Sitting of 24 June 1931

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Sheffield Gas Bill.
As amended, considered.
Ordered, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Coventry Extension Bill [Lords] (by Order).
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wareham Extension) Bill [Lords].
To be printed. [Bill 177.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action it is proposed to take with reference to the decision made by the Wafd in Egypt on 1st March for a boycott of British goods?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): Rumours of such a boycott were current in the local press in Egypt some months ago, but my right bon. Friend has no information to show that any decision of the nature indicated was taken.
  Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that they are not in a position to carry out this boycott whether they want to do so or not?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that there is no foundation at all for this statement that a boycott has been declared?

  REPARATIONS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL DEBTS.

    MR. SNOWDEN'S STATEMENT.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the telegraphic communication addressed to the President of the United States by the German Government on the subject of international indebtedness; and can he state what the terms of the message are?
    Mr. DALTON: The text of this message, which was confidential, has not, so far as my right hon. Friend is aware, been published.
    Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make any further statement in regard to the policy of the Government for giving practical effect to President Hoovers proposal relating to reparations and inter-governmental debts?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House on the 22nd instant.
    "His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom subscribe wholeheartedly to the principle of President Hoover's proposal and are prepared to co-operate in the elaboration of details with a view to giving it practical effect without delay."
    and with the permission of the House I should like to take this opportunity to explain the steps which we have decided to take for this purpose.
    The more consideration we give to the President's declaration, the more it seems to us that, having regard particularly to the history of the matter, that declaration constitutes a very great gesture on the part of the United States of America, and it will be a thousand pities if Europe does not respond to it in the same spirit. The beneficial effect of the proposal may be lost unless steps are taken by all the countries concerned to give it prompt and practical effect.
    This is particularly the case as regards Germany, which, after all, is the essential difficulty. We agree with the view expressed by the United States Government that there is no time for a conference. A more prompt method must

    415
    be found for putting into operation the proposal of the United States Government for a complete and immediate suspension of German payments to the creditor Governments.
    The procedure which we would favour is that the creditor Governments should forthwith notify the Bank for Inter-national Settlements that they agree to the proposal for the suspension for one year of all the German payments due to them. The decision, of course, does not rest with us alone, and we are awaiting the views of the other creditor Governments; but we hope that it may be possible to secure agreement on these lines as soon as possible.
    President Hoover's proposal applies, however, to "all inter-governmental debts, reparations and relief debts." His Majesty's Government for their part accept this proposal in the spirit as well as the letter. They will accordingly be ready to suspend for one year all such inter-governmental debts due to them as soon as President Hoover's proposal has been generally accepted, and, in the meantime, as from the 1st proximo they will refrain from claiming instalments that may fall due. As regards the Relief Debts, His Majesty's Government are at once taking steps to inform the other European Governments which hold Relief Bonds of their action and to invite them to co-operate.
    Finally, although His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom do not regard President Hoover's proposal as directly affecting the War obligations of the Dominions and of India to the United Kingdom, which are a matter for discussion and settlement between those of His Majesty's Governments concerned, we felt that we should be interpreting the wishes of the country in deciding freely to offer to the Dominions and India the same concession as is proposed for foreign countries under the same conditions.
    Accordingly, when inviting the assent of the Dominion Governments and the Government of India to the suspension of the German payments so far as regards the share to which they are entitled, we intimated that on the same principle we would readily give them the option of postponing the whole amount of
    416
    their War Debt payments to the United Kingdom for the period of 12 months from the 1st July, 1931, if they so desire.
    These proposals will involve a loss to the current Budget which may reach approximately £11,000,000. This is a serious sacrifice for the taxpayers of this country upon whom such heavy calls have already been made, but we hope that the step which we are taking in co-operation with the United States win be more than justified by the help it will give in reviving confidence and prosperity.
    Mr. BALDWIN: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, not having bad an opportunity of reading it beforehand, I will content myself with saying, for my own opinion and I believe the opinion of those behind me, that His Majesty's Government have taken a course fully consistent with the dignity and reputation of our country.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would like to add that I am very glad that the Government have given such a clear, courageous and unequivocal answer to the very noble gesture of the United States of America.
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to make to the House the statement, which will naturally follow the one which he has just made, in regard to our domestic finance of the present year.?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot give an answer to that question just at the moment. I am afraid we shall have to wait at least for a few days, but I have no objection at once, if a question be put down, to giving a statement as to how it will affect the budgetary position of this country.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent developments, he will reconsider his decision not to initiate an international conference to discuss the whole question of international indebtedness?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I cannot for the present say more than that we are anxious to co-operate in bringing President Hoover's proposal into practical effect.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In view of recent developments, does not the right

    417
    hon. Gentleman think that this is a suitable time for reopening this question?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I think it is a most unsuitable time. First of all, we must settle the matter of these proposals, and, if circumstances should eventually develop as to make an international conference desirable, no doubt action would be taken.

    MACEDONIA (PETITIONS).
    Mr. BEN RILEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information with regard to two petitions sent to the secretary to the League of Nations in April of this year by two natives of Macedonia named Andoff and Minoff, respectively, who were on a visit last year to their native town of Prilep, in Macedonia, and from which, as they allege, they were expelled contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of St. Germain; if so, whether he can state if these two petitions have been declared receivable; and, if not, the reason given for such decision?
    Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend has received no information as to the submission of these two petitions to the Secretariat of the League of Nations, but he is making inquiries.
    Mr. RILEYIs a reply expected soon?
    MR. DALTON: We may not get a reply very soon, because there is a certain regular procedure which has to be gone through, but as soon as we get a reply I will let my hon. Friend know.

  CHINA.

    EASTERN RAILWAY.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House as to the present state of the negotiations opened by the Chinese Government for selling the Chinese Eastern Railway to another Power?
    Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend understands that negotiations for the purchase by the Chinese Government of
    418
    the Soviet Government's share in this railway have been opened, but he has no official information on the subject.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Can the hon. Gentleman find out whether there have been any proposals for Customs reductions on the Manchurian frontier where this railway touches?
    Mr. DALTON: This is, of course, primarily a matter between the Chinese Government and the Soviet Government. We have no locus standi in the matter, but we can inquire whether any such proposals have been made. These negotiations are not being conducted openly, but we may be able to get some information about this point.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman find out whether these Customs reductions will operate against British goods in view of the fact that the goods will come from the Russian side?
    Mr. DALTON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question on the subject.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Do not these negotiations show rather a bad record?
    Mr. DALTON: No, Sir.

    CUSTOMS (SEIZURE).
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Canton Government have now seized the Customs at Kowloon, Lapfa, Kongmoon, Samshui, Kiungshow, Pakhoi, and Hoihow; and whether he is taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend has seen statements in the Press to this effect, but he has received no official reports on the subject. In any case, no action by His Majesty's Government seems to be called for.
    Sir K. WOOD: May I ask whether the Foreign Secretary proposes to make any inquiries in this matter?
    Mr. DALTON: I do not think that is necessary. Sir Miles Lampson has kept us fully informed of what has been happening in Canton, and, if there be any truth in these Press allegations, no doubt he will let us know.

    NAVAL ARMAMENTS.
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether His Majesty's Government have considered, or are considering, the advisability of increasing the cruiser and destroyer building programmes of this country, in view of the increased naval building programmes of France and Italy and the continued failure of those countries to reach agreement, and having regard to the special provisions of Article 21 of the London Naval Treaty?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The building programme has been continually under consideration throughout the Franco-Italian negotiations. As it is hoped that an opportunity may soon arise to continue these negotiations, His Majesty's Government do not consider that the situation at present warrants any increase in the building programmes already approved by Parliament.
    Commander SOUTHBY: What exactly does the right hon. Gentleman mean by soon? How soon?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the position with regard to naval shipbuilding in France following on the action taken on the naval programme?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I have no information other than that which has appeared in the Press, from which it would seem that the French naval programme for 1931–32 is still under consideration.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the Press report show that the French anticipated programme is not to be proceeded with? Has there not been some considerable reduction?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I think the Press reports show the programme as having been referred back, and, therefore, for the time being part of the credits which have been made have been withdrawn.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not that mean that, whereas the French Government were going to construct a 23,000-ton ship, this will not be proceeded with for the present?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I should like to await confirmation of that after the
    420
    further consideration by the French Government.
    Commander SOUTHBY: Is it not a fact that a considerable increase is foreshadowed?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SUBMARINE "POSEIDON."
    Sir CYRIL COBBasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any expectation of His Majesty's Submarine "Poseidon" being salved and eventually rejoining the Fleet; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to replace this submarine by a new vessel in accordance with Annex I, Section III of the London Naval Treaty?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: All salvage operations have been definitely abandoned, as the submarine was reported to be rapidly sinking into soft mud at a depth of 120 feet and the exposed position seriously hampered the work of divers. The question of the replacement of the tonnage represented by the loss of "Poseidon" will be considered at the proper time.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would it not be better to await the result of the conference in the hope that submarines will be abolished by international agreement?
    Mr. DAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any further statement in regard to the circumstances in connection with the loss of the submarine His Majesty's Submarine "Poseidon"?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: No further details are available, and it will probably not be possible to make any statement until the full report of the circumstances is received from the Commander-in-Chief, China Station.

    TUBERCULOSIS.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the incidence of tuberculosis amongst naval ratings serving with His Majesty's vessels at sea; and whether he has any information as to the circumstances in which 13 new infections were notified in His Majesty's Ship "Warspite" since the vessel was recommissioned?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The answer to the first part of the question is approximately three per 1,000. In spite of careful investigation, no definite reason has been ascertained to account for the relatively high incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis in "Warspite" during 1929. It can only be assumed that it was due to fortuitious circumstances which is borne out by the fact that in 1930 only one case occurred in this ship.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that investigations are proceeded with in order to arrive at some solution of this matter?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I think the medical authorities of the Navy have already made all possible investigations. As I have pointed out, these cases seem to have been more or less unavoidable in that particular year. The following year there was only one case in the whole ship.

    SICK-BERTH STAFFS (LEAVE).
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any additional leave has been granted to the sick-berth staffs of Haslar, Stonehouse, and Chatham Royal Naval Hospitals, to compensate them for the extra duty entailed by long leave last Christmas; and, if so, what additional leave has been granted?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I am having inquiries made, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "RENOWN."
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that His Majesty's Ship "Renown" is not to be refitted until after her second leave, he will consider the possibility, in order to give the crew longer time with their wives and families in Devonport, of arranging for her to go to Devonport first and give leave from there and then proceed to Portsmouth for refit?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I regret that it is not possible for His Majesty's Ship "Renown" to visit Devonport to give leave before proceeding to Portsmouth for refit, as the vessel is to be taken in hand on arrival at Portsmouth on 17th July. The extent of the rent precludes any delay in the commencement of work.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great privation
    422
    is put upon families now, especially with the marriage allowance reduced, in having to pay these railway fares from Portsmouth to Devonport?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: That is a very old question which has often been answered before, and I am unable to revise the previous decisions. The hon. Member also seems to think that it applies only to people who happen to live in the port where a ship is commissioned. There are always people on board ship who have to go all over the country to see their relatives. There is no greater hardship in the case of the hon. Member's constituents than there is in the case of ratings who live in other places.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Then why cannot the Admiralty pay railway fares wherever they live?

    DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (REDUCTIONS AND DISCHARGES).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the reduction by 23, during the months of April and May, in the number of established men employed in Devonport Dockyard was due to their retirement on pension; and whether the numbers are to be made up?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Reductions in the numbers of established workpeople were caused by death, superannuation and invaliding; except in those grades, to which appointment carries establishment, transfers of hired employés to the established list are made in the proportion of one appointment to six posts vacated.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the reasons for the discharge of 487 hired men from Devonport Dockyard during the months of April and May; and whether any further reductions are contemplated?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: During April and May, apart from temporary or casual employment, 65 workpeople were entered at Devonport Dockyard and 15 were discharged on reduction, and there was a natural wastage of 43.

    MAURITIUS.
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies

    423
    whether he will make available for Members the recommendations of the Mauritius Committee on Poor Law administration?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr Drummond Shiels): The report of the Commission has not yet reached the Secretary of State, but it is expected in a few weeks, and my Noble Friend will then consider the suggestion in my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make available for Members the Report on Mauritius by Kunwar Maharaj Singh?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): A copy of the report was placed in the Library of the House in February, 1927.

    CYPRUS.
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report of the Cyprian Committee will be completed?
    Dr. SHIELS: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the committee which has been appointed to consider economies in the Cyprus Estimates. My Noble Friend is not in a position to say when the report of that committee will be received.
    Mr. McSHANE: Can my hon. Friend state whether the report will be made available for Members of the House?
    Dr. SHIELS: I shall be glad to consider that question.

    KENYA (MOTOR LORRIES).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the reasons for the proposed increase of licence fees on motor lorries in Kenya, and the difference in amount between the old and the newly proposed fees?
    Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend is asking the Governor of Kenya to report upon the matter. I will communicate with the hon. Member when the report has been received.

    DOMINICA (DISTURBANCES).
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to state the result of the inquiry by the Commission appointed to inquire into recent disturbances in the Carib reserve in Dominica?
    Dr. SHIELS: The Commission commenced its sittings on or about the 11th May. No report of its proceedings has yet been received in the Colonial Office.

    CEYLON LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what reason has been given by the leaders of the Indians in Jaffna and the northern provinces of Ceylon for their boycott of elections under the new constitution; and what steps will now be taken under the new constitution to secure some representation of the Indian community in Ceylon on the legislative council?
    Dr. SHIELS: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman refers to the fact that no nomination papers were handed in for the four constituencies in the Jaffna peninsula, where the population consists predominantly of Ceylon Tamils, who are not regarded as Indians. I understand that the reason given by the persons responsible for this step was that the new constitution marks no advance towards self-government. With regard to the last part of the question, I would point out that under the new constitution, which follows in this respect the recommendations of the Donoughmore Commission, all communal representation has been abolished. No steps are contemplated for giving special representation to the Indian or any other community.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not a fact that the principal reason why the Tamils in the Northern part of Ceylon have boycotted the election is because they have been deprived of communal representation and put on the common roll with other races?
    Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. I do not think that that is an accurate statement. As a matter of fact, there are other Tamil candidates standing at the present time, and there are over 46 constituencies which are open to representatives of all races.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: is it not a fact that the Tamil population in the north are Hindus, and does not the same condition affect Tamils in the Western Province?
    Dr. SHIELS: There is a distinction between the Indians and Ceylon Tamils, and the boycott has been confined to the four constituencies in the Jaffna district.

    HONG KONG (CIVIL SERVANTS' PAY).
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the petitions addressed to his Department from the civil servants in Hong Kong with reference to their payment on a dollar basis have been considered; and, if so, what action is being taken?
    Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has requested the Governor to inform the petitioners that he is unable in the meantime to revert to the former method of payment, but that he will review the position in the light of the Currency Commissioners' recent report, when the representations made by the petitioners will be carefully borne in mind, although no promise can be made that the decision will be varied.
    Mr. EVERARD: As I understand that the petitions have been received, cannot they be laid on the Table of the House?
    Dr. SHIELS: I will convey that request to my Noble Friend.

