. It would then be impossible for him to do it by collateral suit. It would be necessary for all those who were interested to be cited. At present it is possible for the legitimacy to be established while the persons who are directly interested in

937
the testamentary dispositions of the deceased may not be aware even that the case is going on. That seems absolutely wrong. Another advantage of making use of the Legitimacy Declaration Act is that the Attorney-General would have to be a party to the suit and therefore some public official would have to make the necessary examination.
A further respect in which I think that the Lord Chancellor has carried too far his desire to favour this class of persons is by taking all these matters into the county court. Testamentary dispositions should surely be tried out in the High Court. Of course, if the Lord Chancellor chooses to fix a very low figure in order to prevent sums of a very small amount being debated in the High Court, well and good; but he leaves it to the County Court Judge to determine whether he shall hear a suit for £20,000 or £30,000 or not. That seems to me to be inequitable and likely to lead to injustice.
There is another point upon which I should like to protest. I think too little consideration has been given to the objections taken concerning it. The Lord Chancellor assumes that every man who has married again, very likely at a registry office, will remember that his marriage revokes his will. As a matter of fact, we know that a great many men do not remember that. Surely it would not be unfair, when a man has made a will embracing, let us say, three or four children, and subsequently, perhaps at the very end of his life, marries again and forgets that the sum which he intended for three or four will now be divided among others, that he should be required to make a fresh testamentary disposition and that he should not be left to the chance of recollecting that the new marriage, which may have been forced upon him in order to right, as far as he can, a wrong which he committed years before, will affect the testamentary disposition which he deliberately made. The noble and learned Viscount has gone so far in this matter that by the Amendments which he now suggests that your Lordships should accept the remotest next-of-kin descendants of these illegitimate children are to share exactly the same as the children themselves would have done, which, in itself, admits that very possibly a long period of years will
938
have passed which will make it extremely difficult for the legitimate heirs to establish what are the true facts of the case.
I venture to appeal to the noble and learned Viscount before we take the Report Stage to reconsider these provisions. I am quite aware that in a matter of this kind legal questions which he himself brings forward command the votes of the whole Government, including all those who supported the protest that we made two years ago and whose influence if they were not members of the Government might be of a more independent character. He can therefore pass whatever legislation he chooses on this subject. I venture at the same time to suggest to him that this lays upon him a great responsibility that what he does should be fair and equitable.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, desirous as I am that this measure should pass I do regret that there should be two apparent blots upon it, which it is suggested should be cured and which may impede the progress of this measure when it gets to another place. The provisions for registration are quite right in the sense that, while providing for registration in due time, they also say that the child shall not suffer for the neglect of its parents, but they are not balanced by a provision which would prevent bogus claims. The submission that I would make would be that the clause about the Legitimacy Declaration Act should be altered so that people who, unfortunately, have not been properly registered may be able to establish paternity by regular proceedings under the Legitimacy Declaration Act. Then all the relations would have notice that the Attorney-General would appear and that the case would be tried by a Judge specially devoted to that class of work.
To this end I would remove the clause which says that legitimacy proceedings may be taken in the county court, which seems to me to be an entire anomaly and to savour of plutocracy, because whereas, if it is a poor person, he is to go to a county court, the case of a rich estate is to be transferred to the High Court. There is no reason for going to the county court at all, in my humble judgment. Some people think that these will be sentimental cases in which poor people who have hitherto been deemed

939
bastards will desire to have a declaration that they are no longer so. I do not believe that anybody will ever do any such thing or wish to trumpet abroad his father's and mother's shame in that way. I believe that they will assume that which the law gives them as a right and make no more fuss about it. The only times when there will really be occasion to go to the Courts will be when property is at stake, and in that event I submit that the case should be tried in a proper suit under the Legitimacy Declaration Act. I confess that I feel on these two points very much on the lines touched upon by the noble Earl, though I do not go altogether so far as he does. The measure remains, as I think the previous measure did, open to objection.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I think it is rather inconvenient that, after we have had a full discussion on the Motion for the Second Reading, we should be subjected to a second Second Reading discussion on the Motion to go into Committee. I have long felt that I cannot satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, about this Bill, but I should like to answer quite shortly the three points which he made. In the first place I think he suggests that the legitimation ought to depend, not upon the marriage of the parents but on registration. That I have often said is a very substantial and important proposal. We have debated it in this House more than once and I have always submitted that that is not right—that when the parents of the illegitimate child marry legitimation ought to follow from the marriage and that it is not fair to the child to leave it to the caprice of the parents whether they shall or shall not legitimise it by registering its birth and parentage. If the noble Earl intended to raise that point he could easily have raised it again by putting down an Amendment in Committee, but he has not thought fit to do so, and I am sure that if he laid a case before the House for such an Amendment I should not be able to persuade the House not to carry it if the reasons in favour were sufficient.
Then the noble Earl said something which I do not understand. He said that under the Bill legitimation can be established by the child without citing the persons interested. That is not the fact. If any person says he is legitimised under
940
this measure he will have to prove it, and he will have to cite the persons who are interested in testing it. He might do it under the Legitimacy Declaration Act.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: The noble and learned Viscount has a little misinterpreted me. What I said was that it was possible for a claimant of legitimacy to obtain it without some of those affected by it being in the least aware that he was making the claim, for the children of the marriage are not hound to have notice served upon them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree that if a person is the illegitimate child of persons who marry he becomes legitimated at once, but the moment he attempts to found a claim upon that right then he must cite, in some form or other, all the persons interested. He may proceed under the Legitimacy Declaration Act, or take some other proceedings in which he claims property or some other right, but he cannot establish his right legally if it is disputed without citing the persons interested in such claim. The noble Earl also made a point about the county court which I do not completely follow. Many of the persons interested under this Bill if it becomes an Act will be persons of very small means. They will want to prove that they are legitimised by this measure. It may be a hardship for such people to go into the High Court and there incur heavy expenses. The Bill enables them to go to the county court, but it does not, as the noble Earl suggests, leave it to the County Court Judge to decide whether he shall dispose of the case or not, because there is a provision in the Bill under which any person interested may go to the High Court and say: "This is an important matter. Will you direct the County Court Judge to transfer it to the High Court?" The Judge of the High Court may then make an order transferring the case.
The only other point which my noble friend made was a complaint that a will under which legitimate children might possibly benefit is revoked by marriage. All wills are revoked by marriage. It is part of the law that if a man marries his will falls to the ground and he must make a new will, which, if he is a wise man, he always does. I do not see any reason

941
for altering that rule of law because a man has an illegitimate child who will be legtimated and so become untitled to rights. I do not follow my noble friend at all in this matter. With regard to the observations of Lord Phillimore, I think one part of them was directed to the county court point with which I have already dealt. The other part of his observations I did not follow or did not catch.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My point was that there should be a direct suit for legitimacy and that a man should not be allowed to prove legitimacy in some collateral suit possibly with somebody not so deeply interested as others might be.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not quite understand on what ground my noble friend says that. A man can bring proceedings for a declaration of legitimacy under the existing Act. That is one way of doing it. The other way is this. Supposing he is a claimant to property on the ground of parentage, he can bring an action of ejectment or something of that kind, as hundreds of persons have done, and can in that action, and indeed must if he is to succeed, prove that he has become legitimated. Such a proceeding is just as solemn and as open to opposition as a petition under the Legitimacy Declaration Act, and I do not see why that method of asserting a claim should not be just as open to him. I have dealt as well as I can with the points raised on this Motion and I hope your Lordships will now agree to go into Committee.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I wish to make one observation. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has drawn attention to a practice which has of late years grown up in this House—namely, the practice of discussing on subsequent stages of a Bill questions which belong to the Second Reading. It is within your Lordships' power to take that course, but I think it is a course which leads to confusion and to an obscuring of the point. For instance, the noble Earl opposite, to-day, has raised a great question of principle on the Motion to go into Committee. He has raised the question whether the principle of the Bill ought to be legitimation
942
simply by subsequent marriage, or legitimation by registration proceedings. That was a matter for discussion on the Second Reading. It is certainly not a question for discussion on this Motion. This Bill was introduced and has got as far as it has on the footing that the law ought to be assimilated to the law of all other countries, so that legitimation should follow subsequent marriage. That was the principle which was adopted on the Second Reading, and to go into this matter again on subsequent stages is to make discussion in this House very difficult. I therefore venture to hope that the example of to-day will not be repeated.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Declarations of legitimacy of legitimated persons.
2.—(1) A person claiming that he or his parent or any remoter ancestor became or has become a legitimated person may, whether domiciled in England or elsewhere, and whether a natural-born British subject, or not, present a petition under the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858, and that Act, subject to such necessary modifications as may be proscribed by rules of court, shall apply accordingly.
(2) A petition tinder the said Act may be presented by any such person as aforesaid to the County Court instead of to the High Court, and the County Court on such a petition being presented shall have all such jurisdiction as by the said Act is conferred upon the High Court
Provided that where a petition is presented to the County Court, the County Court, if it considers that the case is one which, owing to the value of the property involved or otherwise, ought to be dealt with by the High Court, may, and if so ordered by the High Court shall, transfer the matter to the High Court, and on such transfer the proceeding shall be continued in the High Court as if it had been originally commenced therein.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I have handed the Lord Chairman an Amendment to leave out subsection (2), which relates to petitions in the county court. I gather, however, from what the noble and learned Viscount has said, that he has no intention of reconsidering the wording of that subsection. Therefore I