    IMPERIAL AIR ROUTES (INDIA).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what preparations are being made for the survey of air-travel routes throughout the British Empire; and whether he will initiate a series of such surveys with a view to the consolidation of the means of air transport within the Empire?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that the subject of Imperial air routes is kept in view as a comprehensive whole. Surveys of this nature necessarily entail cooperation between the parts of the Empire
    426
    involved and, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, are made when there is evidence that a new route has become practicable and desirable. The cost of carrying out a series of surveys in advance of a probable demand would not be justified.
    Captain MACDONALD: Would it not be better to increase our endeavours, seeing that other countries are constantly carrying out surveys with a view-to establishing routes over our territories?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: All the same, I think that the hon. and gallant Member knows that this year we shall be in advance of other countries as far as Imperial air routes are concerned.
    Captain MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the Indian Government have placed obstacles in the way of aircraft flying over Indian territory unless they are Indian machines with Indian pilots; and what steps he is taking to secure the uninterrupted development of air-routes throughout the British Empire?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I am unaware that the Indian Government have placed obstacles in the way of flight over Indian territory. In regard to air transport services, however, I understand it would be contrary to their policy to subsidise any company other than an Indian Company with rupee capital and Indian personnel. As regards the second part of the question my Noble Friend is fully alive to the importance of continuous development of air routes throughout the Empire and the policy of his Department is directed towards this end.
    Captain MACDONALD: Has the attention of the hen. Member been called to a recent statement made by Mr. Scott that the Indian Government placed every obstacle in the way of establishing air routes between Australia and this country, and does he think that that statement is true?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I think that the question is one for the India Office rather than for me.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has my hon. Friend seen the report in the "Times" to-day, that all expenditure on civil aviation in India is to be suspended, and is that true?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I have not seen the report in the "Times," but I will look it up and see if there is anything I need say to my hon. and gallant Friend.

  TRANSPORT.

    ST. HELENS CANAL.
    Mr. ATKINSONasked the Minister of Transport whether in view of his warrant authorising the abandonment by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company of a total length of five miles or thereabouts of the St. Helens Canal and of his Order, dated 21st May, 1931, ordering that the company shall be released from all liability to maintain the said portion of St. Helens Canal and from other statutory obligations he has made or proposes to make any Order preserving the responsibility of the company or imposing on any other person or authority responsibility for damage by escape of water through, under, or over the canal banks, or for accidents owing to the unprotected state of the canal, or the ruinous state of locks, or for other injuries arising in consequence of such abandonment?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have no power to make any Order with regard to the matters to which the hon. Member refers in the last part of his question.
    Mr. ATKINSON: Did the right hon. Gentleman consider, when he made his Order of the 21st May, 1931, the danger it would cause by leaving five miles of canal without anybody being responsible for keeping it in order. Is he not aware that there has been a considerable amount of apprehension about it in the neighbourhood?
    Mr. MORRISON: I understand that to be so, but I have no power in the matter. I am informed that disputes in regard to the matter referred to would fall to be determined, if necessary, by the courts.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to understand that a stretch of a canal of this character is to be left as part of "no man's land," and that any damage which may arise will not fall upon the present owners?
    Mr. MORRISON: I cannot say that it is to be presumed that any particular decision would be come to by the courts.
    Mr. ATKINSON: Is not this necessarily the result of the Order made by the Minister?
    Mr. MORRISON: I do not think that that should be assumed, or that it necessarily follows.

    ROAD GRANTS.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Transport why, although the council of an urban district with a population of under 20,000 has volunteered to make a contribution towards the cost of the improvement of a county road in its area, he has refused to make a grant in respect of this contribution; and whether he will reconsider his decision?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: My reason for declining to consider as grant-earning expenditure contributions from urban district councils of a population under 20,000 towards the cost of the improvement of county roads in their areas involves a long explanation which is fully set out in a letter which I caused to be addressed to the County Council's Association on the 11th of this month. I am sending a copy of this letter to the hon. and gallant Member.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but does he realise that in regard to a seaside town, where perhaps the census is taken in the winter, the population is very often below 20,000, whereas in the summer they have to cater for a much larger number? Will he take that fact into consideration?
    Mr. MORRISON: That is so. I have to determine the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929, which mentions the figure of 20,000 population arrived at, I believe, by the census.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: is it not in order for these authorities to make grants to the County Council?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am advised that it is not competent for me to accept the offer of the urban district council and to make a grant in that respect. The matter is one of some complication, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will receive from me a copy of a three-page letter on the subject which sets out the pros and cons.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is this the first evidence of the Department of the right hon. Gentleman that no further expenditure is to be incurred in this road development?
    Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir, I do not think it relates to that. It relates to the provision of the Local Government Act, 1929.

    BROKEN ROAD STONE.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Transport the total quantity of broken road stone used annually by local authorities?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have no information respecting the total quantity of broken road stone used annually by Local Authorities. It may be stated, however, that the total tonnage of road stone conveyed over the railways in Great Britain during the year 1930 was little short of 9,000,000 tons, to which must be added materials conveyed by other means of transport.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: How does the right hon. Gentleman know that the foreign proportion is very small?
    Mr. MORRISON: I should require notice of that question. I am satisfied that the proportion which the local authorities are using from foreign sources is in fact very small.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman informed the House the other day that it was very small, and now he says that he does not know what is the total amount.
    Mr. MORRISON: The hon. Gentleman must distinguish between my satisfaction that the proportion is small, and my capacity to give a precise figure.
    Sir COOPER RAWSON: Is it not a fact that the figures of foreign imports are easily available to the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir, they are not easily available in precise form.

    GRANITE KERB.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Transport if he is yet in a position to state when the first report will be received from the joint committee of producers and users now considering the supply of, and demand for, granite kerb?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I under stand that a further meeting of the committee is to take place on the 1st July, but I cannot say how soon a report will be presented.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman hurry up this matter, seeing that there is a shortage of labour?
    Mr. MORRISON: We always hurry up things, but I am not in complete control of the deliberations of the committee.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman hurry quickly instead of hurrying slowly?

    HUMBER BRIDGE BILL.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Transport if ha has any estimate of the amount of the cost already incurred for legal and similar charges and expenses in promoting and opposing the Humber Bridge Bill to date; and how and in what proportion these costs are to be met and by whom?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am not in a position to furnish an estimate of the costs for legal and similar charges and expenses incurred to date by the promoters of the Humber Bridge Bill, and I have no knowledge of the similar expenses incurred by the parties opposing the Bill. A grant of 75 percent. has been indicated from the Road Fund in respect of the total approved expenditure on the bridge scheme, including the legal, etc., costs incurred by the promoters. The remaining 25 per cent. will be defrayed partly by the contributions which certain local authorities have undertaken to make, and any balance remaining will be raised by means of tolls.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: If the right hon. Gentleman is defraying 75 percent. of the legal charges, has he no check on the amount of those charges?
    Mr. MORRISON: Once a Bill is before a Committee of Parliament the promoters cannot very well control the expenses to which they are put. The expenses must depend upon the amount of opposition. The Committee could, if they were so minded and if they were unanimously agreed, decide that, if the opponents were frivolous, the whole of the expenses of the promoters should be

    431
    charged against the opponents, but there are few precedents for that course.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would it be possible to obtain these figures for the edification of the public?
    Mr. MORRISON: I doubt it, but I agree that it would be an edification if they were secured.
    Major HARVEY: How did this information get to the hon. and gallant Member, seeing that the Committee only gave their decision on this ease yesterday?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: On Monday.

    ROAD SURFACE MATERIAL (RUBBER).
    Sir GEORGE PENNYasked the Minister of Transport whether the rubber roadways laid down near Blackfriars Bridge and Old Kensington Road have proved satisfactory; if so, whether he will see that further rubber stretches are laid down in various parts of London; and will he state if he has any evidence that rubber horseshoes have proved satisfactory where tried?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): I am watching the experiments to which the hon. Member refers with interest in the hope that before long some definite opinion may be formed as to the durability and general merits of rubber as a surfacing material, relative to its cost. I am prepared to consider applications from competent highway authorities for an extension of these experiments in suitable localities. The information in my possession does not enable me to express an opinion upon the merits of rubber horseshoes.
    Sir G. PENNY: May I ask whether experiments are not being made in the laying of roads in Malaya, and, bearing in mind the great distress prevailing among the planters there, will the Minister keep in close touch with regard to the results of this experiment?
    Mr. PARKINSON: My right bon. Friend is taking a keen interest in these matters, and he is watching all the experiments which are taking place.
    Mr. EVERARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that there
    432
    are many people unemployed in the granite set industry in this country, and will he always give consideration to that industry?

  SCOTLAND.

    EDUCATION.
    Mr. SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the contents and purpose of H 3 Schedule, and when it was instituted by the Scottish Education Department; how many were issued and completed last year; whether the results of the schedules are brought under the notice of members of education committees; and whether he will publish these results?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): Form H 3 states the results in the separate subjects of the leaving certificate examination, and is addressed to the official correspondent of the school. It was first used in 1896, and in 1930 it was issued to 219 schools. In the case of a school conducted by an education authority it is for the authority to decide whether the results should be brought to the notice of members of the education committee. My right hon. Friend does not consider that publication of the results by the Department would serve any useful purpose.
    Mr. SCOTT: Does the hon. Member not understand that if the members of education committees and the public do not know the results under Schedule H 3 they are working very much in the dark?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I have already pointed out that an education authority can itself determine when the members shall have the reports before them.
    Mr. SCOTT: Do these schedules show what number of pupils qualify for the entrance examination?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Schedule H 3 merely gives the details as to the separate subjects passed by the students.

    STREET FOOTBALL (PROSECUTIONS, GLASGOW).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider the sentences passed on Edward Linn, Bernard Coyle, and William McKelvie, all aged about nine years, at

    433
    the Glasgow Southern Court on 18th June of a fine of 7s. 6d. or five days' imprisonment for playing football on the streets; and, seeing that the parents have only either unemployment insurance benefit or Poor Law relief and cannot pay this fine and that they have been warned that they will be arrested on the 25th June failing the payment of the fines, whether he will review the whole circumstances of this case with a view to mitigation of the sentences on these boys and the relief of the parents also from the consequences?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: My right hon. Friend is informed that these children were not charged with playing football on the street-s, but with wilfully and maliciously breaking seven panes of glass in a shop window, and two panes of glass in another window, with atones or other missiles, and that they all pled guilty. He is informed that the parents have not been warned that they will be arrested on the 25th June. In view of the discrepancies between the information supplied to him and the statements in the question he is having further inquiry made.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I am informed that it is the fact that the children were playing football and that the windows were broken, but in view of the fact that the children are only nine years of age, that the parents cannot pay the fines and that it will involve starvation on the families, will the hon. Member ask that the sentence and fine shall be reviewed? If the fine is enforced, it means that the brothers of these children must starve.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I have given an assurance that we are having further immediate inquiries made with a view to satisfying ourselves that it is possible to accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member in his supplementary question.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Were these children using the shop windows as goal posts? Would it not be better to have playing-fields, untaxed?
    Miss LEE: Will the Secretary of State for Scotland use his influence that where there are no playing-fields in the crowded areas to see, while they are in the process of providing the playing-fields, at least——[Interruption.]

    FLOUR (PRICE).
    Sir K. WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Food Council have yet made a report on the new scale of the price of flour?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): No, Sir.
    Sir K. WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he will have the information?
    Mr. SMITH: As I have informed the right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion, the council met on the 19th instant, and I understand that the report is in process of preparation.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPORTED JOINERY.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps or proceedings are being taken with a view to the marking of foreign doors and joinery with an indication of origin under the Merchandise Marks Act?
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on the 16th April. No application for the marking of imported doors and joinery has been received by the Board of Trade.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the hon. Member ask his right hon. Friend to be prepared for an application in the near future, very heavily backed by the trade?
    Mr. SMITH: The Board of Trade is always prepared.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: But will always be prejudiced.

    FOREIGN SHIPBUILDING (CREDIT FACILITIES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state which foreign Governments give credit facilities to their nationals for the building or sale of merchant ships?
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: The following are the principal foreign countries in which there are State credit facilities for shipbuilding: France, Germany, Italy, Norway, and the United States. I am not

    435
    aware of any case in which State credit facilities exist for the sale of secondhand merchant ships abroad.

  EDUCATION.

    SOUND FILMS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Education what steps are being taken to make use of talking films for educational purposes?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): Experiments with sound film apparatus have recently been made in a number of schools in Middlesex, but my right hon. Friend is not aware that any other steps are being taken in the matter.
    Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that the Board of Education is generally sympathetic towards the development of sound films for educational purposes?
    Mr. JONES: Yes, the hon. Member may take it that we are watching this experiment with great interest, but before sanctioning any expenditure the question of suitability must be determined.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: May I ask whether any real advance has been made in the use of cinematograph films for educational purposes?
    Mr. JONES: As far as I know, the Middlesex experiment is the only one that has been made.
    Mrs. MANNING: Are we to be encouraged to understand that the Board of Education will aid the production of suitable films for this purpose, or are they only buying the apparatus?
    Mr. JONES: We must get satisfactory information as to the suitability of the sound apparatus before we discuss the question of the purchase.
    Mrs. MANNING: Is the hon. Member aware that the difficulty is in finding suitable films because the market is so restricted that the producers will not produce films that are suitable?
    Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Can the hon. Gentleman promise that all
    436
    the equipment required will be manufactured in Britain?
    Miss WILKINSON: May I ask whether any instruction has been sent or whether the Department is bringing to the notice of directors of education the desirability when new schools are being built of making provision for projectors and screens, so that this type of education may be developed?
    Mr. JONES: The question of suitability must first be determined before we embark on an expenditure of that kind.

    TEACHERS (LEAVE OF ABSENCE).
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITE (for Sir GERALD HURST)asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will issue regulations to the effect that no masters or teachers of schools under his Department's control shall obtain leave of absence in term time in order to engage in political propaganda or take part in political meetings; and whether he is aware that such a case occurred in the recent Ardwick by-election when the headmaster of St. Patrick's school, Carlisle, left his own school during a working week for the purpose of canvassing, among other school teachers and of speaking at party meetings in Ardwick, Manchester?
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: It is for local education authorities or governing bodies, whose servants school teachers are, to deal with applications from teachers for leave of absence during term time, and my right hon. Friend does not propose to interfere with their discretion in this respect. He has no information of the case to which the hon. Member refers, beyond the statement in the Press.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease being traceable to Irish cattle imported into Great Britain, he will institute inquiries as to the present system of inspection of Irish cattle before shipment and consider as to the appointment of British veterinary officers at the Irish ports to inspect all shipments of cattle from Ireland to British ports?
    Mr. CHARLETON (Lord of the Treasury): All animals brought to Great Britain from Northern Ireland or the Irish Free State are required to be shipped from specified ports only and to be accompanied by a certificate of a veterinary officer appointed by the respective Government to the effect that the animals were inspected by him immediately prior to shipment and found free from disease. My right hon. Friend is satisfied from the inquiries which he has made that the animals which were responsible for the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease into this country on the 11th June showed no clinical evidence of foot-and-mouth disease when examined either at the ports of shipment in Ireland or at the landing places in this country.
    Mr. MILLAR: Will the hon. Member convey to the Minister the fact that there is a strong feeling that the general system of inspection should be reconsidered with a view to further precautions being taken?
    Mr. CHARLETON: Certainly.
    Mr. SKELTON: Does not this show the necessity of having a proper period of quarantine so that our herds shall not be infected from the lower-class herds in Ireland?
    Mr. CHARLETON: That is beyond me.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Minister of Agriculture the latest developments in connection with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland; the number of districts affected; the number of cases in which the existence of the disease has been confirmed; and the number of animals destroyed?
    Mr. CHARLETON: Since ray right hon. Friend's statement in this House on Monday, two further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have been confirmed in Scotland, one at Scone and the other at Kinrossie, both in the county of Perth and Kinross. Fifty-five cattle, 127 sheep and six pigs have been destroyed in connection with these cases. No extension of the existing infected areas in Scotland was necessitated by these further outbreaks.
    Mr. MILLAR: Do I understand that these are later figures; or is the hon. Member simply repeating what was stated on Monday?
    Mr. CHARLETON: My reply says "Since my right hon. Friend's statement."

    HOUSE OF LORDS.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to introduce legislation for the abolition of the House of Lords?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The Government certainly hope to bring the question of the House of Lords to an issue and when the time comes will ask for power to do so.
    Mr. McGOVERN: In view of the recent performances of that House——[Interruption].
    Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the question on the Paper.
    Mr. McGOVERN: And in view of the fact that, owing to recent decisions, four-fifths of this party are committed to this issue, will the right hon. Gentleman confer with the other fifth of the party to see whether they are in favour?
    Mr. McSHANE: May I ask whether formal notice is to be sent to the House of Lords of the decision of the Government?

    PEISONERS (CLOSE CONFINEMENT).
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total number of persons who were placed in close confinement during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1930; the number of such persons confined for three days and under, four to 13 days, 14 to 20 days, 21 to 27 days, and 28 days or over, if any; the main causes for such treatment; whether he is satisfied with the necessity for dealing with them in this way; and whether he has any evidence that this form of treatment has the effect of curing the delinquents of their undesirable tendencies?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available, but in each annual report of the Prison Commissioners there is a return of the number of punishments imposed at each

    439
    prison and of the number and kind of offences; and this return shows the number of cases of close confinement. The number of prisoners who have to be punished for prison offences is comparatively small—about 4 per cent. of the total; but some methods of enforcing prison discipline are necessary and it is not practicable to dispense with the method of close confinement. For example, if a man refuses to work or disturbs a workshop by disorderly behaviour, he cannot be left in an associated working party and must be confined in his cell for a time.
    Mr. FREEMAN: Is it not a fact that prisoners in convict prisons have to pass the first month of their confinement, and every additional punishment for breaches of prison discipline, in solitary confinement and are not allowed to speak to any other prisoner?
    Mr. SHORT: I think the hon. Member is misinformed.
    Mr. FREEMAN: Will my hon. Friend make inquiries to ascertain whether it is not the fact. Is this not the only country which adopts this system of solitary confinement?

    CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).
    Captain W. G. HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is yet in a position to state when the Civil Service Commission's Report on the conditions and pensions of workers in His Majesty's Dockyards will be available?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I cannot yet add anything to the statement which I made on the 2nd June in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen).

    TRADE BOARD ACTS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour what additional inspectors have been appointed since the present Government took office in connection with the administration of the Trade Boards Acts?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): Nine additional inspectors are so employed at the present time.
    Mr. R. S. YOUNG: Is the hen. Member aware that there are a large number of breaches of the Trade Boards Act, and, as a result, thousands of people are suffering loss of wages to which they are entitled; and will he consider the appointment of many more inspectors to put an end to this scandal?
    Mr. LAWSON: I am not aware that there are a large number of breaches of the Trade Boards Act, and, if the hon. Member has any cases in mind, the Minister of Labour will be pleased to have them investigated. As a matter of fact, the inspections for 1930 were considerably more than those of the previous year.

    UNEMPLOYMENT (BRIGHTON).
    Sir C. RAWSONasked the Minister of Labour what action she proposes to take with regard to the resolution passed at a meeting of ratepayers at Brighton on the 14th of June, and sent to her by them, protesting against men being transferred from other areas to Brighton to carry out work, so that the Brighton unemployed should have the opportunity of doing this work?
    Mr. LAWSON: My right hon. Friend has received the resolution referred to. She does not propose to take any action in the matter.
    Sir C. RAWSON: Will the hon. Member say why not?
    Mr. LAWSON: I have investigated this matter very closely, and I am sure that the meeting was not a representative meeting; and I am also sure that the hon. and gallant Member would agree with me if he knew the whole of the facts.
    Sir C. RAWSON: I do not agree.

    WAGES.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Labour whether she can give the House any information which she has at her disposal in relation to the present rates of money wages as compared with

    441
    the cost of living, giving, approximately, the amount by which the fall in the cost of living exceeds the reduction in the present rate of wages?
    Mr. LAWSON: During the past 12 months, the official index figure relating to changes in the average level of working-class cost of living has fallen by about 6 percent. The average reduction, during the same period, in rates of money wages for a full week is estimated to have been about 1 percent.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that since 1920 working-class wages have been reduced by 30 per cent. on account of the cost of living and that these reductions are still in force? Will the hon. Member put it to the Cabinet that they should turn their attention to those who lent money to carry on the War and who are now drawing their profits? There bas been no reduction in their payments.

    COAL INDUSTRY (STOPPAGE, LANAEKSHIRE).
    Miss LEE(by private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he could give any information regarding the stoppage of seven pits employing 2,000 men in the Shotts area of Lanarkshire?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I regret that in the short time at my disposal since my hon. Friend announced her intention to put this question it has not been possible to ascertain the facts. If my hon. Friend will put a question on the Paper, I will endeavour to answer it.
    Miss LEEIn thanking the Secretary for Mines for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that a public statement has been made by the Coltness Iron and Coal Company that the reason for the stoppage was the working of the quota system? Will the Secretary for Mines issue an official reply to that statement?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Certainly, when we have investgiated the causes of this stoppage and have ascertained whether there is any truth in the allegation made by the company.

    HOLTON COEDITE FACTORY (EXPLOSION).
    Mr. GLASSEY(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to give any
    442
    further information concerning the explosion at Holton Heath Naval Cordite factory?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I much regret to have to inform the House that an explosion occurred in one of the nitroglycerine houses at the Royal Naval Cordite Factory, Holton Heath, at 10.43 a.m. on Tuesday and caused the death of 10 persons; 19 minor injuries were reported, three of which were fractures and were sent to hospital; the remainder were cuts and small fractures, shock and one acid burn. Very considerable damage was caused as the explosion in the nitroglycerine house followed down the gutter ways by which the nitroglycerine is conveyed to other houses in the course of its treatment, and this resulted in the demolition of three other houses and damage to another. Damage was also caused to an acid pipe, which resulted in a large quantity of mixed acid flowing down the hill where the tanks are situated, making it difficult to deal with small fires at various points.
    This nitroglycerine house was reconstructed last year, when opportunity was taken to raise some of the traverses in order to give better protection against a possible accident of this kind. These traverses proved very effective in reducing the general effect of the explosion. The houses are purposely of light structure for greater safety, so that their destruction by such an explosion was to be expected.
    Every possible step was taken at once by the factory fire brigade and staff to deal with the situation and extinguish fires. The probable cause of the explosion has not yet been definitely reported, but is already under investigation locally and will be the subject of an official inquiry as soon as possible. The nitroglycerine mixing houses are necessarily a dangerous point in the factory, but every possible precaution both in the layout and manner of working is taken to minimise risk. I am sure the House would wish to express sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives, and with the injured.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Joseph Henderson, esquire, for the Borough of Manchester (Ardwick Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put:
"That the Proceedings on the Mauritius Loan (Guarantee) Bill be exempted, at this
day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]
The House divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 118.

Division No. 348.]

AYES.

[3.44 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Mathers, George

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Matters, L. W.

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Maxton, James

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. v. (Hillsbro')

Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

Millar, J. D.

Alpass, J. H.

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Mills, J. E.

Amman, Charles George

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

Milner, Major J.

Arnott, John

Harbord, A.

Montague, Frederick

Aske, Sir Robert

Harris, Percy A.

Morley, Ralph

Attlee, Clement Richard

Haycock, A. W.

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Ayles, Walter

Hayday, Arthur

Mort, D. L.

Barnes, Alfred John

Hayes, John Henry

Muff, G.

Barr, James

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Muggeridge, H. T.

Batey, Joseph

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Murnin, Hugh

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Naylor, T. E.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

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

Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

Herriotts, J.

Noel Baker, P. J.

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Benson, G.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Oldfield, J. R.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hoffman, P. C.

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Blindell, James

Hopkin, Daniel

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Bowen, J. W.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Palin, John Henry

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Paling, Wilfrid

Broad, Francis Alfred

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Palmer, E. T.

Brockway, A. Fenner

Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Bromfield, William

Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Brooke, W.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Brothers, M.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Pole, Major D. G.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Potts, John S.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Kelly, W. T.

Price, M. P.

Buchanan, G.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Quibell, D. J. K.

Burgess, F. G.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Cameron, A. G.

Kinley, J.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Cape, Thomas

Kirkwood, D.

Raynes, W. H.

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Knight, Holford

Richards, R.

Chater, Daniel

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Church, Major A. G.

Lang, Gordon

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Clarke, J. S.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Cluse, W. S.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Ritson, J.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lawrence, Susan

Romeril, H. G.

Cove, William G.

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Cowan, D. M.

Lawson, John James

Rowson, Guy

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Daggar, George

Leach, W.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Dalton, Hugh

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lees, J.

Sanders, W. S.

Day, Harry

Leonard, W.

Sandham, E.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Sawyer, G. F.

Duncan, Charles

Lindley, Fred W.

Scott, James

Ede, James Chuter

Logan, David Gilbert

Scurr, John

Edge, Sir William

Longbottom, A. W.

Sexton, Sir James

Edmunds, J. E.

Longden, F.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Freeman, Peter

Lunn, William

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Shield, George William

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

McElwee, A.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

McEntee, V. L.

Shillaker, J. F.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettieston)

Shinwell, E.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

McKinlay, A.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Gibbins, Joseph

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Simmons, C. J.

Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

Gill, T. H.

MacNelli-Weir, L.

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Glassey, A. E.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Sinkinson, George

Gossling, A. G.

McShane, John James

Sitch, Charles H.

Gould, F.

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Manning, E. L.

Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)

Gray, Milner

Mansfield, W.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

March, S

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Marcus, M.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Marley, J.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Groves, Thomas E.

Marshall, Fred

Stamford, Thomas W.

Stephen, Campbell

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Strauss, G. R.

Watkins, F. C.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Sullivan, J.

Watson, W. M. (DunferMilne)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Sutton, J. E

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllife)

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

Wellock, Wilfred

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Tillett, Ben

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

Tinker, John Joseph

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Toole, Joseph

West, F. R.

Wise, E. F.

Tout, W. J.

Westwood, Joseph

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Vaughan, David

White, H. G.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Viant, S. P.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Walker, J.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Wallace, H. W.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Everard, W. Lindsay

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Albery, Irving James

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Allen, Sir J. Sandemsn (Liverp'l., W.)

Ferguson, Sir John

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

Flson, F. G. Clavering

Savery, S. S.

Atkinson, C.

Ford, Sir P. J.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Skelton, A. N.

Bellairs, Commander Cariyon

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Smithers, Waldron

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Somerset, Thomas

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Boyce, Leslie

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Southby, Commander A. R. J

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Briscoe, Richard George

Hartington, Marquess of

Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

Broadbent, Colonel J.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hurd, Percy A.

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

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

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Thompson, Luke

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Chapman, Sir S.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Christle, J. A.

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Lockwood, Captain J. H.

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Colfox, Major William Philip

Macquisten, F. A.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Colville, Major D. J.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Wells, Sydney R.

Cranborne, Viscount

Marjoribanks, Edward

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Muirhead, A. J.

Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George

Cunilffe-Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

Withers, Sir John James

Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Penny, Sir George

Womersley, W. J.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

Perkins, W. R. D.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Dawson, Sir Philip

Ramsbotham, H.

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Major Sir George Hennessy and

Eden, Captain Anthony

Remer, John R.