943
think it is useless to move the Amendment. But I would point out that to leave it in the hands of the County Court Judge to decide up to any figure what jurisdiction he will exercise is a provision which I should have thought is very unusual in the law and very undesirable. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor will tell me whether, in fact, in any other case such a thing is done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have already said that that is not done by this Bill. The Bill provides in terms that the county court shall, if so ordered by the High Court, transfer the matter to the High Court. It does not at all lie within the jurisdiction of the county court to decide whether the matter should be dealt with in that court or not.
LORD DANESFORT: Supposing the county court should refuse to transfer the jurisdiction to the High Court, what is the procedure then to be taken by the person who desires to transfer? Can he make an application to the High Court to transfer, or is there an appeal to the High Court?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The person who wants the case transferred to the High Court will, of course, apply to a Judge of the High Court to make an order for the transfer. If the Judge makes the order then the Bill provides that the proceedings shall be continued in the High Court. The effect is automatic; the ease goes to the High Court, and the County Court Judge can no longer deal with it.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:—
Succession on intestacy of legitimated persons and their issue.
".Where a legitimated person or a child or remoter issue of a legitimated person dies intestate in respect of all or any of his real or personal property, the same persons shall be entitled to take the same interests therein as they would have been entitled to take if the legitimated person had been born legitimate."
The noble and learned Viscount said: All my Amendments on the Paper are directed to one point. This Bill, like
944
previous Bills, provides that when a child has been legitimated it shall have a right to succeed on intestacy to the property of its parents, together with other children. But it does not provide—and, indeed, none of these Bills have provided—that if the legitimated child dies intestate its property shall go to its parents as established by the marriage. I think it ought to work both ways. It is very unfair to give a right of succession one way and not the other. The moment that defect was pointed out to me I directed that Amendments should be drawn to supply the omission, and these Amendments are intended to have that effect.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 3, line 18, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Rights of spouse and issue of illegitimate child dying before marriage of parents.
4. In the event of an illegitimate person dying before the marriage of his parents, leaving any spouse, children or more remote issue living at the date of such marriage, then, if that person would, if living at the time of the marriage of his parents, have become a legitimated person, such spouse, children or more remote issue shall have the same rights under this Act of taking interests in property as they would have had if the illegitimate person had died immediately after the marriage of his parents, and that person shall, for time purpose of the transmission of such rights as aforesaid, be deemed to be a legitimated person within the meaning of this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move to leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new clause:—
Application to illegitimate persons dying before marriage of parents.
".Where an illegitimate person dies after the commencement of this Act and before the marriage of his parents leaving any spouse, children or remoter issue living at the date of such marriage, then, if that person would, if living at the time of the marriage of Ins parents, have become a legitimated person, the provisions of this Act with respect to the taking of interests in property by, or in succession to, the spouse, children and remoter issue of a legitimated person (including those relating to the rate of death duties) shall apply as if such person as aforesaid had been a legitimated person and the date of the marriage of his parents had been the date of legitimation."
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, leave out Clause 4 and insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Death Duties.
6. Where a legitimated person and his spouse and issue or any of them take any interest in real or personal property, any succession legacy or other duty which becomes leviable after the date of legitimation shall be payable at the same rate as if the legitimated person had been born legitimate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 6, page 3, lines 41 and 42, leave out ("and his spouse and issue or any of them take") and insert ("or any relative of a legitimated person takes.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendent agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Provisions as to persons legitimated by extraneous law.
(2) All the provisions of this Act relating to legitimated persons and the rights of a legitimated person, his spouse, children or more remote issue to take and transmit interests in property shall apply in the case of a person recognised as having been legitimated under this section, or who would, had he survived the marriage of his parents, been so recognised; and, accordingly, this Act shall have effect as if references therein to a legitimated person included a person so recognised as having been legitimated.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to omit the words "the rights of a legitimated person, his spouse, children or more remote issue to take and transmit interests in property," and to insert "to the taking of interests in property by or in succession to a legitimated person and the spouse, children and remoter issue of a legitimated person (including those relating to the rate of death duties)."
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 4, line 19, leave out from ("and") to ("shall") in line 21 and insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule:

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS OF LEGITIMATED PERSONS.
4. The failure of the parents or either of them to furnish information as required by this schedule in respect of any legitimated person shall not affect the legitimation of that person.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON moved to leave out paragraph 4. The noble Earl said: I almost hesitate to address your Lordships after the reproof which I have received from the noble and learned Viscount opposite, but really the noble and learned Viscount, who sat in another place, surely knows that some of the most pertinent discussions that have ever taken place used to take place on going into Committee, and in your Lordships' House, where at times Bills are brought forward and debated at the last moment by a very few persons, it is not only a desirable right but a right which I hope your Lordships will constantly exercise.
With regard to the allegation of the noble and learned Viscount that I was trying to raise a Second Reading point, there again I join issue with him. It is quite possible to say at one and the same time that a man by marriage with a woman may legitimise a child, and also to say that if that child wishes to establish rights to property or otherwise it must be registered by those who are responsible for its birth. When the noble and learned Viscount speaks of the law of Scotland, I would remind your Lordships of the statistics we read the other day, by which it was proved that in Scotland illegitimacy is 50 per cent. higher than it is in England. That is not exactly the object or intention, as far as I know, of the Bill, and, even if it were, it shows that if the number of cases may be so largely increased we ought to be particularly careful.
I cannot myself see the slightest advantage now in providing that re-registration of the birth of children legitimised should be part of the proceedings because, by paragraph (4) of the Schedule, it is now laid down that
"The failure of the parents or either of them to furnish information as required by this schedule in respect of any legitimated person shall not affect the legitimation of that person."

947
Therefore we come to this point, that it does not matter what period of years has passed. Those who are to be bereft of their natural inheritance by the introduction of children who have not the same claim at all events as they have, and of whose existence they were probably wholly unaware, are not to be furnished with the one weapon by which they can decide whether or not these are really their brothers and sisters—namely, by the registration in the ordinary course of those attested by the parents as being their illegitimate children, now legitimised by the marriage. I cannot imagine on what grounds the Lord Chancellor can resist this Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Schedule, page 7, lines 6 to 9, leave out paragraph 4.—(The Earl of Midleton.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I hope the Lord Chancellor will accept this Amendment. I am not hindered in expressing my views on it by the speech of the noble and learned Viscount opposite, who says that if we alter this paragraph we shall be going contrary to the law in Scotland. Now, I have always had a very great admiration for Scotsmen, but I do not think it is at all necessary that we in England should always follow Scottish law, and especially in this case when, as I understand from the noble Earl, the result is to make Scotland very immoral. I am quite certain that none of your Lordships desire in any way to promote immorality.
Let us see what the effect of paragraph 4 would be. A man is living with a woman who has a child, very likely not by him. Being a clever woman and the man being, perhaps, a rather weak sort of person, she persuades him to marry her. From the fact of that marriage, as I understand—I may be wrong—all the children existing at the time are legitimated. It may be that after the marriage the man thinks he has made a mistake. It is not unusual after marriages to find that mistakes have arisen even when those marriages have been made in proper and ordinary circumstances. The man in question might come to the conclusion that he has made a mistake. He might find out that the child was not his but that of some other man and, therefore, does not take the necessary steps to
948
register that child. This Bill provides that notwithstanding that he has not registered that child, after his death and the death of the mother, as I understand it, the child may go to a County Court Judge and claim to be legitimated. The people who would know whether that child was really the child of the father or not are dead. In those circumstances, I cannot conceive why my noble friend the Lord Chancellor should not accept this Amendment. I understood him to say a short time ago that it would be hard on the child to subject it to the caprice of the parents. It is much harder on the family to admit into their ranks somebody who has nothing whatever to do with them. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend s Amendment will be accepted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not in the least complain of this Amendment being moved. I have often said that I entirely understand the point of view of my noble friend who moves it and that there is great weight in what he has said to-day and on previous occasions. But the House has taken its decision more than once and I think it is the right decision. Two courses are open to Parliament. One is to say that marriage shall legitimise the illegitimate children of the two spouses. The other is to say that marriage plus registration shall do so. Parliament has chosen the former course and I think it is right; for I remain of opinion that it is not right to leave the status and position of a child entirely at the mercy of the caprice or the carelessness of the parents who might not register within the time allowed. Therefore, on the point of principle which my noble friend has raised, I hope I have made my position absolutely clear.
I will only add that all these dangers which are anticipated have not occurred in Scotland where this has been the law for ninny generations; and I see no reason to suppose that a law which has worked well and justly in Scotland should not have the same effect in this country. I want also to say, because I have always been frank with my noble friend the noble Earl, that if he carries this Amendment it will not in my view in the least bring about the object which he desires. He is moving an Amendment to what is merely a saving clause, which provides that if the parents neglect the duty thrown upon them by the Bill to furnish

949
information for the registration of their child their Failure shall not affect the position of the child. I say frankly that if this paragraph was omitted I think the effect of the Bill would be the same. This is only part of the machinery Schedule of the Bill and nothing that you do in respect of paragraph 4 will alter the effect of Clause 1 of the Bill, which is to legitimise the child upon marriage. While I say that, I would much rather keep the paragraph in the Schedule. I think it makes clear that which in any case would be the law, and it would be unwise to confuse the provisions of the Schedule or throw doubt upon them by omitting this paragraph when you do not in the least produce the effect which my noble friend desires. In the circumstances I hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: After what has fallen from the Lord Chancellor I fully accept the definition he has given of the difference between us. We desire that marriage plus registration should legitimise because of the very grave danger which my noble friend Lord Banbury has pointed out. In regard to the acceptance of this Amendment making no difference, if your Lordships exclude paragraph 4 from the Schedule there will not be the slightest difficulty in the Report stage in inserting words which will make it perfectly clear that registration is required as part of legitimation. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will support my Amendment.
LORD DANESFORT: May I say with great respect that I entirely agree with the Lord Chancellor that this particular paragraph of the Schedule does not deal with registration at all. It deals with the question of the parents furnishing information. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule provides that it shall be the duty of the parents to furnish information; not to register, but to furnish information; and paragraph 4 says that the failure of the parents to furnish information shall not affect the legitimation. Therefore, even if paragraph 4 were omitted I do not think it would in any way effect the object which the noble Earl has in view. The question as to the necessity of registration which he has raised appears to me, however, to be an exceedingly important one and,
950
perhaps, he would consider between now and the Report stage the putting down of an Amendment raising more directly and in a complete form the question whether registration shall be necessary or not before legitimacy is established.
TEE EARL OF MIDLETON: In those circumstances and after what my noble and learned friend has said I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, with that object. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will give us time before the Report stage to frame such an Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COUNTY BOROUGHS AND ADJUSTMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): Privilege Amendments made.
Clause 2:
Provisions as to the extension of county boroughs.
2.—(1) Where under Section fifty-four of the Local Government Act, 1888, a representation is made to the Minister of Health by the council of a county borough for any purpose involving the extension of the area of the county borough, the Minister shall not entertain the representation—

(a) unless he is satisfied that the council of the county borough have sent to the councils of the counties, boroughs and districts affected notice of the proposed representation, together with a draft of the order which they desire to have made to give effect to their proposals; and

(b) unless no notice of objection to procedure by Provisional Order has been sent to him by any such council within four weeks from the receipt of the notice from the county borough council, or unless every such notice of objection has been withdrawn.