Sir Frederick Thomson.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
London County Council (Money) Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Hackney Borough Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ROMFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 23 rd June.]
  [10TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  [Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

  POSTPONED CLAUSE 19.— (Exemptions.)
  Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 19, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
  "(a) is owned by any society, body of trustees, or company established for the purpose of, or amongst whose purposes or powers are included those of constructing, or facilitating, or encouraging the construction of dwelling houses for the working classes, being a society, body of trustees, or company which does not trade for profit,"
  During the last 10 years numerous schemes have been debated in this House and various Bills involving great expense to the public have been passed to improve the housing of the nation. This Amendment arises from the efforts of certain people to assist the housing question for the last 60 years. The first big effort in this connection was made by a well known merchant, Mr. Peabody, in London. He founded the Peabody Fund, with which I have been associated for 20 years, and he also founded the banking firms of Morgans which exist to-day in New York and Paris as well as London. This old gentleman, having amassed a considerable fortune, noted the poor conditions in which the people of London lived and made a donation of £500,000, which was a considerable sum in those days, to make provision for housing London's respectable poor. If I may read extracts from the Charter of Incorporation of the Trust, I think the Committee will agree that there is some reason for treating these schemes favourably under this Bill. I quote the following words as to the general objects of the fund, as defined by the Charter of Incorporation. They were:
  "to ameliorate the condition and augment the comforts of the labouring poor who either by birth or established residence form a recognised portion of the population of London."
  and in furtherance of such objects and purposes, inter alia, to acquire and hold sites and to erect model dwellings thereon. He further goes on:
  458
  "It is my ardent hope and trust that within 100 years the annual receipts from rents for buildings of this improved class may present such a return that there may not be a poor working man of good character in London who could not obtain comfortable and healthful lodgings for himself and his family at a cost within his means."
  I regret that, owing to the increased cost of building, the increased size of London, and the very small charge made for the rent of these buildings, what he hoped for in 100 years has not come to pass, but prompted by Peabody's example, certain other bodies—the Guinness Trust, the Lewis Trust, and the Sutton Trust—were formed to give similar donations and some of an even greater amount, and to-day those four trusts house 64,000 people in London alone. Had the fund been increased by 5 per cent. each year, in the case of the Peabody Trust, it would have been £15,000,000 in 1942, and at the end of the period of 100 years it would have been £65,000,000. I regret that that is not the total of this fund to-day.
  Under this new Bill, it is difficult to state what the cost to these four trusts will be, but we estimate that with the increased value of land, it may be £20,000 or more a year. This extra cost must fall on the poor. The trustees, the hon. Members supporting this Amendment and other gentlemen associated with me, will be obliged either to raise the rents by a figure of 6d, or 8d. each per week, or else we shall inflict a hardship on the poor by not having a yearly fund with which to make their lives more comfortable by new and improved houses. That is the choice. No dividend has ever been paid or may be paid on these funds, and no directors have received any emoluments. The managers have exercised a wise discretion and intelligence in studying building schemes all over the world. I maintain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be well advised—and I believe that most Members of the Committee on all sides will agree—that, if possible, no fresh charges should be put on these schemes or similar enterprises. I have only referred to these four trusts, because I am well acquainted with them, but there are many similar funds established throughout England and Scotland. I think we should wish to encourage private individuals to continue to emulate the example of these four men who in

  459
  their later days may have felt that they had helped to add to the comfort of less fortunate people than themselves.
  4.0. p.m.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): The cases which have been put forward by the hon. Member are, I think, all, as a matter of fact, exempted under the new Clause 19 as charities. Certainly the Sutton and Pea-body Trusts are. I am not quite certain of the position of the Lewis and Guinness Trusts, but I think that they are in exactly the same position. I think that they have to devote the whole of their funds to fresh construction, and, in those circumstances, they would all be exempt as charities. But if it is convenient to the Committee, and if I may be allowed, I will deal a little more widely with the question of housing associations which this Amendment raises, and as to which there are a number of Amendments which follow on the Order Paper. The position as regards the housing associations varies a great deal, naturally, with the way in which they are constituted and the powers which they have of carrying out work of different kinds. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin)—in page 19, line 35, at the end, to insert the words:
  "(i) is owned by a housing trust or by a public utility society within the meaning of Section one hundred and thirty-five of the Housing Act, 1926, or by an authorised association within the meaning of Section sixteen, Sub-section (5), of the Town Planning Act, 1925, or by a body of persons authorised by special Act of Parliament to develop a garden city or garden suburb "—
  which goes a good deal further, defining the different housing associations with reference to the various Acts under which they may be authorised or constitued. That Amendment really in its form is probably wider than the hon. Member who put it down quite appreciates, because it would cover, in fact, every co-operative society which happened to build houses. But we are very anxious to meet the position as regards the real housing association which exists for the purpose of housing the working classes or building houses for the working classes, and which is essentially in its nature, or so limited in its dividends, that it is obviously a non-commercial association. The words of the present
  460
  Amendment, curiously enough, I object to because they are not wide enough; they are limited strictly to real charitable institutions, and the phrase "company which does not trade for profit" might be held to exclude a company with a limited shareholding, and limited dividend on that shareholding, and where they raise money or give shares, perhaps, of a nominal value which people are good enough to subscribe. We are anxious not to exclude from the exemption associations of that type, as well as the purely charitable associations which deal with this problem through an original endowment, or an accumulation of funds obtained by an accumulation of the rents which have been received.
  We propose, therefore, to introduce a Clause on the Report stage, if the Committee feel that that is the right thing to do, in order to give an exemption to associations which are limited, or substantially limited, to the building of houses for the working classes, and which also are limited in their dividends, or limited in the amount which they can pay by way of interest on money borrowed by them. I think, probably, the Committee will feel that if those classes of associations are exempted, then we really deal with the problem which, I think, many Members of the Committee have in mind in putting down various types of Amendment on this subject.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out from the word "classes" to the end.
  There is a class of company which is providing dwellings for the working people of this country rather different from the classes referred to in the Amendment, and that is the reason I have put on the Paper an Amendment to the Amendment something on the lines indicated by the Solicitor-General. I, myself, am chairman of an industrial dwellings company known as the Improved Industrial Dwellings Company, which houses some 20,000 workers. It was founded by Sir Sydney Waterlow, a year after Peabody started his housing trust in 1863, that is 68 years ago. It was an aphorism of Sir Sydney Waterlow, who subsequently presented Waterlow Park to London, that the soundest institutions were those which paid their way, and that the truest philanthropy

  461
  was philanthropy and 5 percent. He always endeavoured to see that his company, which has dwellings in all parts of London, should pay a reasonable dividend of 5 per cent., and that working people, and as many people as possible, should be interested in the company. Consequently, there are a very large number of small shareholders. This company started building flats in 1863, and has gone on doing so ever since. The first Duke of Westminster, when these flats were being built 30 or 40 years ago, thought it was undesirable, and not in the national interest, that all the rich people in London should be congregated in Mayfair and Grosvenor Square, and seven sites in Mayfair were set apart on which to erect industrial dwellings. We have erected them there, and altogether, scattered about in May-fair, there are some seven industrial blocks of dwellings housing a large number of workers.
  If this tax is to become law, it will, naturally, have a most serious effect upon our dwellings in the West End of London. It will not have much effect on our dwellings in the East End and the poorer parts of London, but it will upon the dwellings to which I have referred in the West End, near Grosvenor Square, Sloane Square, and Selfridges especially. If you take away the industrial dwellings and leave a vacant site in the neighbourhood of Dorchester House or Selfridges, the value of the site is enormous. What is to be done? This will not be a question of taking land from the dukes and giving it to the people, but it will be a question of taking the industrial dwellings from the workers and giving them back to the dukes for luxury flats, because we have these valuable sites. We have had no valuation made, but hon. Members know the enormous price given the other day for the site of Dorchester House. The value of the site on which these dwellings stand in Mayfair may reach £500,000. That is a mere guess, but it is certainly a very large sum of money. If we are to pay even a penny in the £ on a valuation of that kind, one of two things must occur. Either we must pull the flats down, and put up luxury flats, if we can do so, or else we must increase our rents, and let the flats to quite a different class of person than the class
  462
  at present occupying them at 10 shillings, 12 shillings or 14 shillings a week.
  Therefore, in order to raise the matter, I move the Amendment to the Amendment. I cannot say whether the words will require some further amendment, but companies such as ours, the Artisan Dwellings Company, and others, should have special consideration with regard to the sites of dwellings let to working people, and that those should be on a different basis. Supposing we did pull them down and erected business or other premises, of course any concession made would be done away with, but I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, as long as the sites of industrial dwelling companies, whose main object is to provide residences for the workers of this country, are used for that purpose, they should have special concessions given to them with regard to this land Tax, and I have indicated in the case of the company with which I am familiar what would be the disastrous effect of this tax on that company.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I want to speak on the main Amendment, and perhaps I can say here what I was about to say, which was that I heard with great satisfaction the learned Solicitor-General say that the Government proposed to introduce on Report a Clause which will cover public utility societies for building purposes. I myself have an Amendment on the Paper—in page 19, line 22, at the end to insert the words:
  "e) is owned by any such society, body of trustees, or company as is mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section three of the Housing, &c, Act, 1923."
  dealing with that very point, and I do think the Government have done well in recognising the work of those societies. As the Bill stands, if an area is developed for housing purposes by a municipality which owns the land, it is exempt. It seems to me that these public utility societies, which have been formed for the purpose of housing in many cases where the municipalities or local authorities have failed to do their duty are deserving of as much consideration. They take the initial risks of the scheme; they work the scheme: their profits are limited to 5 per cent. as a rule; the rents are fixed at the lowest possible level so as to cover the working of the scheme; and the whole of any profits there may be are devoted to

  463
  developing the housing in that area. It is true that at the end of the period the houses will become the property of the public utility society, but, if need be, I think that that could be met by it being suggested that they should pass to the local authorities.
  There has never been any idea in these societies of making money out of it, and, therefore, it seems to me that any burden placed upon them would really be an error in public policy. I say that the rents are fixed at the lowest possible amount, and any further charge would be unfortunate. I only want to be sure how far the proposal of the Government goes. Take the case of Letchworth, which is one of the oldest societies. The whole of the profits is put into the undertaking to improve the housing, and, therefore, as I say, I think they ought to be protected from any tax. I am glad that the Government have gone as far as they have, and I hope they will see that these societies are all protected.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the Solicitor-General give us an assurance that when he is framing the new Clause which he has proposed, he will at least, without committing himself definitely, take into consideration the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), then perhaps we shall be able to get on with the next Amendment?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I rather gathered, from what the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) said, that what I had said would probably cover the cases he had in mind. The two essential factors from our point of view are that the association or body of persons, whatever it may be, should exist solely for building working-class houses or practically for that purpose, and that the profits should be limited to a figure of 5 percent.
  Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman answer the point put by my right hon. Friend in regard to garden cities?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Letchworth. Frankly, I do not know exactly the position, but, if they comply with the conditions I have stated, they will be as entitled as anyone to exemption, but I
  464
  rather doubt whether Letchworth exists solely or mainly to supply houses for the working classes.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: My contention is that they do comply with the conditions mentioned by the Solicitor-General.
  Sir W. DAVISON: I am obliged to the Solicitor-General for what he has said. We have also, however, dwellings for what might be called black-coated workers. The overwhelming majority of our dwellings are for working people at low rents of 8s to 10s. a week, but there are certain other dwellings let at a higher rent and it is only for the former class of dwellings that I ask for exempt-ion from the tax. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I beg to move, in page 19, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
  "(a) is land owned by any savings bank certified under the Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863, or vested in the custodian trustees of any such savings bank."
  These savings banks are philanthropic institutions and do not trade for profit, and the very small margin that they get to cover their expenses might be easily swallowed up by any further taxation. They exist for the general interest and welfare of the public, and it is only right and proper that they should be exempt. I am not clear whether they are already excluded under the heading of charitable institutions, but I move this Amendment in order to make the position clear.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid that this is a case where we cannot agree to exemption. This matter has been carefully considered from time to time as regards exemptions from the Income Tax provisions, and savings banks have been already charged to Income Tax in respect of both their premises and their investments. Therefore, they do not come under charitable exemptions. The position nowadays with regard to savings banks is different from what it was. There is now no limitation of the total amount that can be deposited by any one depositor as there used to be, so that really they are in much the

  465
  same position as other banks, although they cater for a particular class of people. That does not seem to be any real reason why they should be exempt, and they are not really analogous to charities.
  Amendment negatived.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 19, line 8, to leave out the words "and used."
  Lieut. - Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT Ward: Is this Amendment consequential on the next—in line 9, after the word "purposes," to insert the words:
  "or is owned by trustees in trust for naval, military or air force purposes"?
  If so, would it not be for the convenience of the Committee if they were taken together?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If they are consequential, the Debate can take place on both together.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: They are not actually consequential, but if it be for the convenience of the Committee for me to deal with the whole of the Amendments to Clause 19, I am prepared to do it. The word "used" is proposed to be left out because it is felt to be redundant, and creates a little difficulty in the wording of Clause 20, which would have to be amended accordingly. To indicate that it is land owned by a Government Department is sufficient without putting in the word "used" as well.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I want to say, in regard to the Amendments to this Clause which have been put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we find ourselves in the extraordinary position that, under the Guillotine, it is absolutely impossible to obtain adequate time for our own Amendments. We are obliged to sacrifice discussion on one Amendment after another which we would have wished to discuss, and we have to make our choice between Amendments and take only those upon which it seems to be possible to get any discussion. The only course open to us therefore is to avoid any discussion on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendments.
  Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: There is an Amendment in my name, in line 9, after the word "purposes," to insert the words "or for the purposes of the Territorial
  466
  Army." I am not quite sure whether the Chancellor's Amendment is intended to cover the object which I had in putting my Amendment down. I am informed that the case I have in mind has been brought to the notice of the Chancellor by the War Office. It is a commonplace to say that the greater includes the less, but in the proceedings of this House that is not always the case. For example, it is impossible to debate anything dealing with the Territorial Army under Vote A of the Army Estimates. I should like to have a definite assurance that the Amendments of the Solicitor-General definitely include land held for the purposes of the Territorial Army. In the City of London, half-a-mile from the Bank of England, there is a piece of land occupying five or six acres, which has been used for military purposes for 400 years and is now occupied by a Territorial unit. If valued, that land would be worth some millions of pounds sterling. It is now in the occupation of this unit on a lease from the Corporation of the City of London at a peppercorn rent, provided it is used for military purposes only. I should like to have an assurance that this piece of ground is covered by the Amendment.
  Mr. KELLY: Does the Amendment cover the canteens which we know as the Naval, Military and Air Force Canteens? If it does, it is a most unjust decision. They are already making huge profits and paying large salaries to those at the head, and it would be very unfair to exempt them.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward), the words in the second of my Amendments are proposed for the purpose of exempting, among others, the Honourable Artillery Company's premises to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. As regards canteens, I think that the whole of the premises they occupy are in the possession of the Government, and are therefore exempt.
  Mr. KELLY: I understand that they were at one time in the possession of the Government, but that at a particular stage—I do not know why; it may have been some bargain that was made with

  467
  other people—they were passed out to another concern, and I cannot look upon them as a Government institution. They are institutions with which we are not able to deal when abuses occur.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In line 9, after the word "purposes," insert the words:
  "or is owned by trustees in trust for naval, military, or air force purposes."—[The Solicitor-General.]
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 19, line 12, to leave out the word "authority," and to insert instead thereof the word "board."
  This is a purely drafting Amendment.
  Sir DENNIS HERBERT: As the Solicitor-General is moving a drafting Amendment, may I suggest that he would be good enough to consider two other purely drafting Amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) and myself? The first is in page 19, line 11, after the first word "by," to insert the words "or controlled by or held in trust for." The other is in line 11, to leave out the second word "by."
  Amendment agreed to.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 19, line 14, at the end, to insert the words:
  "or by a body of persons authorised by any special Act or order having the force of an Act, to construct, erect, or maintain as its principal business, any embankment or sea or river wall."
  This Amendment is moved because there are some statutory bodies occupied with the maintenance of sea walls, like the Wallasey Embankment Commissioners, who are at present not included in the Bill with other similar bodies who have been brought within its provisions. It had not been realised that there were such bodies who were outside the Drainage Act, 1930.
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Does this Amendment cover the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) and myself and some other hon. Members?—[In page 19, line 13, after "1930" insert "or under any other Statute or award."]
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I beg to move, in page 19, line 17, to leave out from the word "persons" to the word "on" in line 19, and to insert instead thereof the words "which carries."
  If this Amendment were accepted paragraph (d) would then read:
  "is owned by a body of persons which carries on as its principal business any railway, canal, inland navigation, dock."
  This Amendment is followed by a number of others in the names of hon. Friends of mine covering similar points, and therefore I do not propose to deal in detail with this Amendment, but be as brief as I can in order to allow other hon. Members to put their points. First, I would say a word on the main principle underlying the whole Sub-section. I understand it is the case under the Bill that if a body of persons carry on work of the kind mentioned in this paragraph under the authority of some public statute or order they will be exempt from Land Tax, but a private body of persons doing precisely the same kind of work at precisely the same charges and rendering the same service to the public are to be taxed. Before I say a word or two on the principle of that, if it can be called a principle, I would remark in passing that it is much the same as if the Solicitor-General were to receive his salary free of Income Tax while occupying that position but pay Income Tax on his earnings when he returns to the Bar.
  Coming to the actual undertakings affected, I would draw attention to the position of the wharfingers of the Port of London. They will be taxed under the Bill, whereas the Port of London Authority, which carries on the same work as the wharfingers, escapes from the taxation. The wharfingers are in direct competition with the Port of London authority. Is that wrong, in the Government's view? Is it anti-social of the wharfingers to compete, and are they to be penalised, or do the Government suggest that the sites of the wharves and warehouses are not being put to the best use and should be turned into big offices? Is it suggested that the wharfingers do not carry out a similar public duty and render a similar

  469
  public service? They provide accommodation for steamers and facilities for unloading barges and the like. The Port of London Authority already has advantages over the wharfingers for it pays its rates on its income value and the wharfingers pay on their annual value. The Port of London Authority receives revenue from dock dues, whereas the wharfingers receive none, and yet the annual value of the wharfingers property is in the neighbourhood of £500,000 per annum. I ask the Solicitor-General how he can justify the discrimination between these two bodies. In actual fact the wharfingers employ more men that the Port of London Authority.
  I expect the principle on which the Government has proceeded is the principle of abstract Socialism, which is showing its head for the first time in this Bill. The principle which the Subsection enunciates is this, that it is wrong and anti-social for private persons to do something which it is right and social for a public authority to do. I object most strongly to that principle. What have the Liberal party to say about it?? The advance guard are here and the main body cannot be far behind. The commander-in-chief is not absent, he is within hail. On a vital Clause of this kind, where the issue of individualism versus Socialism is put clearly before us, we ought to know the Liberal party's view, and what they are instructed to say by their various coloured books. I must remind them of the clarion call of their leader when speaking at Tenby:
  "A party can be driven up to a point when its very self-respect will force it to hit out."
  I thought at the time that I had never heard a better paraphrase of the old proverb, "A worm will turn." It is not too late. The Liberal party can still retrieve their position and recover some portion of their shattered reputation. If they support this Amendment and carry it, it may be that it will cause for a time their political downfall, but it will be honourable for them to die in the last ditch, if the last ditch is the Thames at the Port of London.
  Viscount WOLMER: I wish to put the case, which I have been asked to bring forward by the Gas Companies' Protection Association, oil gas companies who
  470
  will be adversely affected if this Amendment is not carried. There are 350 of them in England and 150 in Scotland. They are gas companies who are performing precisely the same public service as gas companies working under statutory powers, but who themselves have not received statutory authority. In many cases, they were started as very small concerns and simply could not afford the expense of coming to Westminster to get an Act of Parliament, but they have carried on their work for many years and have always been regarded as being on exactly the same level as other gas companies. When the Local Government Act, 1929, was passed words were inserted which put these gas companies in precisely the same position as statutory gas companies. If a differentiation is now made against the non-statutory gas companies, surely a very great injustice will be done.
  These companies are in a sense in competition with statutory companies. If further charges are put upon them they must pass them on to their customers by raising the price of gas, and it is clearly inequitable that the price of gas to one set of customers should be raised by this Act while the price of gas to another set of customers is not interfered with. Two firms who are respectively drawing gas supplies from two companies of these different types may themselves be in competition, and we shall be adding to the costs of the one firm and not to the costs of the other. These gas companies are in direct competition with electricity companies, which are statutory bodies. While they may have to raise the price of their gas the electricity companies will not have to raise the price of electricity. I ask the Solicitor-General on what principle he can justify placing an extra burden on these companies, many of which are just as old as any of the other gas companies and are carrying out precisely the same work? I repeat that my appeal is not made on behalf of an isolated case or two, for there are 500 of these gas companies in the United Kingdom.
  Sir D. HERBERT: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) made special reference to the case of the wharfingers of the Port of London. There is a similar Amendment on the

  471
  Order Paper in the name of myself and various other hon. Members, including the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. Grenfell), dealing with the City of London—in page 19, line 22, at the end, to insert the words:
  "(e) is owned by or leased to or occupied by a public wharfinger as defined by Sub-section (9) of Section two hundred and twenty-four of the London Building Act, 1930."
  I ask the Government to be good enough to pay special attention to the case of the wharfingers in the City of London, because it has been found necessary in the past to give them special treatment, and there is a good case for it here. To put the matter very shortly, the trade of the Port of London cannot be carried on by the Port of London Authority alone. These wharfingers are an absolute necessary to the business of the port. They make only the same charges as the Port of London Authority and if they are to have burdens thrown upon them which are not put upon the Port of London Authority the result, as they are retricted to the particular charges levied by the Port of London Authority, will be that they will be thrown out of business, to the very great detriment of the Port of London and the trade of the country as a whole. Under the Derating Act it was necessary to treat them specially, and I hope the Solicitor-General will make quite sure that the wharfingers are protected under this Bill, and that even if he cannot agree to the present Amendment he will at least agree to the later one which is confined to the wharfingers of the City of London.
  Major HARVEY: May I inquire about the position of private aerodromes? I know of one, of great benefit to the people in the west of England, which is run by private enterprise, and I see no reason why that individual company should be taxed whereas, if the aerodrome were run by a municipal authority, it would escape this taxation.
  Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I wish to support this Amendment, because in this Clause we are differentiating between people who are working under private enterprise and the work of municipal authorities, railway companies and so on. I imagine that the hotels of the railway companies are exempted, and it is most
  472
  unfair that a hotel like the Adelphi in Liverpool, which is a big luxury hotel, or the hotel at Gleneagles, should be exempted because they are owned by railway companies while other struggling hotels which are being run by ordinary private enterprise have to pay the tax. It is not fair, either, that local authorities' aerodromes should escape this taxation while aerodromes supported by private enterprise are penalised. This point ought to be taken up by someone on the Liberal benches. At the General Election the Liberals professed to be an independent party, anti-Socialist, and out for private enterprise. Perhaps some of the Liberals who are now in the House will let us know whether they are still independent and believe in private enterprise, or whether they have all gone over to Socialism.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We are dealing with the land owned by local authorities. The reason for exempting it is because it is land already owned by the community, and the payment of a Lax by a municipal authority to the central authority would be merely transferring the money from one public body to another, and it is not thought worth while doing that in the circumstances. The position is different with regard to statutory companies. Statutory companies are exempted from the operation of the Bill because they are controlled by Parliament, and in practically every case they are controlled in regard to the charges that they can impose and also in regard to the use that they can make of their land.
  Take the case of the railway companies. They cannot sell the land which they have acquired for the purposes of their undertaking. The land they have bought must be permanently devoted to the purposes of their undertaking. The hotels are in a rather different position. I will first deal generally with the case, and then come to the position of the hotels. Generally, as regards the whole property of the railway companies, they cannot alienate it so long as it has been acquired to be used for the purposes of their undertaking; that is to say, other than surplus land. There are special Regulations in the Lands Clauses Act as to how the land may be dealt with. Under the Railways Act of 1921 a limitation is put

  473
  upon the company's earnings, and the position is entirely different from that of a private undertaking.
  As regards the special case of the Gleneagles Hotel, and other similar hotels, of which I should think there are probably half-a-dozen in the whole country, they admittedly raise a different case. In that case, it is merely an investment, and they can sell it if they wish to do so. It is quite true to say that those particular hotels are in competition with other hotels in the country. The difficulty, however, of trying to extract the hotel business from the railway companies' property is insuperable, because, as the railway companies' departments are arranged, all the restaurant cars and all the refreshment rooms are dealt with as part of the hotel business of the railway company, and it is obvious that nobody can go up and down the country and separate at every station the site value of the refreshment room in order to charge that department of the hotel with the tax, and not charge the rest of the railway station. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is an absurd tax!"] If the hon. Member who has interrupted me looks through the Income Tax law, he will find instances in which it might be called an absurd tax, but he would not argue that we should drop the tax altogether on that account.
  It is necessary when starting with the charge of a new tax like this that we should work out our way, and it is much better to exempt wholly the statutory companies than by a more complicated series of provisions atempt to bring in a value which on the whole six or seven hotels might not amount to more than £100 or £200. The site value of Gleneagles Hotel would be extraordinarily small, because it is not in a busy centre. The Adelphi Hotel at Liverpool is one of the few cases where the hotel is not built in association with the railway station. The bulk of railway hotels are built in association with the stations, and in that case it is impossible to divide them. Where an hotel is built over a railway line it is difficult to apportion the values between the railway and the hotel, and the result cannot possibly have much effect upon the tax. In regard to the cases which come under the Railways Act it does not matter, from a competition point of view, because,
  474
  although the hotel business is an ancillary business under the Railways Act of 1921, the profits or losses are brought into the general account of the railway companies, and it makes very little difference whether one or other of those ancillary businesses shows a loss or not.
  Sir W. BRASS: That is not very fair to the other hotels.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If it does not matter to the railway company whether it makes a loss or not on the hotel business because they can meet the loss by the profit on the other part of the railway business, the question of the tax falling upon the hotels will not affect the position very much, because the railway companies can make up the business from their freight receipts. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is absurd."] If hon. Members had heard the arguments put before the Railway Tribunal as I have heard them, they would know that is exactly the argument which is always put forward by their competitors.
  The Port of London Authority is in our view clearly a case where a company has submitted to statutory regulation, and where it is being substantially run for the public benefit; in fact, it is one of the forms of nationalisation. In these circumstances there is no reason why an extra charge should be put upon a company, the whole of whose profits have to go to the reduction of the dues which are charged. The profits of the Port of London Authority can only be applied to reducing the charge to the consumer. Therefore, as the community gets the whole of the profit made by the Port of London Authority, there is no reason why a land tax should be charged in respect of their property. May I also point out that the Port of London Authority are regulated by a maximum in regard to the charges which they can make. Those are the reasons why we have given this exemption, and they are the reasons why we are not able to extend an exemption to ordinary commercial companies which are carrying on their business in the ordinary way the profits of which go to the individuals who own the company or have an interest in it, and whose charges are not regulated by Statute.
  Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to reconsider this question before the Report stage because he has not met the case

  475
  which has been put forward in favour of this Amendment. The claim is not put forward in the interests of the man who owns the property, but entirely in the interests of those who use the property. The Solicitor-General is opposing this Amendment on the ground that the property belongs to a private company and not to a public authority, but that is not the point. The real issue is how this tax is going to affect the people who use these private undertakings. The inevitable effect of the Clause is to put a burden on the people who use the wharves. The Solicitor-General drew a distinction between the wharfingers and the Port of London Authority, and in the latter case he said that the profit was devoted to the benefit of the public. I remember that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was negotiating the arrangement for the establishment of the Port of London Authority he found it was desirable to exclude the wharves from his amalgamation of the large dock companies, and that was done in the interests of the people who use the wharves, and because the multifarious trades were better served in that way than by leaving them under the control of the Port of London Authority. At least 40 percent, of the trade coming into the Port of London comes to the wharves and 50 per cent. of the labour engaged in the Port of London is engaged on the wharves, and it is in the interests of those using the wharves that they should be exempt from this tax
  The wharfingers do not make excessive charges, and they have to arrange their charges subject to the charges fixed by the Port of London. The only effect of this tax is that it puts them at a disadvantage, and you are really placing the charge on the people who are using the independent wharves. For these reasons, I ask the Solicitor-General not to be so deplorably consistent and to do something for what is, after all, a thing which a great Free Trade Government should consider, and that is the interests of the shipping trade of this country. If the hon. and learned Gentleman adopts my suggestion, he will be rendering a great service to the shipping trade of the Port of London and other ports by giving this
  476
  exemption. It the solicitor-General does not accept this Amendment, he will be showing himself singularly callous to great public undertakings by rejecting such a reasonable proposal.
  5.0 p.m.
  Major COLVILLE: The Solicitor-General has laid down the axiom, apparently, that, where profits are limited by the State, exemption from land tax can be secured. In that case he is going to be in serious difficulty with the Kent Restrictions Act, if we understood him correctly as to the reason for certain undertakings being exempted from the tax. With regard to the question of wharves, it would be unreasonable to exempt railway lines and yet tax railway terminal stations, but the wharves are the terminals of the seaway just as much as the terminal stations are of the railway. It is quite unreasonable to take the suggested action and leave these wharves subject to the tax, and I suggest that the particular case of the wharves requires the Solicitor-General's very earnest consideration.
  Sir D. HERBERT: As the Solicitor-General did not refer specially to wharves in his reply, I should like to ask him whether, in considering a Bill of this kind, he cannot go outside these mere rules in regard to where profits go, and have a little regard to one of the most important things for this country, namely, the prosperity of the Port of London and of the many workers engaged therein, who will be thrown out of employment if these wharves have to shut up.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I desire to raise another point in connection with this matter. Unfortunately, it is not possible for all the Amendments which have been put down to Clause 19 to be considered, but I am wondering whether the Solicitor-General or other members of the Government have looked into the case of the private omnibus owners. Compare the position of private omnibus owners, with regard to the land on which their garages are built, with the position of omnibus undertakings belonging to local authorities or even to railway companies. If an omnibus undertaking is owned by a local authority or a railway company, the land on which its garages are built is exempt, under Clause 19, from the land tax. That places a very big industry, namely, that of the private omnibus concerns, in a very unfortunate

  477
  position; they ought to have the same consideration as the railway companies and the omnibus undertakings that are owned by local authorities. The private omnibus owner has to bear the whole of his rates and taxes, and in addition, under this Bill, a tax on the land on which his garages are constructed. I do not ask that the offices should be exempted, but only the land on which the actual garages and workshops are constructed, as in the case of the railway companies.
  If the Government desire to be fair, the private omnibus owner should be placed on exactly the same footing as the local authority. Otherwise, as has already been pointed out, a distinction is drawn between the costs in the two cases. Someone has to bear the costs, and, if the land on which these garages and so on are constructed is to be subject to this tax, the users of the omnibuses will have to pay it. I have an Amendment on the Paper, but, unfortunately, I have no opportunity of moving it. I would, however, ask the Solicitor-General whether, between now and the Report stage, he will look into the matter. I will take care then to put down an Amendment dealing with this subject, and I hope that we shall have an opportunity of discussing it, and that in the meantime the Government will look carefully into the matter and see that fair rations are dealt out to these private owners. The manner in which I can discuss the matter now is
  rather limited, but I hope that on the Report stage I and my hon. Friends who are interested in the Amendment will have a reasonable opportunity of discussing it, and that the Government will not only give it their sympathy, but will recognise that it is only fair and honest to these private omnibuses that they should be placed in the same position as the coaches owned by municipal undertakings.
  Captain Sir BURTON CHADWICK: I shall not attempt to add to all the forcible arguments which have been put forward against this tax from this side of the Committee, but, with regard to the question of docks and wharves, I want to emphasise the point which was made by my right hon. Friend. Not only is this a harsh tax with respect to the shipping which makes use of these wharves, but it is a discriminating tax as between one kind of sea transport and another, and it inflicts very great hardship on one particular kind of shipping trade, namely, the short sea coastal trade. That trade is heavily enough handicapped under existing conditions, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will take this matter into consideration between now and the Report stage.
  Question put, "That the words pro-posed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 222.