(2) Where in consequence of any such notice of objection or on any other ground the Minister declines to entertain the re-

951
Presentation, and the council of the county borough promote a Private Bill to give effect to their proposals, any notices published and served and deposits made for the purposes of the proposed Provisional Order shall, subject to Standing Orders, be held to have been published, served and made for a Private Bill applying for similar powers.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF ONSLOW) moved to omit from subsection (2) all words after "representation" and to insert:—
"the application for the Provisional Order shall be deemed and taken to be a petition for leave to bring in a Private Bill, and the notices published and served and the deposits made for the purposes of the proposed Provisional Order shall, so far as they comply with the requirements of the Standing Orders of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons respectively in the case of a Private Bill, be held to have been published and served and made for a Private Bill applying for similar powers:
"Provided that the council of a county borough shall forthwith inform all persons who have objected to the Provisional Order and other interested persons of their intention to proceed by way of Private Bill."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my attention has been drawn by my noble friend the Lord Chairman to a certain ambiguity in the Bill as it reads at present. This is really a drafting Amendment. It brings out the following points: That a Provisional Order is in the stated circumstances to be regarded as a Petition for leave to bring in a Private Bill; and, secondly, that the notices which are to be published for the purposes of a Provisional Order shall hold good for the Private Bill so far as those notices comply with the requirements of the Standing Orders of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons respectively. If, after proceeding first by way of a Provisional Order, the council of a county borough like to change over to a Private Bill they shall so inform all the objectors and persons interested. It is right that those persons should know of the change. I think the new wording makes that quite clear, and I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 3, leave out from ("representation") to the end of line 24 and insert the said words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOBE: My Lords, may I say that I am very grateful to my noble friend for moving this Amendment.
952
There has never been anything between us on principle, but I think the words of the Amendment will result in a smoother working than would have been the case if the words as they were originally in the Bill had been retained.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): Privilege Amendment made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think there is very little that I need say to your Lordships. The Army Act comes to an end on the 30th of this month and, as your Lordships know, this Bill merely re-enacts it in the customary form and proposes a number of amendments. The majority of the amendments are for the purpose of clarifying the Act and simplifying procedure and do not call for any special explanation or comment. There are only three clauses to which your Lordships' attention might be drawn. Clause 9 remedies the anomaly in the Army and Air Force Acts as they stand at present, that a soldier or airman who is exempt from trial for fraudulent enlistment by reason of his having served for three years in an exemplary manner may in certain circumstances forfeit more service than if he has not completed three years service and is tried by Court-Martial.
Clause 12 is to enable Air Force officers to preside or sit as members on Courts-Martial under the Army Act in cases where military officers with the necessary rank and service are not available. The converse of this provision already exists in the Air Force Act (Section 48, paragraph 10). Such provision is necessary where, as in the case of the Iraq Levies, which are subject to the Army Act, military officers with the required quailfications

953
are sometimes not available owing to the limited number serving in the area. This Amendment enables Air Force officers with the necessary seniority and rank to serve in place of Army officers.
Clause 13 enables the Regulars and any portion of the Territorial Army which has been called up, to be billeted in an emergency under Section 108A before the embodiment of the Territorial Army. The object of this Amendment is to provide for the steps that may have to be taken during a precautionary period. It is complementary to and consequential upon a similar amendment which was made last year in the Air Force Act. As I informed your Lordships, apart from the amendments to which I have referred, the remaining clauses are merely of a clarifying nature and require no special comment.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I have looked into this Bill with some care and have scanned its clauses. I do not think that there is anything in the amendments, which of course will be incorporated in the law for the year, that your Lordships need trouble about. The object of the Bill, as your Lordships know, is to take the Army Act, which annually continues in vitality as it is enacted from year to year en bloc, and amend it to some extent, and the Act so amended will continue in force for twelve months from April 30. That is done with this Bin, and all the amendments that have been made this year are amendments which are in themselves, I think, good, but they are of no importance.
There are two important topics that were discussed elsewhere and have been discussed outside of which the noble Duke, quite rightly, made no mention, because there were no Amendments moved in this House directed to them. One of those topics is the death penalty. I do not think anybody in this House desires to move any Amendment about that. The death penalty is practically never inflicted in time of peace and in time of war it is inflicted in comparatively few cases. I think that during the whole of the four years that the War lasted there were only 300 cases of death penalties, and when you consider that
954
they arose in connection with 5,000,000 men you will agree that it is not at all a large proportion. What the death penalty is inflicted for is cowardice in the face of the enemy, treason and great crimes of that kind, which, when they are committed, have the effect of imperilling the lives in many cases of the soldiers who have maintained fidelity to their obligations. Therefore they are very serious offences. There being no Amendment here and as there would be division of opinion it is not unnatural that the noble Duke should not have entered upon the subject.
The other point is the use of the troops in aid of the civil power when there are disturbances, such as riots and so on. The objection to that rests upon a double misapprehension. First of all, it seems to be thought that there is some military obligation to serve on such occasions. There is no military obligation; there is only the obligation that affects every citizen to go to the aid of the civil power if called upon. He is generally called on by the magistrate, and it is a serious thing when he is called on by the magistrate. The magistrate is not entitled to exercise any more force than is necessary to put down disturbance and, when he calls on the soldier, he is calling in a stronger force than the civilian force ordinarily is. Consequently it has been laid down—I laid it down myself when Secretary of State and gave evidence before the Select Committee—that the officer is not bound to obey the magistrate. He must exercise his own discretion, and if he thinks that the magistrate is calling upon him to do more than is necessary, then he is not bound to go and take his troops.
Of course, he always will pay very great attention to what the magistrate says and, normally, in the past, he has gone to obey the magistrate's orders, but a great confusion arose because of a misreport of the great case which took place at Manchester on the occasion of the Peterloo riots. A wrong head-note was given to the decision and that crept into all the military books. For a long time there was great confusion of thought and-the result was that doctrines were laid down in the Army which gave rise to great comment from outside. All that is put right now and there is no substantial

955
question. Therefore we need not concern ourselves with it and I see no reason why your Lordships should not pass this Bill.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Viscount upon a sound Conservative speech? I do not know how it will appeal to Mr. Lansbury, but that is the noble Viscount's concern and not mine.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE (JUVENILE SOCIETIES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF CLARENDON): My Lords, like my noble friend who sits behind me I need not detain your Lordships for more than a very few minutes in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a very small Bill, it is quite non-contentious, and it is promoted in accordance with the wishes of the National Conference, of Friendly Societies. The title of the Bill, as your Lordships will observe, is very tightly drawn. It is "to amend Section eleven of the Industrial Assurance Act, 1923, with respect to the exemption from that Act of juvenile societies": and I can assure your Lordships that no general question of industrial assurance can arise on the Bill.
I will not weary your Lordships by reading Section 11 of the Industrial Assurance Act, 1923, as I can explain in a few sentences what it does and does not do. The section in question exempts juvenile societies and branches employing collectors from the provisions of the Industrial Assurance Act until December 31, 1924. It enables the Industrial Assurance Commissioner to exempt from the Act such societies and branches if they were registered before that date. The reason for this exemption is that juvenile societies' business is of a kind quite different from that of ordinary collecting societies and is not open to the same abuses. Although collectors are employed they do not carry out a house to house collection as in the case of the
956
adult societies. All that happens is that they are sent to collect from particular juvenile members whose parents may be members of the corresponding adult society.
But Section 11 does not permit of the exemption of societies with both adult and juvenile members, who employ collectors for the purpose of juvenile members only. There is no good reason why such societies should not be exempted provided they are branches of, or connected with, friendly societies which were registered at the date of the passing of the Industrial Assurance Act (June 7, 1923), and provided that the receipt of premiums by collectors is limited to the premiums of the juvenile members. These provisos are necessary in order that no society shall be established or set up, which might be the case, for the purpose of evading the general provisions of the Industrial Assurance Act. In some cases it has been possible to surmount the difficulty by forming a separate juvenile society or branch, but as the final date (31st December, 1924) for the registration of juvenile societies so as to entitle them to ask for exemption is now passed, that remedy is no longer open in outstanding cases. The present Bill, therefore, exempts from the provisions of the Act juvenile societies connected with, and juvenile branches of, friendly societies, if such friendly societies were registered before the 7th June, 1923, and employ collectors for juvenile members only. That is the whole Bill, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a— (The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LONDON TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU rose to call attention to the recent restrictions imposed by the Ministry of Transport on public travelling facilities in the London area; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in raising this Question to-day I do so for several reasons. One is that in the congested state of the Order Paper in another place it is very difficult for the House of Commons to discuss a Question of this