  Division No. 349.]

  AYES.

  [5.7 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Freeman, Peter

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Buchanan, G.

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Burgees, F. G.

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Cape, Thomas

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Amman, Charles George

  Chater, Daniel

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Angell, Sir Norman

  Church, Major A. G.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Arnott, John

  Clarke, J. S.

  Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Cluse, W. S.

  Gill, T. H.

  Ayles, Walter

  Cynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Glassey, A. E.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Gossling, A. G.

  Barr, James

  Cove, William G.

  Gould, F.

  Batey, Joseph

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

  Daggar, George

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin, Cent.)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Dallas, George

  Gray, Mliner

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Dalton, Hush

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Benson, G.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Day, Harry

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Denman, Hon- R. D.

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Duncan, Charles

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Ede, James Chuter

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, c.)

  Bromfield, William

  Edge, Sir William

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Bromley, J.

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Brooks, W.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

  Brothers, M.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Walsh Univer.)

  Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield

  Foot, Isaac

  Harris, Percy A.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Manning, E. L.

  Shield, George William

  Haycock, A. W.

  Mansfield, W.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Hayday, Arthur

  March, S.

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Marcus, M.

  Shinwell, E.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Markham, S. F.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Marley, J.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Marshall, Fred

  Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Mathers, George

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Matters, L. W.

  Sinkinson, George

  Herriotts, J.

  Maxton, James

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R. Wentworth)

  Messer, Fred

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Mills, J. E.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Milner, Major J.

  Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Montague, Frederick

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Morley, Ralph

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Mort, D. L.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Muff, G.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Murnin, Hugh

  Strauss, G. R.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Sullivan, J.

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Sutton, J. E

  Kelly, W. T.

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Oldfield, J. R.

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

  Kinley, J.

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Kirkwood, D.

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Tillett, Ben

  Knight, Holford

  Palin, John Henry.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Lang, Gordon

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Toole, Joseph

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Palmer, E. T.

  Tout, W. J.

  Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Townend, A. E.

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Vaughan, David

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Walker, J.

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Wallace, H. W.

  Lawson, John James

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Oastle)

  Potts, John S.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Leach, W.

  Price, M. p.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Lees, J.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Leonard, W.

  Richards, R.

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  West, F. R.

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Westwood, Joseph

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Riley, F. F, (Stockton-on-Tees)

  White, H. G.

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Ritson, J.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Longden, F.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Lunn, William

  Rowson, Guy

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  McElwee, A.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  McEntee, V. L.

  Samuel, H. Waiter (Swansea, West)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

  Sanders, W. S.

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  McKinlay, A.

  Sandham, E.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Scott, James

  Wise, E. F.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Scurr, John

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Sexton, Sir James

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  McShane, John James

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Cautley, Sir Henry S

  Albery, Irving James

  Blindell, James

  Cayzer, Sir c. (Chester, City)

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

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

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

  Boyce, Leslie

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Ashley, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Christie, J. A.

  Altar, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Astor, Viscountess

  Broadbent, Colonel J.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Atkinson, C.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

  Buchan, John

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bowdley)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

  Butler, R. A.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Cowan, D. M.

  480

  481

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hudson, Capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Rothschild, J. de

  Crichton-stuart, Lord C.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Salmon, Major L.

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Daikeith, Earl of

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Lamb, Sir J. O.

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. Georae (S. Moiton)

  Savery, S. S.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Davies, Ma]. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

  Latham, H. p. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

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

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst.)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Despencer-Hobertson, Major J. A. F.

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lockwood, Captain J. H.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Elliot, Major Waiter E.

  Long, Major Hon. Eric

  Somerset, Thomas

  England, Colonel A.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-t.-M.)

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

  Fielden, E. B.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Flson, F. G. clavering

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Marjorlbanks, Edward

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Meiler, R. J.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Fremantle, lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

  Gaibraith, J. F. W.

  Milne, wardlaw-, J. S.

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Thompson, Luke

  Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Train, J.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Waiter

  O'Connor, T. J.

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Warrender, Sir victor

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Wells, Sydney R.

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

  Peic, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Purbrick, R.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pybus, Percy John

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Withers, Sir John James

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Remer, John R.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

  Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 19, line 23, to leave out paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (h), and to insert instead thereof the words:
  "(e) is owned by any persons entitled to claim, in respect of the unit or of any part thereof or in respect of the rents or profits of the unit or of any part thereof, exemption from Income Tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, by virtue of Section thirty-seven or thirty-eight of that Act, or section thirty of the Finance Act, 1921, or allowance in respect of such Income Tax by virtue of No. VI of that Schedule;
  (f) is owned by a registered friendly society."
  The purpose of this Amendment is to exclude charities generally, and also registered friendly societies. The reason for the form of the Amendment is that it is desired, as far as possible, that
  482
  people who are already exempt under the Income Tax Acts should know their position under this Act, and, therefore, if one legislates by reference to exemptions already given under the Income Tax Acts, it will be comparatively easy for any body or association which has already made an Income Tax claim for exemption to know what the position will be under the present Bill. The general effect of the Clause, of course, is limited to cases where the land unit is not subject to a lease granted for a term exceeding 50 years, but I should like to make it clear that, by the operation of Clause 20, any interest of an exempted body, whether as lessor for more than 50 years or as lessee for a term of under 50 years under another lessor, is itself exempted, so that all

  483
  these bodies will be totally exempted whether they own the land or are lessors for over 50 years or are lessees of other lessors for less than 50 years.
  I do not think that it would be profitable to go through the precise Sections of the Income Tax Acts that are referred to in order to explain the content of each one of them. It will probably be better if I give a general view of what is covered by those Sections. The scope of the meaning of charitable purposes, which is the expression used in those Sections, is very wide indeed, and, as was explained by my right hon. Friend on 15th June, it covers four main heads, the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion and other purposes beneficial to the community. It is, naturally, not possible for me to give the Committee anything like an exhaustive list of the bodies which have been held by various judicial decisions to come within the term "charity" for the purpose of the Income Tax Acts, but perhaps I may indicate very shortly the type of body which has been held to be covered, and to do so largely by illustrations from Amendments which have been put on the Paper by various hon. Members opposite. For instance, orphanages, institutions for the care or benefit of the destitute, blind, crippled, aged and sick and poor in general, bodies which hold their land in trust for the advancement of religion, such as churches, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Young Men's Christian association, all public schools, the term "public school" including all schools which receive grants from local authorities or the Board of Education, universities and colleges, trustees of scholarship funds, such bodies as the Royal Lifeboat Institution, societies for the protection of children, village institutes and clubs for poor boys and girls in the East End of London and other poor districts and the National and the London Playing Fields Associations. That, of course, is only a very limited list of the type of bodies, and to that may be added bodies of the type of the Yorkshire Agricultural Association which, it has been decided, is a charity and, of course, a number of other agricultural associations would similarly fall into that category.
  484
  There is perhaps one matter of detail to which I should make reference. It will be seen from the form of the Amendment that it covers cases where exemption under the Income Tax Act is in respect of a unit or any part thereof or in respect of the rents or profits of a unit or part thereof. There are some cases where under the Income Tax Acts only a part of a unit might be exempted, because as regards some other part of it it might be occupied by a person who paid rent whose income was over £150 a year. That might particularly apply in the case of places like colleges, where there might be some rent charged either to a fellow or to a student, and, consequently, that particular part of the college would not be exempt for the purposes of Income Tax. However, it has been thought that in such a case the whole unit ought to be exempt for administrative purposes. It obviously makes it much easier, and it is a matter of small importance. Therefore, the words "or part of a land unit" have been inserted to cover cases of that sort. The only other case that is dealt with is the case of registered friendly societies, and those are exempted from Income Tax on the basis of the Chancellor's statement on 15th June. I have a list here of the various Amendments that are covered either wholly or partly by the exemptions. It is a very long one, and I do not propose, unless hon. Members desire it, to read it out, but, if I can assist anyone by saying whether in my view a certain class comes within or without the charitable exemptions, I shall be very glad to do anything that I can.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: We are very grateful to the Chancellor for the very wide response which he has given to some of our demands for exemption, but, of course, as is always the case, like Oliver, we ask for more. I want to call attention to one particularly difficult case which will occur when this Amendment is carried. It very rightly and properly exempts all schools which will come under the heading of charities. It will exempt all State schools, and, as far as I can make out, all schools not run for private profit. But you will then come up against the case of the small private school, which fulfils a very great purpose in the State and relieves it of a considerable amount of expenditure

  485
  inasmuch as the children who attend it pay for their education instead of Coming on the State for it, particularly in suburban areas, [Interruption.] I really cannot see why hon. Members find it necessary to cheer that statement ironically. It will be a very serious question indeed for small private schools in suburban areas, as all the school population will suddenly be thrown on the already overcrowded elementary schools. No small private school would be able to afford to own its land and, above all, to own its playing fields and the land for the amenities that we desire to see in the schools. You are going practically to wipe out small private schools in urban areas, because they will not be able to afford to carry on. I am not talking about the rich private school which charges a big fee and can afford, as far as anyone can afford, to pay the tax. I am thinking of the small private school which caters for the poor and charges very small fees. I ask the Solicitor-General if he can put the case up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and see whether anything can be done on Report to ease the very severe burden which will be thrown on these schools and, by compelling them to move out into the country, will incur increased expenditure on the State.
  Mr. SKELTON: I should like to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is satisfied that the Amendment gives relief to charities in Scotland whose investments are in the form of feu duties. The Bill is so complicated that I am not certain of the answer, but it is a matter that ought to be cleared up, because a great number of charitable institutions of all sorts in Scotland have their investments in feu duties, and some are confined to that class of investment.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): We have considered the matter from the point of view of charities in Scotland, particularly having regard to charities whose main investments are in feu duties. A charity in Scotland is the same thing as in England; that is to say, there is no difference for the purposes of Income Tax in what constitutes a charity in Scotland and in England. The matter works out in this way. The best way to get at it is to take a particular case. If yon take, for example, the Church of Scotland, one of three situations may
  486
  arise. The first situation is where the Church owns the land itself. That is to say, where you have what in England you call the freehold, where the Church owns both the superiority and the property and has, therefore, the full ownership. In that case it is quite clearly within the ambit of Clause 19 of the Bill, and no difficulty arises. There are two other cases to consider. There is the case where the Church holds land under a superior for which it pays a feu duty. That case is covered by Clause 20 (1) as applied to Scotland by Clause 30. I will indicate how Clause 20 (1) reads, if we read it in reference to the Application Clause, which is Clause 30. I will give a rough paraphrase of the Clause for purposes of illustration. Clause 20 (1) would read:
  "Where the Church (or any other charity) holds land under a superior and that land would have been exempt if the Church had held it free from any feudal relationship, the Church shall be entitled to relief from the tax, except in so far as it is recoverable from the superior."
  The remaining case which arises is where the Church is the superior of the land and is therefore in receipt of the feu duties. That case is covered by Clause 20 (2) as applied by Clause 30. The Sub-section could be paraphrased to read thus:
  "Where the superior from whom any part of the tax is recovered by the vassal is the Church (or other charity) then as respects the tax so recovered he shall be entitled to relief as if he were the owner."
  That is to say, as if he were under Clause 19. In the result he gets repayment of the tax. So that the hon. Member will see that we have dealt with the situation thus: First, where the Church owns the land itself, in that case it is within the ambit of Clause 19; secondly, where the Church is the vassal and has to pay feu duty, relief from tax is provided for under Clause 20 (1) as applied by Clause 30; and, thirdly, where the Church is the superior in receipt of feu duty, in which case we provide for a repayment of the tax under Clause 20 (2) as applied by Clause 30. Accordingly, I am able to give the hon. Member an assurance that the position of the Church and similar charities in the sense of the Act in Scotland is adequately protected.
  Mr. OLDFIELD: The hon. Members who are associated with me in putting down certain Amendments to the Bill are