957
kind, especially when the Budget is under discussion. Secondly, as possibly some of your Lordships may realise, this Order, restricting a certain class of vehicle in favour of another class of vehicle, is the first to be made under the London Traffic Act, 1924, and it opens up a vista of restrictions in other directions which, I think, ought to be very carefully considered and come before this and the other House of Parliament before it is made a final policy.
In regard to the particular point that I have put down on the Order Paper, I would first of all touch on the question of the legal procedure adopted by the Ministry of Transport. I have had this point looked into carefully by very competent lawyers, and I find that the Order was made on March 25, but was not on the Paper of this House till April 19. It might be said that that period included the Easter Recess. So it did, but, as a matter of fact, there were at least three days on which this House sat between the time of the making of the Regulation and putting it on the Order Paper of the House. I do not think, therefore, that the excuse of the Easter Recess can be held to be a valid excuse. According to the Act all these Orders, or Regulations as I should call them, are to be put down "forthwith." Originally the words were "as soon as may be," but in July, 1924, after a long discussion in Committee in which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and other noble members of your Lordships' House took part, it was decided that the section as it stands to-day with the word "forthwith" was the best form in which it could be put on the Statute Book. I do not think the Minister of Transport has obeyed the spirit, though he may have obeyed the letter of that particular section.
In order that these Regulations may become operative the Minister of Transport has also invoked an Act called the Rules Publication Act, 1893, which enables Government Departments to make and carry into operation any Orders made on the ground of urgency. That is quite right and proper in the case, we will say, of a sudden emergency arising. It is right and proper that the Home Office should have that power in the case of civil disturbance and so on, but there is no urgency in this matter. This subject has been
958
talked about for a long time and the Ministry, in my opinion, ought to have followed the ordinary procedure of putting it on the Paper and allowing it to remain on the Paper of the House and be subject to criticism instead of putting it into operation at once. In this case the Ministry of Transport has shown a Departmental ingenuity worthy of a Department with a longer history.
As regards the question of urgency these particular Regulations are made, not on the ground of sudden congestion of the streets, but on the ground of competition and in regard to competition there is no question of urgency Com petition on these roads where restrictions are proposed has existed for many years. I can recollect very well, and perhaps your Lordships can recollect, that these tramway routes fell out of favour a long time ago and this is not a question of a sudden emergency arising. In the case of the particular tramway affected, the London United Tramways, it has not paid any ordinary dividend since 1907, and no full preference dividend since 1908, so that it is a moribund concern and no particular emergency has arisen to which, in my opinion, the Ministry of Transport could have declared this Regulation to be directed. Indeed, it is contrary to the fact to declare this Regulation to be urgent, because the state of this company has been known every successive half year through the publication of the balance sheet, and everybody who knows the condition of London traffic is aware that, in common with many other tramway systems around London, it has not had a prosperous career for a long time past.
I have looked up the debate in July, 1922, and I find that my noble friend the Leader of the House supported me and made some most excellent observations on the necessity of these Orders being laid upon the Table of the House. I was also supported by various noble Lords who were present on that occasion, some of whom I see around me to-day.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Will the noble Lord kindly tell me what the Order is?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: This is an Order restricting traffic; it is a Provisional Regulation made by the

959
Ministry of Transport under the London Traffic Act, restricting the use of motor omnibuses on the main Oxford Road between Shepherd's Bush and Uxbridge.
A NOBLE LORD: And other places, too.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: And many other places. The Order to which I am referring is one which has come under the notice of the public just lately. This provision in the Act of 1924 was specially inserted after debate in Committee and on Report in order that both Houses of Parliament might have some voice in the making of these Orders. The noble Marquess the present Leader of the House said on that occasion:
"I do, however, think I should be wanting in my duty if I did not warn your Lordships that this is an important matter, and that if you allow Clause 7 to go through without any Parliamentary check you may live to regret it."
Those words prove to be absolutely true to-day. In regard to this question of competition, it may be urged that unless these omnibuses are taken off the tramways cannot live. Surely the best answer to that is that as the tramways are a losing form of traction almost all over the world the true policy will be for the Ministry of Transport gradually to reduce the number of tramcars, to substitute omnibuses for them and in that way to give the public what it really wants. I should mention in passing, on the question of congestion, that the Home Secretary is about to put on the streets of London new cabs, which I believe are called "Jixis," and these two-seater taxi-cabs will further congest the traffic of London, while his colleague, the Minister of Transport, is trying to remove congestion. I leave them to settle that question between them.
I may be told by the noble Viscount who, I believe, is going to answer this Question on behalf of the Ministry of Transport, that all this has been before the London Advisory Committee and that the Minister is only following their views. But what has happened on that London Advisory Committee is quite clear. It consists of representatives of various authorities, the police, municipal councils, one or two counties and the group of companies known as "The Combine." The municipal authorities are naturally in favour of keeping their tramways alive.
960
They have invested their ratepayers' money, unfortunately for them, in an industry which has been superseded by something else, and no doubt these municipal gentlemen combined with the representative of Lord Ashfield's group in deciding to begin this experiment by trying to bolster up the tramway system on the Oxford Road. We all know how these advisory committees are worked. I believe I have the honour to belong to one of them at the Ministry of Transport and in five years we have not been called together once. I consulted my friend Sir Arthur Stanley, who was Chairman of a most important Committee, and he told me that they met as a rule about once a year. These advisory committees are really smoke screens or camouflage under which the Ministry, or rather the permanent officials of the Ministry, make these Orders and cover themselves by saying that the advisory committee recommended this or that.
We all know that these advisory committees consist very often of capable and able gentlemen who have much to do in the world besides attending to these things. They rush in and are told by the Chairman certain facts which, of course, ought to be considered in relation to other facts, and they say: "Go ahead and do what you want," and the advisory committee become responsible. We must all have had experience of that sort of thing in various Departments. In this ease the Advisory Committee have, no doubt, as has been said, advised the Minister to take this action, but I would remind your Lordships that within the last few months the only representative on the Committee of the independent owners, the people not in "The Combine," has resigned on account of what he thought was bad treatment of the people whom he represents. I think that he probably made a mistake in resigning, but at any rate he did so, and accordingly at the time when this Order was made there was no representative of the independent owners on the Committee.
I want to pass from questions of procedure and legality to the real heart of the question. Out of London there lead in every direction these great new main roads. Some have been reconstructed and some are entirely new. They lead away into the country, and your Lord ships must have noticed how on the side

961
of these roads and of inter-communicating roads leading into main roads, there have grown up a large number of new houses. In fact, you cannot go along these roads without noticing how London is spreading in every direction. These great arteries of traffic are absolutely necessary to the increased population of the Metropolis. It is much better that we should decentralise our population, that those who live and work in London should go out further, should have better air and more facilities for playgrounds for their children and should not live so much in places where, as we know, the sunlight is not so good, the air is not so pure and the rents are probably higher. The trend of our housing is to decentralise our population. I ask your Lordships, on the merits of the question, whether this is a time when we should restrict any facilities along these roads leading out of London. I will put it this way. If we are to tackle the housing question properly we cannot do so unless it is linked up with the transport question, and to cut off any traffic facilities on the main roads leading out of London is, I think, contrary to public policy.
There is another point. In the case of the Oxford Road the tramway, as many of your Lordships probably know, begins at Shepherd's Bush near the railway station and goes along to Uxbridge through Southall and other places. Nobody can contemplate the tramway at Shepherd's Bush being taken further into London. It is there faced with the Bayswater Road, which as it stands is not wide enough for its traffic, and it is impossible to contemplate an extension of the tramway towards London. Again, at the other end it would be a financial folly to extend the tramway from its present terminus further into the country, because nobody knows how far out these houses are going to be built and as you go further out the traffic becomes thinner and it does not pay to lay down tramways at the cost of many thousands of pounds per mile.
If the restrictions are carried out a person is forced to get into a tramway in the neighbourhood of Southall and has to get out again at Shepherd's Bush and wait about until he can get accommodation in omnibuses which arrive already crowded. At the present moment with
962
motor omnibuses you can get in at any point and go anywhere practically all over London. Those who know Shepherd's Bush know that it is not only a bad place to stop tramways, but also that the number of omnibuses there to-day are only just sufficient for the number of people travelling. I would like the noble Viscount to tell us later on what is the declared policy of the Ministry of Transport on this matter. Are they going to treat other highways out of London in the same way? Are they going to say that tramways must be made to pay at all costs, and that therefore only a reduced number of omnibuses can be allowed to run? If they are committed to that policy they are going to raise a storm in London the force of which they cannot realise. It is obvious that in the course of time you must provide for the increase of traffic by means of motor omnibuses.
I will now deal with another point which I think your Lordships should consider. All over the world you see a tendency on the part of existing tramway companies to scrap their tramways and substitute in some cases trolley-omnibuses and in others motor omnibuses. That has been going on since 1921, and there are many corporations who are also desirous of scrapping their tramways, or who have scrapped their tramways, on the ground that they cumber the streets and that the public prefer omnibuses. Those corporation and companies include Maidstone, Grimsby, Ashton-under-Lyne, Worcester, West Hartlepool, Kilmarnock, Croydon, Colne, Chesterfield, Stoke-on-Trent, Rotherham, Barrow-in-Furness, Darlington, Ipswich, Walsall, Wolverhampton, East Ham, Doncaster, the Colwyn Bay and Colwyn Urban District Council, and the Potteries and North Staffordshire, the Kidderminster and Stourport and the Mexborough and Swindon tramway companies. There can be no doubt of the general tendency, and I cannot imagine on what grounds the Ministry of Transport can justify the bolstering up of the tramway system in the Metropolis. I admit at once there is something to be said in the case of the London County Council. Their trams are being run at a loss of, roughly speaking, £1,000 a day, and that is coming out of the pockets of the ratepayers of London. I am told that they must go on because there is a sinking

963
fund. Whether it would be cheaper to shut them down is a question of finance which this is not the time to go into.
I want to tell your Lordships something about the scientific outlook on this matter. At the moment I think tram-cars have achieved everything that is possible in the way of economy. They have been running for a great many years—for fifty years—and everything that could cheapen their operation has practically been carried out. Perhaps some of your Lordships do not know that tramways were named after Sir James Outram, and for that reason are called "trams." Ever since his time everything possible has been done to make them cheaper, and to try to increase their revenue. On the other hand the motor omnibus is, comparatively speaking, in its infancy. Every country is trying to make the operation of the motor omnibus cheaper, and there are scientific possibilities which will cheapen their operation. There is pulverised coal, for instance. There is the use of gas suction plant, equal to petrol at about 2d. per gallon. There is the use of heavy oil on the Diesel principle. Then there is the possibility of much greater use of pneumatic tyres, lengthening the life of the engine, etc. Then again, much larger vehicles are coining into operation, and I have seen motor omnibuses carrying more than sixty persons. In fact, you may say that scientifically, looking into the future, the triumph of the motor omnibus over the tram is certain.
Now it is a very curious thing that the London United Tramways, the company concerned in this case between Shepherd's Bush, Southall and Uxbridge, have already gone into the policy of scrapping and have already realised that the outlying portions of these tramways cannot pay. In these circumstances it seems very illogical for the Ministry of Transport to try to induce them to keep this particular section open. On the other side, you have the case of the Bradford Corporation refusing to allow motor omnibuses to run on their streets, and the Ministry of Transport going to law with the Bradford Corporation to compel them to do so. In that case you have the Ministry supporting the omnibuses against the trams, and therefore there appears to be one law for London and "The Combine"
964
and another for Bradford and its corporation. It is a most illogical proceeding.
Another point is the need for competition. We all know that "The Combine," as it is called, has in many ways served London well, and I am the last person to deny, and in our debates have admitted, that Lord Ashfield and his group have improved London transport very much. But is it wise to give any one an absolute monopoly of London transport? I think it is very unwise to do so. Once "The Combine" has got a monopoly there is nothing to prevent it from doing all kinds of things which are undesirable in the public interest. Already the effect of the independent motor omnibuses has been to keep fares down and encourage the running of services where there were none before. The independent omnibuses at the present moment charge fares one-third less than "The Combine" fares, and are paying their staff more highly, and yet are making money. That looks as if concerns which run omnibuses, and are not hampered by tramways, and railways, are better able to serve London.
Then as to local feeling, I believe there has been a petition presented containing nearly a million signatures and I believe that all those signatures are voluntary: that is what I am informed. As regards the other symptoms of local feeling, every single urban district council in that neighbourhood has unanimously petitioned against this alteration. That is a very strong point, and ought to be considered, because these are popularly elected bodies who have the interests of their districts at heart.
I bring this question forward to-day not with any mistaken idea that it will in any way deter the Ministry of Transport from carrying out its determination to restrict the omnibuses, and I do not for a moment doubt that they intend to go on with it. And at the moment there is a lawsuit which is not yet decided and to which it would be improper for me to refer in detail. I am told that to-day the case has been again before the magistrates at Ealing and that the police have asked for an adjournment for a fortnight in order to prepare their case—which is rather a weak admission, it seems to me, after the proceedings have already been going on for three

965
weeks. We do not know how that case will result, but it will turn, I think, more on the legality of the notice than on the merits of the question. But I do think it is necessary for this House and the other House to take cognisance of policy. The general policy in London should be to give the people of London the most convenient, the cheapest, and the quickest form of transport we can give them at the moment. The policy of the Ministry of Transport, as far as I can judge, is to try to bolster up the older forms of transport at the expense of the new. It is all-important that this policy should be questioned and criticised, because, if it is to persist, we may be in the same position that many towns were in when the gas companies originally fought the electric light companies and for a long time prevented electric light being provided in certain towns.
There are all kinds of instances on our Statute Book where corporations and Governments have retarded the advance of a new form of development for the benefit of humanity, and it has always ended—as this will end—in the eventual triumph, after some time, of the new form of development, whatever it is. My noble friend Lord Russell is sitting opposite, and he and I can remember when we had to fight our way step by step in the early days of the motor car. That was just such another fight as this, and that has been won. It is hardly necessary for me to say to-day what an enormous influence that has had on the trade and commerce of the country, on the development of the countryside, and on the general comfort of the people. I am quite sure I am not wrong in saying that if the Ministry pursue this course of trying to support the trams at the expense of the new forms of transport the result will be that the people of London, as well as of other places that are affected, but especially London, will rise up in their wrath and say, through their elected representatives, that they insist on having the most up-to-date and the most convenient form of transport. I thank your Lordships for listening to what I have said, and later on I shall ask the noble Viscount if he can let mo have some Papers.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think it may be convenient that I should say
966
a few words before the noble Viscount replies, in order that he may put me right, if and when I go wrong in these matters, as I have very little doubt I shall do. But before I enter on the main question I should like to say a word— and I wish that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House were here, for I am sure he would agree with me in this— about a point which was mentioned early in the speech of my noble friend opposite as to the method by which these Regulations were brought into force. Is it a fact that they were brought into force on the ground that they were a matter of urgency under some Act dealing with Orders and Regulations? If so, I must say that that seems to me to have been a most unjustifiable straining of authority. I hope the noble Viscount, when he replies, will be able to deal with that point. We do not wish the Department to use powers which were given them in the public interest simply to make up for some slackness of their own, or to enable them to carry out some project of their own before Parliament has had time to pronounce on it.
When we come to the facts of this matter I think that I diverge a little from my noble friend opposite, because he belongs, I think, rather to a group with which I have never had entire sympathy, whose cry for some years has been, "Scrap the trams."
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Only by degrees.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, I gather that they were to suffer a process of painful suffocation by gradual diminution of their receipts. But, at any rate, that has been a cry that I have heard and that I have never entirely sympathised with, and I will tell your Lordships why. The first and most obvious reason is that there is a very large sum of money invested in these concerns, and of that large sum of money a very considerable proportion is public money; that is to say, it has come out of the pockets of the ratepayers. It would seem a pity, and, indeed, an uneconomic thing, to scrap a large and expensive plant if you can still turn it to good use. That is one thing.
Then there is another thing which I think is sometimes lost sight of. I saw an argument, I think it was in the columns of a newspaper, the other day

967
about the omnibus proprietors, and how wrongfully they have been treated by this Order, and how they have contributed to the taxes by their motor licences, while these wretched trams did nothing of the sort. It is often forgotten that there is an obligation on every tramway company to maintain a very large portion of every street through which they run. If these trams were scrapped there would be an immediate and direct monetary loss to the ratepayers, which would have to be made good out of the rates. According to their view that contribution which they have to make in some cases leads to trams being run at a loss.
On this question of the fight between the two I heard a few weeks ago a very interesting address by Sir Henry Maybury at the Royal Institution, in which he was most enthusiastic on the policy of preserving the trams—they must be saved, they must be protected from this competition of the omnibuses, which were deliberately stealing their passengers on the best parts of their routes, and thereby bringing them to bankruptcy. If the noble Lord's figures are right, that for something like eighteen years the London United Company has been in a bad way, certainly it is not a recent attack, but those figures are not true, as far as I know, of the London County Council's trams, for it is only of comparatively recent years that their returns have become so bad.
As a general policy I think I was a little inclined to sympathise with what Sir Henry Maybury said, that if you have got this plant you may as well make use of it, and keep your omnibuses for somewhere else where they are wanted. You do not want cut-throat and useless competition. A desirable thing in my view, and possibly in the view of some of those on this side of the House, would be that the whole of this matter should be in one hand, and that hand preferably the hand of a public authority. The only way in which you can really run these services well is by co-ordinating them, and by co-ordinating them solely in the public interest. You at once get—and you always will get—into terrible difficulties of administration when you first try to leave private enterprise to do the best it can and indulge, perfectly legitimately, in cut-throat competition with
968
other private enterprise, and then try to interfere with it by Order.
The question that Sir Henry Maybury raised in this lecture so lightly seems to me one which really, if I may respectfully say so, and if the noble Viscount opposite will forgive me, is almost beyond the competence of the Ministry of Transport or of any single Department. It is a very considerable thing to say that you are deliberately going to use these traffic powers in order to bolster up one form of transport rather than another. It may be perfectly right—I am not saying that it is not—but it does seem to me a thing rather beyond the judgment of any single Minister to decide. It seems to me rather a policy that, if it is decided upon, should be decided upon by somebody like a Joint Committee of both House, who have the facts before them, and who represent the public interest, and the public interest only. It is a large measure to take. Whether this particular Order is based upon that or not I do not know I think it was definitely understood that that was the chief reason for making this Order—to protect these tramways. I hardly object to it on that ground, but it does seem to have been made rather suddenly, and it is said, I do not know with what truth, that it has hit the private owner very unfairly as compared with "The Combine." I hope that may not be so.
My noble friends below me are responsible for passing this Act, assisted by noble Lords opposite from whom they inherited it. I always ventured to say when it was in your Lordships' House that I thought it involved very considerable dangers, and if you are going to carry on this great interference with private property and this great interference with such an important thing as London traffic, you want an Advisory Committee which commands the complete confidence of everybody in the Metropolis. I have no hesitation in saying that the Advisory Committee as now constituted does not command that confidence and never will while it is constituted on its present basis. My noble friend opposite said that I said that, and other representatives of public interests in another place said that very strongly when the Bill was passing through Parliament. You have an Advisory Committee which is a sort

969
of hotch-potch compromise, which was the result of some sort of threatened strike or something of the kind, and it does not command general confidence as being an impartial and independent body. Until you get that you can hardly undertake these great operations without expecting criticism, and you will not get that general measure of public support which you would get if everyone was satisfied with them.
Whether this particular Order is right or wrong I am not, nor do I expect any member of your Lordships' House is, competent to say, because one requires to know all sorts of details that one does not know; but we should accept it much more readily if there were an Advisory Committee which was really an impartial and independent body and which we could feel was giving advice to the Minister which was not given in the interests of one group or another, or in the light of some particular policy or another, and was solely and simply considering the transport of London. It is a large order to say that you are going deliberately to save these trams—it will be rather a difficult thing to say in some cases—by curtailing omnibus facilities. That, I think, is almost too much for the Minister to take upon himself. I hope that when the noble Viscount opposite replies he will tell us—I know he is very frank with the House and the Minister is fortunate in having so powerful a representative—what is really in the mind of the Minister and what are the guiding principles upon which he is proceeding. I ask these questions in order that when the noble Viscount replies he may deal with an aspect of the case which is really a very important one and will be a continually growing one, because this is only the beginning of a great deal that has to be done.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I should not have intervened in this debate had it not been for the words which have fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in regard to the composition of the Advisory Committee. It will be in the recollection of your Lordships that the London Traffic Act was brought into being by the Government which preceded the Labour Government and passed by the Labour Government. I do not remember that my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu was particularly
970
friendly to that measure during its passage. He objected a great deal to its provisions and continually attacked them; so I have not much sympathy with him in the matter. It was absolutely necessary to have an Act of some kind for London. The congestion of the traffic was tremendous, and it was impossible to go on as we were going and to allow everybody to run just as he pleased. I would remind your Lordships that in no other city in the country is traffic allowed to be uncontrolled, and I venture to think since the passing of that Act the traffic of facilities of London have been greatly improved.
As I said, I should not have spoken had not the noble Earl attacked the London Traffic Advisory Committee. I cannot see why he should have done so. That Committee was deliberately set up by both Houses of Parliament. It consists for the most part of representatives of public bodies interested in the traffic of London and the adjacent counties, and I should like to tell your Lordships who those representatives are. There is one representative of the Ministry of Transport. There is one representative of the Commissioner of Police. Your Lordships are well aware that the police in London have more or less controlled the traffic for generations. The other members are two representatives from the City of London, one representing the Corporation and the other the police; two representatives from the London County Council, who are naturally extremely interested in traffic as the owners of tramways in which no less than £17,000,000 of public money is sunk; two representatives from the borough councils, two representatives from the three counties to the north of London and two from the counties adjacent to London.
The composition of that Committee was carefully considered and I think it is a very representative Committee of public men and public interests. It has worked extremely well. It has been engaged for months and months upon these most difficult problems and I think it is a pity that the noble Earl should come down to your Lordships' House and abuse not only the composition of the Committee, in which your Lordships had a hand, but the work that is being done. I maintain that since the Act was