  487
  very satisfied with the sympathetic and courteous manner with which the Solicitor-General has always met us. I rise now to ask the Solicitor-General certain questions, in the first place, in regard to matters about which there seems to be a doubt as to whether they are covered by the new Clause of the Government, and, in the second place, to ask his opinion on certain matters which seem to be doubtful. Two Amendments with which my name is associated deal with the exemption of voluntary schools of a nonprofit making character, and with matters which, broadly speaking, come under the definition of charity for Income Tax purposes. In regard to the Clause, there is not, and never has been, any difference in principle between that for which we were asking and that which the Solicitor-General is prepared to give us. We never have asked, and indeed we should not think of asking, for the exemption of schools, denominational or otherwise, which are run for profit.
  Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: On a point of Order. Do I understand that we are also discussing on the Amendment moved by the Government, as the hon. Gentleman appeared to be starting to do, the two following Amendments on the next page of the Order Paper standing in the name of the hon-Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) respectively? I think it is as well that the Committee should appreciate what is the position. We rather understood that these two Amendments would be called as separate Amendments.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: My difficulty is that I am not quite clear as to how far the Government's Amendment might cover the demands contained in the subsequent Amendments. I rather wanted to hear from the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) and the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Oldfield) whether it was their intention to move the Amendments standing in their names.
  Sir D. HERBERT: On that point of Order. I am anxious to save time on this matter as much as possible, and I recognise in the present circumstances we are very much in the hands of the Government. In my opinion, it is immaterial whether we discuss the Amendments now
  488
  on the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or whether we deal with them later. I, certainly, have a point with regard to the Amendment in my name which I wish to put to the learned Solicitor-General, to the effect that he has not covered entirely the demand in my Amendment and, possibly, not everything he intended to cover in regard to religious bodies.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In that case, I suggest to the Committee that we should discuss the Government Amendment and, having got rid of it, I will then call such subsequent Amendments as may be necessary.
  Mr. OLDFIELD: My difficulty in regard to your Ruling is that I cannot possibly tell until we have heard a speech by the Solicitor-General exactly where we stand regarding the other Amendments which are coming afterwards. I should have much preferred, if it had been possible, to have had a fairly wide discussion on the Amendment of the Government, because we should have known exactly where we were covered and where we were not covered. But it seems now that the specific exemptions have been withdrawn, and that the Government are proposing to exempt all those institutions and organisations.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must explain to the Committee that if the Government's Amendments is carried, the other two Amendments must be moved in somewhat different form. The wording of those Amendments will have to be altered in order to make it possible to insert them. My difficulty is to know what is the precise thing to do in order to meet the changed situation.
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I make a suggestion? I think that substantial justice would be done if we could have a wide discussion upon this Amendment covering everything, and then, if my hon. Friend and the hon. Member opposite failed to get a satisfactory answer from the Solicitor-General, they could reserve their right to divide on their Amendment without further discussion. That, it seems to me, would do justice to everybody.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that that is by far the better method to adopt, and I am quite willing to agree to that course.
  Mr. WISE: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Amendment to the Amendment standing in my name would be in order?—In line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
  "or by au allotment society registered under tie Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1926."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment to the Amendment has not been selected.
  Mr. WISE: I understand that that would not prevent me from raising the matter in Debate?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN indicated assent.
  Mr. OLDFIELD: The point I wish to raise is whether all those schools which the Solicitor-General wishes to exempt are really exempted under the Government's Amendment. As far as the schools in England are concerned, the exemption is complete in regard to schools which are not run for profit. The case does not seem to be quite as satisfactory as far as Scotland is concerned. If one takes the denominational schools in Scotland set up under the Act of 1918, one finds that they are now operating in two ways. Some of those denominational schools have been sold to the local authorities, and in those cases the question does not arise. But in other cases they have been leased to the local authority under the Act of 1918. Although the whole of the money obtained from the local authority in the way of rent is devoted to purposes which are clearly charitable within the meaning of the Income Tax Act as being devoted to educational purposes and so forth, yet, strictly speaking, those schools are not exempt from tax under Schedule A for the reason that they are not subject to a trust. Unless I am mistaken they have to be subject formally to a trust before they can be regarded as a charity at all.
  Those schools are exempt from Schedule A simply because of a convenient arrangement. An artificial trust has been created in order to meet the difficulty. I do not think that it is a very good way round, but that is what has actually been done. I do not believe that it will be practicable, without a good deal of undesirable dislocation, to provide a trust for those denominational schools of such a nature
  490
  as will bring them within exemption under Schedule A. The first question, therefore, which I should like the Solicitor-General to clear up is: Is it possible by altering the words slightly on the Report stage, to make it clear that those schools in Scotland will be brought in and will be exempted as are the schools in England?
  The next thing which seems to be doubtful is the question of the churches. Under the Finance Bill, as originally drafted, churches were exempted specifically, and I suppose that the reason why that was done was that, unless a church trustified itself, strictly speaking it did not come within the definition of a charity as laid down in the Finance Act. I believe that churches are now exempt from Schedule A, not through any legal provision, but simply through custom and because, in point of fact, the tax is not collected by the Board of Inland Revenue. Under the new provisions in the Government's Amendment, although I do not doubt for one moment the intention of the Government, which, I think, is perfectly clear—I speak subject to correction, having had no legal training—we are not in such a strong position as we were under the specific exemption given to us in the Finance Bill as originally presented to us. I would like the Solicitor-General to deal with that point, and if the position requires strengthening perhaps he will indicate between now and the Report stage whether he can give some practical shape to it.
  So far as the many charitable organisations are concerned the position is more satisfactory, because nearly all of them depend upon some kind of trust. Even where they do not depend upon some kind of trust it would, no doubt, not be very difficult to create a trust which would bring them within the meaning of the term "charity." The chief difficulty, as I see it, lies in those few charities which are directly administered by religious bodies and in respect of which it would be inconvenient to create an ad hoc trust, where the position seems to be an ambiguous one now, and in those anomalous positions which may arise in Scotland unless there is some slight alteration. In regard to the taxation of houses in which the clergy live and of church halls, it seems to me that church halls are not included by the new Amendment

  491
  and that presbyteries, vicarages and the like are only excluded from the tax in cases where the incumbent's income is under £150. So far as the religious body is concerned for which I am mainly speaking this afternoon, most of our priests have not an income of £150 a year. I do not think that distinction is a very satisfactory one and I am wondering whether the Solicitor-General cannot produce a more satisfactory distinction other than the purely arbitrary one of incomes of £150 a year.
  I should like to see church halls exempt from the tax. For the main part they are used for purposes which are charitable within the meaning of the Act. Although it may be possible to include them by creating a special trust for each church hall, it should not be very difficult to devise words which would bring them in without putting upon them the obligation of turning themselves into trusts. I am putting these suggestions before the Solicitor-General more for clarification than for anything else. It may be that the two Amendments which stand in the names of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) and other hon. Members, and also in my name, are not wholly or entirely met by the Government Amendment, but I feel that the Solicitor-General has gone such a long way towards meeting us and has treated us with such generosity that my hon. Friends and myself do not propose to press our Amendment. We will leave it to the Solicitor-General to remedy those things which he thinks can be remedied before the Report stage comes along.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member referred to the difference between voluntary schools and profit-earning schools. What difference does he see between a voluntary school which is not exempted and a profit-earning school? Voluntary schools are to a certain extent profit-earning.
  Mr. OLDFIELD: No.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Somebody gets some profit from them. It is the same in a private school; somebody gets a certain amount of profit there. The question is, what is the amount of profit?
  Mr. OLDFIELD: The distinction is very simple. The ordinary non-provided school, which is provided in the vast majority of cases by religious bodies, does not make profit. It gives free education and is in receipt of certain grants from the local authority and the Government, which contribute towards the cost. In so far as what the Government provide and what the local authority provide does not quite cover the whole of the cost, the school is run at a moderate loss, which is found by the managers of schools. I draw a very sharp distinction, and it is a distinction easily drawn, whether we agree with it or not, between that class of school and the school which is run by a private corporation, say, run by some nuns, primarily for profit, and makes profit. That is in quite a different category.
  Sir D. HERBERT: After the speech of the hon. Member opposite I can add very little, except to reinforce what he said, in so far as it is covered by the Amendment which stands in the names of myself and three hon. Friends of mine. The right hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is in his place, but perhaps it may not be necessary for him to express his views in regard to religious bodies on this question. I imagine that the Solicitor-General intends and desires to exempt everything which is covered by the Amendment in my name, namely, property owned by a religious body or on their behalf by trustees and
  "used wholly or mainly for the purpose of public religious worship or as a place of residence for the ministers, etc., of such body."
  The hon. Member opposite was right in saying that the churches, which certainly do not pay Income Tax under Schedule A, are not exempt from that Income Tax in the way set out in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. I do not quite know the reason but I believe there is a theory they are not taxed because they are uninhabited places within the peculiar meaning of—I will not enter further into the matter. I do not know what the reason may be, but the Solicitor-General will agree with me that he does not want to tax churches. It is clear that they are not given exemption from Schedule A Income Tax under any of the enactments referred to here. There-

  493
  fore, I would suggest that the Solicitor-General should put into the Bill words sufficient to cover them.
  There is serious doubt whether some of the residential property is exempt under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. Let me deal with the matter irrespective of denomination, because it does not apply to one particular church. Presbyteries, monastries, convents and properties of certain religious and residential kind are, I believe, intended to be exempt from this tax, and I think it would be the general view of the Committee that they should be, but it is extremely doubtful whether they are exempt under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. I therefore ask the Solicitor-General whether, if he cannot agree to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mile End, which includes mine, he will agree, and I would press him very strongly to agree, to the shorter Amendment standing in my name and the names of other hon. Members.
  Major GLYN: Has the Solicitor-General given consideration to the question of those sisterhoods which belong to the Church of England where they collect fees from certain pupils, and those funds are, in turn, used to give free education to other children cither there or at other institutions. I am informed that as the Clause is now amended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer those religious bodies would be subject to the tax. In those circumstances considerable injustice would be done, because those bodies are, in the main, depending upon legacies which are left to them. They carry on work not only in this country' but in India and elsewhere, which is very largely dependent upon the statutory funds which they obtain and upon the funds which they are able to collect from the wealthier parents for educating some of the pupils, the balance of the money being solely used for educational and religious purposes. If the Solicitor-General will consider that matter, I shall be very much obliged. There is another point in regard to city companies in London who own considerable amounts of property in the shape of almshouses in London, to a large extent in the suburbs. Those almshouses are very old buildings and very frequently occupy sites of great importance. I would like to know
  494
  whether we can be assured that those almshouses, which are administered by city companies which work under charter, will be exempt from the tax.
  Sir JOHN WITHERS: I should like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Amendment and for the sympathetic way in which he has treated the universities, the public schools and other educational charities. The Solicitor-General very kindly said that he would answer questions as to certain exemptions. I take him at his word and I should be much obliged if he would let me know something about au Amendment which I have put down regarding two trusts, the Oxford Preservation Trust and the Cambridge Preservation Society, which was put down as an Amendment not to this part of the Bill but to paragraph (c). These two bodies are incorporated under the Companies Act as associations not for profit. The Board of Trade has consented to the omission of the word "Limited" on the names. No profits can be distributed, and the liability of members is limited by guarantee. There is no profit to members. The Articles of Association cannot be altered without the consent of the Board of Trade. The objects of both bodies are to protect the amenities of university towns and to preserve ancient buildings. A considerable amount of money has been subscribed and spent in these ways, and both universities are very anxious to know that they come within the exemptions of charities from the tax. They will have to come under the exemption of "bodies formed for other purposes beneficial to the community."
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL The SOLICITOR-GENERAL indicated assent.
  Sir J. WITHERS: I thank the Solicitor-General for the assurance that that is so.
  6.0 p.m.
  Commander SOUTHBY: I should like to add a few words to what was said by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) about private schools, and what was said by the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Oldfield) in regard to church halls. I represent an area which will be particularly affected by this tax. Until quite recently it was a country area, but it is now very rapidly being built over, and the land has risen very much in value. In this area there are

  495
  many private schools and many church halls, and it seems to me that it would be very unfair that they should labour under the disability which they may labour under compared with the private schools or church halls in other districts where the value of the land is not so great. I ask the Solicitor-General to reconsider the question of these private schools. For the purpose of carrying on their business they must be situate as near London as possible. They must have playing fields and also sufficient premises to house their staff. They are going to be hit extremely hard by this tax. Many private schools exist in this area, some of which certainly are run for profit, but already they pay heavily as far as Income Tax Under Schedule A is concerned, and this further imposition will be a very difficult demand for them to meet. I hope something will be done to help them. As far as church halls are concerned, they occupy sites in this particular locality which are of great value, and, considering the good work which is done by them and the useful purposes they serve, they are deserving of the sympathetic consideration of the Government. I hope they will receive that sympathetic consideration.
  Mr. DENMAN: May I add a word to reinforce the plea that has been made on behalf of those who occupy religious houses and places used as a residence for officers or employés of a religious body? After the generous treatment by the Government of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners one hardly likes to ask for anything more except when one considers that there has been an accidental omission, and I suggest that this point has been neglected by mistake and not by intention. The Solicitor-General realises that although the exemption frees the income of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from a very heavy charge, the tax will be payable in respect of the properties of a benefice, that is to say, that incumbents will have to pay for glebe land and for the land on which their residences are situate. He will also realise that this may be something of a hardship because these residences often have a larger amount of ground than more modem residences; and their incomes are frequently small. Also they are quite incapable of
  496
  realising any of the financial advantages which will accrue from the appreciation of that land I am all the more emboldened to ask that this should be included because it was a point made in the Act of 1909–10 Section 37 of that Act said that Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on land used for certain charitable objects, and the land free from the burden included land used and occupied by—
  "any corporation sole and all universities."
  I have no personal knowledge as to the nature of a "corporation sole" but the Solicitor-General will correct me if I am wrong in thinking that it includes bishops, deans and incumbents. If he will come on to the terrace and have a cup of coffee with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bribery!"] I do not know how a House of Commons cup of coffee can be described as a bribe. [An HON. MEMBER: "What do you put in it?"]—he will see the site of the London County Council building which is free, St. Thomas's Hospital which is also free, but if he looks further to the right he will see Lambeth Palace Gardens which will be taxed. It seems rather hard that the Archbishop should have to pay for the site value of Lambeth Palace, and, if that hardship does not impress him then I ask him to reflect on the poor incumbents up and down the country in urban areas upon whom this burden will press.
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I desire to add a word on behalf of private schools. There is a general idea that private schools are scattered units throughout the country doing no useful work for education. That indeed is not the case. I speak for two associations of private schools, including more than 1,000 schools, which are all doing good and useful work for the community.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are they to be subject to public control if they are going to have public money?
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: I am asking for justice. These schools are doing very efficient work. They welcome inspection, and the reason they are not all inspected is because there is not a sufficient staff of inspectors at the Board of Education. They provide school buildings, teaching power and open, spaces, which are of great benefit to the community, and if

  497
  this additional burden is put upon them—it is additional because they already pay a considerable amount under Schedule A—they will find it difficult to carry on. I have here a list of private schools, and in two cases of private schools near the seaside they pay £92 a year and £272 a year in property tax. These schools, in fact, provide a very large income in rates and taxes for the community, far more than the State schools, and if you injure them at all you will inevitably decrease the income in rates and taxes of the local authority. What is going to be the effect on playing fields? Let me read a passage from a letter I have received from the chairman of a small private school, a girls' school, which is doing good work, but which last year had to reduce their fees owing to financial pressure. He says:
  "The imposition of the tax would mean an added burden which the finances of the school cannot bear, and doubtless it would have to close down, with the consequent result that 14 resident mistresses would join the ranks of the unemployed."
  The school has about 15 acres of land partly used as playing fields and partly used for growing produce for the use of the school. It may be said that if exemption is granted to these schools you are encouraging inefficient schools. The exemption in the Bill up to the limit of £120 will cover most of the inefficient schools. They are generally small, and with only a small site value. Indeed, by the Bill you are letting off the inefficient schools and hitting the efficient. The double burden will compel proprietors of these schools to sell the whole or part of their playing fields, particularly when they are in the neighbourhood of large towns, where these open spaces are of great value.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know how the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) brings this within the Amendment. Under the Amendment we are dealing with exemptions for charitable institutions and not with ordinary private schools.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: We have heard from the Solicitor-General that charity covers not only a multitude of sins, but a multitude of definitions, and I contend that any educational establishment may be considered a charitable establishment.
  498
  These open spaces are of such importance to the community and are used for public purposes that if you cause the proprietors to sell you are doing a disservice to the whole community. I strongly urge that this matter should be reconsidered for the sake of the health of the community, for the sake of education, and on the ground of simple justice.
  Mr. SANDHAM: I want to occupy the time of the Committee for a moment from the point of view of the modest yet very important institution which goes under the name of the Independent Labour party. It has branches all over the country. Its headquarters are Lanark House, Seven Sisters Road, Finsbury Park. It is an institution which exists exclusively for the development of education on high moral grounds. Our desire, of course, in the ultimate is to transfer to the community what the community has produced; in other words, to introduce a system of society that will abolish poverty and make life worth living. We realise that there can be no standard of high morality in business, and it is on those lines that I am speaking on the question of the education of the masses of the people. Our institution exists for that purpose. I contend that we have as great a claim for exemption for our premises as any religious institution in the country. Socialism, Mr. Dunnico, is my religion.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that on an Amendment of this kind we cannot go into sectarian differences.
  Mr. SANDHAM: I accept your Ruling. I do not wish to propound any distinctive differences or any feeling in regard to any other religious institutions. I am reminded of the definition of Socialism in the "Encyclopedia Brittanica "——
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must obey my Ruling. He cannot discuss the merits of Socialism on this Amendment.
  Mr. SANDHAM: I only want to know whether we are entitled to put in our plea for exemption on the ground that we are a modest but yet very important educational institution. In that regard, I do feel that the learned Solicitor-General would do well to take into consideration our particular viewpoint, because we are