971
passed there has been a great improvement in the traffic of London.
In regard to the question of the omnibuses and the trams, I have no brief for either. As the noble Earl opposite knows, I have always been an anti-tramway man. But I well recognise that the financial obligations of public authorities in regard to the tramways must be considered. The Traffic Committee and their experts—they have technical advisers as well—are of opinion that the population living adjacent to London could not be brought into or taken out of London without the help of the tramways, and that it was senseless competition to have a number of omnibuses running over exactly the same routes. Those were the questions which actuated the decision of the Committee. Whether there is any reason to suppose that there has been unfair treatment as between "The Combine" and the private omnibuses I am not aware, and I think that is to be fought out. But I am certain that we are very much indebted to the last Government for having passed the Act, which has worked well. There is no doubt that the improvement in London traffic recently has been of great value to the public.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I think we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu for having brought this Motion forward, and we are indebted to him for another reason. As I understand it, the reason for this Order is that the tramways do not pay, and it is thought that by stopping the motor omnibuses the tramways may be made to pay. If that is the fact, I would ask your Lordships to consider what it might entail. It might entail corruption of the grossest kind, if a certain number of people interested in the tramways could go to an advisory body and say: "If you will help us we will help you." I do not for a moment say that such a thing is in existence at the present moment, but I say that if power is given to an advisory body or a Minister to say: "We are going to stop a certain enterprise because we think that by so doing another enterprise may pay better," it is opening the door to very grave danger of corruption.
I would ask my noble friend Lord Peel this question. The railways are very
972
much interfered with by the heavy motor traffic. He and I had the honour of being railway directors at one time. Is any Government Department coming forward to say: "We are going to stop the heavy motor traffic because it interferes with the profits of the railways?" If they can do it for the tramways why should they not do it for the railways? The noble Earl opposite said, as I understood him, that it was necessary to protect the tramways because a good deal of public money was invested in them. I think I am not misrepresenting him.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not know that I actually said that, but I said that I could appreciate that that was a reason for protecting them.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: No greater argument against the nationalisation of anything was ever brought forward. What it means is that if a certain enterprise is nationalised and belongs to the public you must not do anything to improve it, or rather, you must not allow a rival firm to be brought in which will improve it, because the public will lose money. The tramways are an inconvenient form of traction, blocking up the streets, causing more congestion than any other form of traffic at the present moment, and they are to be preserved because, forsooth, the London County Council have invested a great deal of money very badly in them.
LORD JESSEL: May I point out that these particular tramways do not belong to the London County Council?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: But if this particular precedent is allowed there is nothing to prevent similar precedents being followed where the London County Council tramways are concerned. My noble friend Lord Jessel told us that there were two representatives of the London County Council on this Advisory Committee. His words were "who are naturally extremely interested in traffic as the owners of tramways." They ought not to be there at all. The members of the Advisory Committee ought to be independent people and not in any way connected with any form of traffic. My noble friend said that all these alterations had been greatly to the advantage of the traffic in London. They are greatly to

973
the disadvantage of the pedestrians. I walk, and I live in fear of my life. If it was not for a friendly policeman I should never get across this circular traffic when I leave the Houses of Parliament, but when I get to Hyde Park Corner there is no friendly policeman and I stand on the kerb for many minutes contemplating whether or not I have the courage to walk across. When I get to the refuge I look to the right-hand side to see if anything is coming. I forget that under the new Regulations everything goes on the other side of the refuge. I see something coming which I think will pass on the ordinary side, but directly it gets to the refuge it goes past on the other side and very nearly knocks me over. It is possible that people in luxurious motor-cars may save two or three seconds on a journey through London, but the pedestrian runs a very much greater risk of losing his life. I hope my noble friend Viscount Peel will kindly remember what I have said and do something to adopt the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say a few words before the noble Viscount (Viscount Peel) replies. I wish to refer particularly to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam. He will recollect that there was considerable discussion when the London Traffic Bill was before this House. We then had ample criticism from the noble Lord who raised this Question to-day. As a matter of fact—I do not find any fault about this—I am reminded by my noble friend Lord Thomson, who assisted me in the passage of the Bill, that the noble Lord put down no fewer than eighty-nine Amendments. Therefore it was not his fault if in any way the Bill was not fully discussed when it was before your Lordships' House. I think the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, forgets that there was a considerable question as to whether the tramways should or should not be included in the Traffic Regulations. The noble Lord himself is a strong advocate against that, although other members are not. The reason that the tramways were included is not that they were owned by local authorities, whether in London or outside, but that they run under statutory powers. I have always understood Lord
974
Banbury of Southam's view as a railway director and in other directions was that if you interfered with the tramways working under statutory powers that would raise a question of compensation. I am strongly in favour of compensation when statutory rights are interfered with. That was the attitude the noble Lord took up, and if the tramway companies have any preferential position under the Traffic Act it is not because they are owned or worked by a public authority but because they are owned and worked under statutory powers.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I did not understand that the statutory powers said that any other form of vehicle was not to run on the road.
LORD PARMOOR: That was not the question I was dealing with. I will say a word about that in a moment. I was dealing with the position of the tramways themselves and the reason why in this Bill they were dealt with on a different basis from the other modes of traffic, such as motor-omnibus traffic. When the noble Lord relies so much on the word "nationalisation"—a word of very indefinite purport, according to the way in which it is used by a particular person—he really mistakes the whole position. The difficulty here is really not the nationalisation of the tramways. They are run by the local authorities in nearly all towns. There may be some that are privately owned, but they must be very few now. The difficulty did not arise from that point at all. It arose, if at all, from the competition between companies having statutory powers and those which had not statutory powers. I did not think that the noble Lord would have raised this point upon this debate, because it really has nothing to do with the matter that we are at the present moment discussing.
I want to come to two matters which have been mentioned and which have application to the present discussion. No one knows better than the noble Lord, or the noble Viscount who is going to reply, that the constitution of the Advisory Committee was discussed over and over again both on Committee and on Report, and it was only after that very full discussion that the constitution of the Advisory Committee was ultimately adopted. It really rests on two footings.

975
It stands first of all on this footing, that the public authorities, who are interested in the traffic question, should be adequately represented upon it. Take, for instance, the London County Council and the City Corporation and bodies that kind. They are representative bodies. In addition it was thought fair, and I think quite rightly, that other interests which might come into competition with the tramway interest should also be adequately represented. The foundation of the whole appeal so far as traffic regulation is concerned was that we should have a greater power of dealing with the traffic created by the motor omnibuses than we had over the tramways by virtue of the statutory powers under which they are worked. I think that is essential when one really understands what we mean by proprietary rights in matters of this sort. That view was assented to by everyone in the House.
The other subject I want to say a word about is that which is called interference with the motor omnibuses. I am not going into the question of whether particular Orders are right or not. I know nothing about them and do not want to embark upon a technical discussion of that kind. The Act itself is quite clear. It was intended to give a power of regulating motor-omnibus traffic in all parts of the Metropolitan area, not merely the London area in the ordinary sense of that word but a larger area outside London, which is defined in the Bill itself. I recollect there being some question, for instance, in my own County as to how far parts of Buckinghamshire should be included or not. I am not for a moment going into the question as to whether the Advisory Committee have acted wisely or not. I know nothing of that and I do not propose to go into it; but I protest against the opinion that the Advisory Committee is a prejudiced body or a body with undue bias. It was intended in the truest sense of the term to be representative both of the local authorities and of private interests. They were both put in purposely, and I think properly, to deal with a question in which both these sides of opinion are undoubtedly interested. If that is so it is very difficult to say that the Advisory Committee, or the Ministry acting through the Advisory Committee, has not a very wide control over this
976
traffic. I use that expression so as not to introduce prejudice as to what was actually done. It was the object of the Act, or one of the main objects of the Act, that that control should be exercised in that way.
I think so far as I understand what the noble Lord himself has said—he has spoken many times on the subject—that he agreed that it was necessary that power of regulation should be given to some public body. That being so, what is the immediate form of complaint so far as the Traffic Act is concerned? I can find none whatever. Of course when you come to the administration of an Act of this kind, which deals with matters of great importance in our everyday life, there are bound to be certain differences of opinion as regards methods of administration or the actual line of policy adopted, but I think that the noble Lord, if I may say so, went much too far in his criticism. I think he put down eighty-nine Amendments to the Bill and I rejoiced that he took so much interest in it and trouble about it. I think that by his Amendments and assistance we have an excellent Act and I do not see that any grounds of complaint, so far as the Act itself is concerned, have been brought forward.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I remember being very much criticised three or four years ago for expressing an opinion that the tramway system of traffic was obsolescent. The very impressive list of towns which has been read to us by Lord Montagu shows that in all parts of the country strong and progressive municipalities have realised that the tramways system is not only obsolescent but obsolete. They are taking steps to scrap their municipal tramway systems and there are many other towns, the names of which Lord Montagu did not read, which are following the same course. After all, that is not unnatural, The tram-car is the only vehicle that has to stop in the middle of the road, it is the only vehicle that must block anything coming behind it, it is certainly the noisiest form of traffic and, in a hundred and one ways, experience drives one to the inevitable conclusion that the tramway has got to go. It has been useful in its time, but it has outlived its service. Like other forms of traction it has been replaced by more convenient, more

977
business-like and more modern methods, and if the Ministry of Transport is going seriously to try to bolster up the tramway system—whether it is case of municipal or private enterprise has nothing to do with the point—at the expense of a more scientific agency, then the Ministry is setting its face in the teeth of science and in the long run must incur defeat.
I am not very much concerned in following Lord Parmoor in his discourse about statutory rights. It does not matter whether a tramway system is based on statutory rights or not. It has become a nuisance and it will have to go. But it is quite clear from what has been said rather than from what has been done in this particular case—it was reflected in the speech of Lord Jessel to some extent and almost openly stated by Lord Russell—that the argument is that if an enterprise is paid for out of public funds that enterprise is entitled to preference and precedence in competition with other forms of enterprise. So much money has been sunk, said Lord Russell, in municipal tramways that it is quite a legitimate thing to argue that a certain amount of protection against omnibus and motor traffic is justified. I wonder if that is so? The London County Council, for instance, is trying to extend its trams and is not content with attempting to pull down Waterloo Bridge, but means to build a new bridge with trains over it into the bargain. Why should that form of traffic be given preference over a more modern and more scientific system because municipal money has been spent on it? It is not as if municipal money had been well spent. From a commercial point of view municipal money has been badly spent. I forget whether it is £5,000 or £6,000 a week that is lost, but perhaps Lord Jessel will tell us.
LORD JESSEL: I do not think you can argue that point because there are sinking funds and other matters to be considered. Certainly there is a loss of about £200,000 a year.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is a very flattering figure, £200,000 a year, because that is not the only loss by any means. You have not merely to consider the ratepayers' loss through that particular form of traffic, but you must measure it also by the daily confusion
978
and annoyance in every street which comes within the influence of the trams. It is not as if they were a very brilliant investment. I should contemplate with equanimity the scrapping of the trams.
I do not want to delay your Lordships, but there is a further point I should like to mention. The Government, perhaps rightly, is making a great point that it means to scrap old coalpits and concentrate available labour and capital in new and more profitable coalfields. It may be an excellent thing to do, but the old coalpit at least has this advantage, that in time of great demand it re-opens and tends to prevent prices rising to excessive figures. It is very inconsistent to say that you have got to scrap uneconomic coalpits and at the same time give preference to uneconomic systems of traction. If that sort of thing results from the intervention of the new Traffic Advisory Committee I hope that Parliament will take steps to bring that body to a conclusion. It is a very fair body. It is set up with a scrupulous balance of interest; this authority and that authority, this interest and that interest, are all represented without a single independent or unbiased person on the whole Board, judging from what we have been told to-day. These things have always ended in compromise, and where you have to deal with a really serious economic problem it is much better to let the Minister take responsibility and be responsible to Parliament rather than throw upon an advisory body, which meets, I presume, only when it is invited to do so, a responsibility which really ought to rest with the Government itself.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I was, when we were in Opposition, a supporter of the London Traffic Bill. I was, as a matter of fact, a supporter of it because as long ago as 1909, I think, I took a deputation to the London County Council asking for some such measure. It took my advice about fifteen years before it was put into operation. I congratulate the Party opposite on having brought in and passed that Bill. I am afraid I shall have to add that I think it was the one good thing they did, and when they look back upon their past career with regret and remorse they will have this consolation (and it will bring balm to their soul), that they passed into

979
law the London Traffic Act. They will also remember that we gave them a good deal of support when that Act was before Parliament. In one respect my recollection differs, I think, to some extent from that of the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Parmoor, because he told us that the reason why tramways were excluded from the Bill was that they were statutory undertakings. It is perfectly true that that argument was used and was forcibly put before your Lordships, but I do not think that it convinced this House; in fact, I believe that the point was carried against the noble Lord—I cannot remember now which way I voted—and it was only because another place insisted upon that exclusion that it was carried out.
LORD PARMOOR: What I pointed out was the view of Lord Banbury of Southam upon that point.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Lord Banbury's view is also very important, but for the moment I was alluding to the history given by the noble Lord. I do not say that it is intensely relevant to the subject, but still it is a matter of historical accuracy, and I know how accurate the noble Lord's mind is and should be sorry for him to remain in error for any length of time. It is really one of the difficulties of the problem that you have these statutory undertakings and that you have them outside the Act. It has for some time been the policy of this country to have municipal trading. I am not a great supporter of municipal trading, but I think it is only fair to point out that you do get into some of these difficulties because you have municipal trading and, whatever views you may take about supporting tramways, whether they are statutory undertakings or businesses conducted by private individuals, somebody is bound to suggest that the State is apt to lean towards enterprises in which its own money or the money of ratepayers and municipalities is invested.
I want to say at the outset—and I do not desire to detain your Lordships more than a few minutes—that think that some of your Lordships who have spoken have been rather misled and that the course of the debate has rather wandered from what I think is the true issue following upon some observations of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu,
980
in opening this discussion. The noble Lord spoke as if the object and the purpose of this Advisory Committee to the Ministry of Transport was to bolster up tramways and assist the dividends for private tramways. Of course it is nothing of the kind, though so much of the debate has gone upon this false issue, for, of course, the object, and the sole object, of the Ministry of Transport and of any Government Department must be, not the interests of tramways as tramways or of shareholders as shareholders, but the whole interest of the travelling public in London—a far wider question than any that has been dealt with by any of your Lordships to-night, except the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who did suggest, that extreme competition might be a bad thing for the general public and in the general interest. In the very few words that I am going to say to your Lordships I shall deal with the subject wholly from that point of view. The question of scrapping tramways or carrying on tramways will not be considered by me in the interests of either municipalities or of private persons, but in relation to the very large question of what is the best way in the interests of the travelling public of providing for their journeyings throughout London, either by day or by night.
It is very relevant in that connection to consider the effect of any such action upon the tramways, because the Government have to consider the effect both upon the tramways and upon other forms of traffic before they sum up the whole position in the interests of the travelling public. Many of your Lordships, including my noble friend Lord Jessel, who is very competent to speak upon the point, told us what might be the effect upon the tramways, in which £27,000,000 are invested, of an unlimited competition by omnibuses, and I am going to touch upon that point in a minute because I want to put before your Lordships some relevant considerations which you must take into account before you come to a decision on this subject. First of all, some £27,000,000 or £28,000,000 are invested, including £17,000,000 with the London County Council, £5,000,000 with municipalities and £5,000,000 with companies.
Lord JESSEL: It is £28,000,000 altogether.
VISCOUNT PEEL: One of the results of the London County Council tramways (which I deal with because it is far the largest) being a statutory undertaking is that it contributes about £300,000 a year towards the roadways in London, so much on each side of the rails and so much between the rails. If you scrap the tramways you have to consider first of all that the whole of that falls upon the ratepayers, and the charges on the rates fall upon business. This is a very relevant consideration. If you scrap the tramways, who is going to pay these charges? In addition, very large sums will have to be paid for interest and sinking fund, for I do not suppose that anybody behind me is going to suggest that this is going to be repudiated and that, having borrowed money, a municipality is not going to repay it. In summing up for and against., therefore, you have to consider the very heavy change which will fall upon the ratepayers. Further, the tramways not only pay for a portion of the roadway, but they do no damage to the roadway that they do not pay for, whereas the unlimited number of omnibuses which these noble Lords want to run upon the roads—and I will deal with that point in a moment—contribute nothing to the roads except in so far as they may contribute to the Road Fund, and of course very little of that has been spent on these roads in London. In any case their contribution through the Road Fund is nothing compared with the contribution of the tramways.
One further point may be mentioned on this subject. There are at present on the tramway rails in the Metropolitan area no fewer than 2,814 trams—2,240 in London and 574 outside. It is calculated that each of these trams represents seven and a half workmen; that is to say, that for every tram which you put out of action you put out of employment seven and a half men, and so if you multiply seven and a half by 2,814 you get a figure of about 20,000. It is obvious that if you scrap the tramways to-morrow you throw out of employment 20,000 men, which is a very large number indeed, and you have gravely to consider whether this is good for the State or for the travelling public.
I should like to put another point. The noble Lord behind me said that if you
982
are not going to have this unlimited number of omnibuses running through the streets you will have fierce public indignation coming upon you. I can tell him that he will have far more fierce indignation coming upon him, and that he will not be able to stay in London another minute, if he is going to scrap the tramways, because under their statutory obligations they have to run cheap workmen's fares between 5.30 and 8 o'clock in the morning. Hundreds of thousands of working men travel with those workmen's cars, and no such corresponding duty to issue workmen's fares is put upon the omnibuses. Nothing at all has been done by the omnibuses in that respect. Indeed, the omnibuses do not run at these early hours, so that the working man, if the trams are scrapped, will have no opportunity of getting to his work at all between 5.30 and 7.30, much less at a cheap rate. That is a very serious consideration which ought to be borne in mind when considering whether the tramways shall be scrapped or not.
I want to challenge Lord Crawford as to his point that tramways are obsolete. Are they obsolete? By what test are you going to decide whether a thing is obsolete? Are you going to apply the test of whether a thing is used or is not used? When dealing with particular objects which can be bought and sold you know that they are obsolete because people will not buy them. If you apply the same test to the tramways you find that in the course of the year they run a thousand million journeys. Just consider what that means. Yet the noble Earl tells us that they are obsolete. I do not know what his test of obsolescence is.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My test of obsolesence is that thoroughly progressive, well-informed and rich public authorities are substituting for tramways a much cheaper and more convenient form of traction.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I thought the noble Earl would answer in that way, and that was why I challenged him, because it is obvious that he cannot have studied traffic in London as compared with traffic in those provincial towns.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There is a line of trams, except for about two gaps,

983
from Liverpool to Hull. We know all about tramways in the North of England.
VISCOUNT PEEL: You may know ail about tramways in the North of England, but you do not know all about trams in London, because I can show that the enormous inflow and outflow of people into and out of London is beyond all comparison with what is done in these provincial towns. Let me give one or two figures. You have got, to meet tremendous pressure during what are known as the peak hours—two and a-half hours in the morning and evening. From the Embankment alone 35,000 people are taken every hour in the morning and evening, and are distributed to the places where they live. I want to point out clearly what would happen if you scrapped the tramways and substituted omnibuses. The omnibus—the large omnibus—I am not talking of the little omnibus or the two-seater—takes 48 people, whereas the tram takes 120. It is very obvious, from a simple calculation, that if you are going to carry the same number of people by omnibus that is now carried by tram and omnibus together, you will have to treble or quadruple the number of omnibuses on the streets. Lord Banbury told us he was in great distress of mind when trying to cross some of our thoroughfares at the present time, when omnibuses are limited. If they were not limited, and he had to deal with three or four times the number of omnibuses, my noble friend's distinguished career in this House would, I very much regret to say, be rapidly cut short.
Unless you are going to have continuous great blocks of omnibuses, running after one another, it is not possible to carry the traffic in London by means of omnibuses alone. You must have the assistance of the tramways as well. Lord Crawford said, quite rightly, that it is not a question of omnibuses or how many you carry, but of the pace at which you carry. It is also a question of loss of time. It is already calculated that as a result of some of these restrictions the pace of traffic in parts of London is beginning to increase at the rate of a mile an hour. But I have only touched upon the question in making a comparison between trams and omnibuses, although I think I have shown that it would be impossible to carry the same
984
number of people in omnibuses if you had no tramways.
Then there is the great question touched upon by Lord Montagu as to the need of getting people out into the country. That is a most important question, upon which I should like to cite the evidence of the local authorities who have gone into the matter carefully and advised the Ministry of Transport. With one exception they say: "We do not want more omnibuses or more tramways, but what we do want is more electric railways, more 'tubes,' and more surface railways, and in that way only can you get these large numbers of people out into the country. "What is the present position with this unrestricted omnibus competition? All these railway undertakings are urged to extend themselves into the country, and they all say that it is impossible to do that at the present moment because, with this omnibus competition, it would be perfectly useless, for they could not go to the public for, and could not get, the money.
Therefore, although it may be that from some points of view it is very wrong to restrict any form of competition—although I am not an admirer of unlimited competition—from the practical point of view you have to consider that by unlimited competition you run the risk of drying up sources of competition for carrying people into the country, and that you may be left with an enormous block of omnibuses filling up all the streets and not being able to carry any one anywhere. At the same time people will have a great deal for their money, for they will have an opportunity of sitting for several hours on the top of an omnibus. I suggest that the policy of the Ministry of Transport is governed by far wider considerations than the question of whether you are going to make the tramways pay or not pay. Their view is that the best thing for the travelling public is that you should have all these forms of locomotion—obsolete or obsolescent call them if you like, or progressive if you like, but still that you should have them all—and every one should be given the choice of travelling by omnibus, by tram, or by "tube."
It is by regulating this too acute competition between different forms of locomotion that the Ministry of Transport

985
think they will attain their ideal and end, which is the provision of tine utmost amount of cheap transport for the needs and requirements of the people of London. It is for that that they think the restriction of competition is necessary. And I should like to add that where these restrictions take place in no case are the omnibuses put off the roads, but there is always left a certain amount of competition between the tramways, where they run, and the omnibuses. In fact, it is a cardinal point of their policy, when put into practice, to admit this limited competition on the tramway routes between the omnibuses and the tramways. I have tried to discourage any idea that in controlling the number of omnibuses on the streets the Ministry of Transport are acting in the interests either of a municipality or a private company. They are doing it really because they think that in that way they can secure for the enormous travelling public of Landon the best facilities for going to and from their daily work, for getting into the country, and for such entertainment as may be obtained by travelling through London on the top of an omnibus or in a tram.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I confess I have heard the speech of the noble Viscount with grave dissatisfaction. It now appears that the object of these Regulations—or the primary object—is to bolster up the interests of the tramway companies. I cannot understand why there should not be a free fight and no favour as between the omnibuses and the tramways. If the tramways are useful—and certainly I can say for myself that at present in London they are useful—then they will last, and they will remain on the road. If they are not useful, why should the Minister support them? And if they are useful why do they need his support? That leads me to ask the noble Viscount this: Why did he make no response to the case made by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu about the Rules Publication Act? I confess as a lawyer that it seems to me grievous that in this case urgency should have been pleaded with regard to the Rules Publication Act. It seems obvious that there was no urgency, but it was simply a deliberate policy adopted, which might have been adopted this week or next, and it is not treating the Houses of Parliament fairly to plead urgency and issue these Rules
986
before they have been laid before Parliament in the ordinary way.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: My Lords, I do not think your Lordships have received very much satisfaction in this debate. It seems to me not quite fair to blame the Act which has been passed, because the Act was the first attempt that has been made in this country to deal with the traffic, and very few people in this country know anything about the control of traffic. The debate has revolved to a considerable extent upon the question of the merits or demerits of trams and omnibuses. Personally I think both the tram and the omnibus are very great obstacles to the efficient control of traffic, and of the two the trams are the worse. But, of course, arrangements must be made to carry the population who travel in and out of London every day, and it is quite impossible therefore to scrap the trams or the omnibuses. But those who have the control of the traffic to-day in London would like, I am quite sure, to scrap the tramways if they could, because they must know what an obstacle they are to the control of traffic.
As I have said before, I think that the Government should now, before waiting till the traffic problem becomes much worse than it is to-day, set up an Inquiry—whether by a Royal Commission or a Committee of both Houses is a detail—which should investigate the question of how the traffic is going to be controlled in the next decade. It is increasing at an enormous rate, and here we are to-day discussing whether the trams or the omnibuses should be given precedence. In a few years that will be a detail, and you will not be able to carry the traffic in London by omnibuses and trams. The roads are not big enough. That is a question which can only be decided after the whole matter of the vested interests and statutory rights of the tramways and the rights of the people who overt omnibuses have been considered by an impartial body which has nothing to do with any of these combines or private concerns. The recommendations of such a body might involve doubling the "tubes," and would certainly mean a vast expenditure, and no private company would be able to face such a venture. They would probably have to go to the Government for assistance.

987
The point I wish to make is that the matter should be considered now before it is too late. It is no use waiting five or six years to decide it. The traffic will be so frightful then that it will be impossible to carry on at all. Look at what it is to-day. It is almost impossible at times to move in the streets of London, and the reason is the congestion caused by the number of omnibuses—enormous things, which are becoming bigger every day as well as more numerous. There ought not to be any omnibuses in certain parts of London. But at any rate you must provide omnibuses to carry people, for if you do not give them some method of getting in and out of London they would have good reason to protest. I urge that the Committee of which I have spoken should be set up. You cannot work out this problem in a day. It would probably take a year or so, and the Committee would then produce a Report which the Government of the country could consider.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Viscount for his answer, though I am bound to tell him quite frankly that I1 thought it was very unsatisfactory with regard to certain points. The noble and learned Lord opposite did not refer to any single sentence I used or point I made as to what seemed to be a breach of the law, or at any rate of the spirit of the law, in not treating the House fairly about putting the notice on the Table. But I will not elaborate the point.
The statement has been made that the omnibuses pay nothing, or very little compared with the trams. At the present moment every omnibus in London pays £84 a year and under Mr. Churchill's new proposals will pay £108 a year, which will produce something like £500,000 a year. So that it will be seen that they pay a good deal. The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, does not appear to agree, but there are roughly 5,000 omnibuses on the streets to-day and as each of them will have to pay over £100 each, the yield will be roughly about £500,000 a year towards the streets of London. The tramways only pay 15 s. a year on each tramcar, so that they cannot complain that they are unfairly treated. It is rather late to argue details with the noble Viscount, but I know that 15 s.
988
a year is for the licence. Then the noble Viscount used a most extraordinary argument. He said that one of the reasons against scrapping the tramways was that seven and a half men were employed in connection with a tramcar as against five and a half men employed in connection with a motor omnibus. On that principle the spinning jenny would never have been introduced into Lancashire and we should still be without the tractor and other machinery on our farms. May I point out also that if one form of transport employs more hands than another form of transport it must necessarily be more expensive? There is confusion of thought there, and the possibility of economic disaster. I need not point out that it is not an argument which I regard as tenable.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say that. It is not my argument.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I thought the noble Viscount said that the scrapping of the tramways would put out of employment some 20,000 men because the tramways employed seven and a-half men per tramcar as against five and a-half men employed on each omnibus.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I cannot have made my argument clear upon this point, or else the noble Lord would not have mistaken me. I never said that was a reason for stopping some new form of industry. I merely said that I wished to lay the relevant facts before your Lordships and that before coming to a decision every one of them had to be put before you. I never said what the noble Lord has credited me with saying.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am quite willing to agree that the noble Viscount did not say that the argument was his argument, and may I put it that whoever uses that argument must be ignorant of the economic facts of the case? I move for Papers and I should like to know whether the statistics of traffic which were taken before the Order was drafted and the Regulation was made can be laid on the table of your Lordships' House. I am told they contain very interesting details as to traffic and transport on this road, showing how many omnibuses and tramcars run empty, how many run full, and so on. We never see those statistics, and it would add greatly to our knowledge and might possibly convert some of us if the

989
statistics and papers on which the Regulation was made could be placed before your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I feel sure that the noble Lord will agree that I cannot give him an absolutely certain answer until I know what those figures are. But I have no doubt my right hon, friend the Minister of Transport will see what can be done in the matter.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SMALL HOLDINGS.
THE MAKQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government to inform the House what progress has been made with regard to the Small Holdings Bill, and whether it will be introduced in the House of Lords at an early date.
THE PARLIMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE):My Lords, in reply to the Question asked
990
by the noble Marquess, the Small Holdings Bill will be introduced in the House of Commons and not in this House as it involves questions of finance, both national and local. I may say that His Majesty's Government most fully sympathise with the noble Marquess in his obvious desire that this Bill shall be introduced as soon as possible. It is already in course of preparation at the Ministry of Agriculture and, subject to unforeseen developments, the Minister of Agriculture hopes to introduce it in another place shortly after Whitsuntide. I think that is all I can say at the moment in reply to the Question.

ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.

GORDON PEERAGE.
Petition of Sir Bruce Gordon Seton, Baronet, C.B., praying that an early date may be appointed for the hearing by the Committee for Privileges of his claim to the title, honour and dignity of Lord Gordon in the Peerage of Scotland; read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

London, Midland and Scottish Railway.

Mid-Nottinghamshire Joint Railways.

Doncaster Corporation.

Hackney Borough Council.

Bolton Corporation.

Metropolitan Railway.

Hartlepool Corporation (Trolley Vehicles).

And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for additional provision in the following Bill:
Eastbourne Corporation [H.L.]
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

CHORLEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; The Orders made on the 23rd of February and the 24th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 2nd and 24th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
KNOTTINGLEY GAS ORDER, 1926.
DARLINGTON GAS ORDER, 1926.
WELSHPOOL AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
GWYRFAI AND OGWEN RURAL DISTRICTS ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
LITTLEHAMPTON ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
SANDBACH ALSAGER AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
WALTON-LE-DALE ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
WELLINGTON (SOMERSET) ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
FLINT AND HOLYWELL ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
RICHMOND (YORKSHIRE) ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
TOBERMORY ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
WALLINGFORD AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Report from the Special Orders Committee that no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.