  499
  week by week, in that self-sacrificing way, putting forth all our energy in the ultimate merely to abolish poverty, and there can be no greater moral work of an educational character. On those lines I make this appeal in order that we may be aided in our work, just as other bodies have put forth their plea to be aided in their work. If we take the prophecy of Isaiah we find it said:
  "And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
  They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands."
  Mr. ATKINSON: Let me put the case in a nutshell. Playing-grounds are necessary for the health of the children and they are not a source of profit to those carrying on a school. They are indeed a charge and expense to a school. Let me ask one question which will test the whole thing. Will it be for the public good to force a reduction in the number or area of these playing-fields? No one can reply "Yes" to that question.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order to pursue that question further on this particular Amendment.
  Mr. ATKINSON: I should have thought it came under the Amendment, which is directed to educational purposes. My remarks were intended to suggest that the Sub-section ought to be more widely drawn. At any rate I shall not now say more about it. I hold that these playing-fields are entitled to be included in the exemption on educational grounds, and on the ground that it would be a thousand pities if anything were done to reduce the number or area of these playing-fields.
  Viscount WOLMER: I want to say one thing to hon. Members opposite who are taking rather the same line as some of us on this side. We are grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Amendment that he has proposed, and of course we do not intend to divide against it. But in our view it does not go nearly far enough. We think that the discussion has shown that the Amendment still leaves a large number of anomalies which it is quite impossible to
  500
  defend. The case brought forward by an Ecclesiastical Commissioner just now is a particularly hard one—that of the parson who is occupying a building, perhaps with a small garden, in the slum area of some city. Because he is situated on the field of his work he should not be taxed. An Amendment which stands in the name of several hon. Members on page 2281 of the Order Paper covers all these cases, and we hope very much that we shall have an opportunity of voting on that Amendment. If the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) and his supporters do not propose to move that Amendment, we should like to have an opportunity of moving it formally and voting in favour of it, because it deals with the matter a great deal better than the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. T. LEWIS: I rise to express the thanks of a very large organisation, namely, the friendly societies, for the very generous way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met us. It is also, I agree, no more than justice. We do not always get justice from Governments, and when we do get it we want to recognise it. I fear that we would not have got treatment of so generous a kind from the previous Government. I remember their most ungenerous treatment of the approved societies, not mentioning the friendly societies, whose funds were depleted to a very large extent. I am still hopeful that the present Government will restore that which the previous Government took away from us. I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his action, which was a matter of very grave importance to the friendly societies, with their eight million members and funds somewhere in the region of £80,000,000. They would have been seriously affected had this Amendment not been moved.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have been asked a number of questions, and I should be lacking in courtesy if I did not answer them. Let me first of all state that the basis of this Amendment is to adhere to what is already the practice under the Income Tax Acts. When I made that statement at the beginning hon. Members opposite, expressed their approval of that system of working the exclusion. Of course, if that system, is to work it cannot be added to by other and extra exclusions which do not come

  501
  within the Income Tax Acts. The system of dealing with charities as they are dealt with under the Income Tax Acts must be in itself completely adhered to or else it must be completely departed from. It is impossible partially to adopt it and partially to depart from it. Several cases mentioned by hon. Members are really ruled out on that line, apart altogether from their merits.
  Reference has been made to private schools. I think that hon. Members have exaggerated the effect of the proposal on private schools. Let us take a case and see how it would work out. Let me assume that a private school occupies two acres of land, which is a very fair area for a playing field and school to occupy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members say "No," but I suggest that the type of school mentioned, that in a suburban area, very seldom has more than two acres of land. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Some hon. Members think that such schools have more land and some that they have less. As an arbitrator I should say that I am probably right. I will assume that the land is worth £1,200 an acre, which is a very high value and likely to be excessive. The tax for the year would be £10, and if there are 50 pupils that tax will work out at 4s. per head per annum, I do not think that hon. Members can say that that is going to put a school out of business.
  Sir JOHN POWER: Is the tax going to remain for ever at a penny?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am not dealing with "for ever!" I am dealing with the effect of this proposal on private schools. Let me answer the questions put to me by the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Oldfield), as regards the voluntary schools, in contradistinction to profit-making schools. As far as the hon. Member gave any details I think that those schools would be covered. Of course it is impossible to give an answer in a particular case without knowing all the circumstances. If my hon. Friend Has any particular case in mind and would like to ask me privately, I will try to assist him and tell him whether it is covered. As regards the Scottish schools, he said that they were let for a term of years to a local authority. Again I am not certain what is the terms of years, and.
  502
  therefore, whether the local authority will be owners or whether the people who have let the school will be the owners under the Bill. I am not certain who are the people who own the school. Are they nominees or are they some religious body or is it a private individual?
  Mr. OLDFIELD: It is the Church which owns the schools not already sold to the local authority. I think they are vested in the diocese. My point was that each school could not be administered by an ad hoc trust in Scotland without a good deal of dislocation.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think the question of an ad hoc trust will arise. Someone owns, nominees or diocese or bishop, and presumably the owner owns them on trust for some educational purpose, and that must be a charitable purpose.
  Mr. OLDFIELD: There has been trouble over Schedule A, and it was only by creating a trust which was to manage the rent received by the local authority that the schools got out of paying Schedule A. I wonder whether the Solicitor-General could devise some method of attaining the undoubted object in view, of exempting these schools. If he would agree that there is no point of difference in principle between us, and would look into the question between now and Report, to see whether an arrangement cannot be made to work more smoothly, that would be all we would ask for.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We must really leave it at Income Tax exemption. I understand that they are exempted under Schedule A, and therefore they will be exempted under the tax. The question put by the hon. Member as to finding a way for dealing with the matter, is one for lawyers rather than for drafting in this Bill. As regards the churches, again I am not certain who is the owner of the churches. In this country as a rule the freehold of the church, I think, is technically in the Church of England incumbent.
  Sir D. HERBERT Sir D. HERBERT indicated dissent.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I see that the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) shakes his head, but I think I am right in saying that, as a rule, technically speaking, the Church and

  503
  churchyard are in the legal ownership of the incumbent upon trust for the use of the parishioners.
  Sir D. HERBERT: The churchyard only.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No. I think the hon. Member will find that it includes the church too—and, out of that, arises the right of the clergyman to keep the church closed on certain occasions, a right which has caused difficulty in certain cases. Clearly, he holds that property in trust for charitable purposes. It is not an express trust in the sense of a special document, but a legal trust which arises out of his position. That is why such property is not taxable under Schedule A or the Land Tax. A question was also asked about church halls. If these are held upon trust by some individuals for religious purposes they will be exempted, but there again it is impossible to deal with particular cases without knowing the particular facts of those cases.
  Sir D. HERBERT: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the question of chancels which are vested so often in the lay rector?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will consider the point certainly, but I do not think that anything will arise out of the consideration. There was one other substantial point put to me, and that was with regard to the residences of certain ministers of religion. This is a matter dealt with specifically in the Income Tax Acts La this sense—that under the Act of 1921, relief was not extended in the case of land which was in the use and enjoyment of a person whose total annual income from all sources, estimated in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Acts, amounted to more than £150. There would be cases where charities and religious bodies would have houses in which persons were living with salaries of over £150, and in those cases there would be no exemption. Unless one is going to depart from the Income Tax code in this matter one must leave it in the way in which it has been worked out for Income Tax purposes. I do not think that the case of the country parson or the parson in a small town will be a very hard one, because it is not
  504
  likely that the land value of the vicarage will be very high. In most cases it is impossible to sell the vicarage—at any rate it cannot be sold by the parson. It cannot be sold except under an Act of Parliament. Powers have to be acquired and consents have to be obtained from the bishop, and the patron and from a lot of people; and it is questionable whether there is any market price for it at all. But I appreciate that there is a difficulty which I have not looked into, and which arises out of the complicated legal procedure necessary in order to sell ecclesiastical land.
  Sir D. HERBERT: May I tell the Solicitor-General that I, myself, not long ago, took some part in selling a vicarage in a town in order that it might be pulled down and the site used, and sold it for a very large sum of money?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes, but before it was sold there was either an order of the Privy Council for the purpose of combining two parishes, or else there was an order by the bishop, and the consent of the patron and other persons had to be obtained in order to permit the sale to take place under Statute. It is that statutory difficulty which I should like to look into, in order to see what the position is in the light of what my attention has been directed to to-day.
  Sir D. HERBERT: A very small difficulty.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: A question was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) with regard to a sisterhood of the Church of England who run private schools for girls where fees are charged—I think he had in mind the Wantage case. That, I am afraid, falls under the head of private schools, and is another case which would not be exempted. I think I have dealt with all the points which were put to me.
  Mr. PYBUS: Referring to church halls, does not the Solicitor-General consider that they should be exempted if they are let solely for concerts or other amusements?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I cannot answer questions of that kind without having particulars of the precise cases which hon. Members have in mind. I

  505
  cannot give an answer on particular case. I can only state the principle upon which the matter will be decided. Where they are, within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts, used for charitable purposes only, the answer is of course that they would be exempt with very rare exceptions.
  Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: May I ask a question with regard to schools in Scotland? Supposing that the rent paid is rent for the full time use of a building as a school, what is the difference between that case and the case of a building which is only used part-time as a school—a building, say, in which education is given, but, in which some rooms are used for other purposes? What would be the purposes which would entitle such a building to exemption?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: In every case it must eventually be a question of fact as to whether or not the building is used for charitable purposes only, and I am afraid that it is impossible to give definite answers on hypothetical cases. If I attempted to do so I should be liable to mislead the Committee. There is the other case which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham) with regard to the Independent Labour Party. I have no doubt that if they can satisfy the commissioners that they exist for charitable purposes only, they will be granted the benefit which they desire to have.
  Mr. SANDHAM: May I remind the Solicitor-General that the Independent Labour Party is the most potent force for good in this country, and that it is the organisation which gave that Labour party its existence?
  Viscountess ASTOR: It is not charitable, anyhow.
  Mr. WISE: I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the last point raised, because this Debate has been so peaceful, so comfortable and so comforting to most hon. Members, that I hesitate to raise such a Controversial issue. But I would point out that, as this exemption is drawn, while it seems to cover a great number of organisations and bodies which exist for educational purposes, it is not clear that it exempts bodies whose purpose is educational in the political sense. I am not referring to one or
  506
  other of the political parties. I am not speaking for the Independent Labour Party or the Labour party or any other party. But, obviously, most of these bodies, even if they are not charities within the meaning of the Act, are very far from being profit-making, and it would seem that any exemption which applies to churches, chapels and church halls should also apply to halls used partly for political education and partly for workers educational classes and concerts and things of that sort. I think there is a perfectly fair case to be made out for such an exemption, and that it could be justified on precisely the same lines and by the same general arguments as the exemptions already made.
  I wish to thank the Solicitor-General and the Government for having met to a considerable extent two classes of cases in regard to which Amendments have been placed upon the Paper by Members of all parties. First, there is the case of the allotments but I wish to point out the anomalous position in which some allotments have been left. Under the original exemption, allotments owned by local authorities are exempted from the tax. That exemption covers about a quarter of the total. Under the Amendment at present under discussion, allotments which are owned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or by any body coming under the general heading of charities, colleges and so forth, are also exempted. I think the Amendment also exempts allotment societies which happen to be registered as friendly societies. I am told that there are some such societies registered under the Friendly Societies Act. I do not know whether that brings them within the terms of the Amendment but if so they are also exempt. A considerable number of allotments however are run by allotment societies which own the land themselves—and on the whole these are the most active, the best organised, and the most effective allotment societies—and which are registered not under the Friendly Societies Act but under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act.
  This point is illustrative of the complication of the law in regard to this matter and the danger of dealing with a whole class of diverse cases by reference to other Acts. As I understand the position of the societies to which I refer, while they are exempt from Income Tax

  507
  under Schedule C and Schedule D, they are not exempt under Schedule A. But because of the purpose for which they are formed, and because of the generally low income of most of their members, they have—I do not know under what particular section in the Income Tax Acts—special privileges from the Inland Revenue authorities. Under these arrangements they pay half tax on half assessment, that is to say they pay about a quarter of the Income Tax which would be levied on the income from their land if it were used for -other purposes. Despite that concession under the Income Tax Acts, it appears, on a legal reading of the Amendment as it stands, that they would not be exempt in this case. Moreover, the mere fact of that special con-cession under the Income Tax Acts will make the Amendment, which I understand hon. Members below the Gangway are going to move, less helpful in their case than in the case of anybody else. Their assessment under Schedule A will be so much smaller than it otherwise would be, that when the subtraction has been made, by the very difficult mathematical calculation which hon. Members propose to propound later, the relief which they will get will be correspondingly less.
  I do not wish to go into that point now, but I ask the Government, between now and the Report stage, to give consideration to this anomaly, the creation of which I am sure is not any part of their intention. Already they have covered three-quarters of the cases. It is not sufficient to say that these societies will be exempted because they will be let off tax on the cultivation value. Many of the societies which own land have had to buy it close to towns or in the middle of towns, frequently at high prices, because of the possibility of building value, and at prices out of all proportion to the cultivation value. I am sure it is not the desire of the Government to put any taxation on allotments, and, as they have already removed from one-half to two-thirds of the allotments from the scope of the Bill, I hope they wall find it possible to meet us in this matter.
  There is one other case to which I wish to draw attention. The Government have met the Amendment on the Paper in regard to the exemption of colleges,
  508
  universities, and other educational institutions not carried on for profit and assisted, many of them, from public funds, in a most generous and comprehensive manner in respect both of the land on which their buildings stand and the land that they own, but as a matter of fact in the case of universities and colleges, which derive a considerable part of their income from scholarships and exhibitions for the very large number of undergraduates who would not get a university education but for that fact, a great deal of their land is let on 99 years' leases, and as far as I can read the Act the income from such land would be liable to tax.
  In the case of my own college, Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, I understand that nearly £1,000 a year would be liable to be paid in tax on the income from land which is let on a 99 years' lease. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury shakes his head. I have read very carefully the reliefs, and I am assured by others who have also studied the question that Clause 20, which is the Clause which may apply in this case, can be read in two or three ways. It is the most obscure, complicated and lax Clause in the whole Bill, and it has not been discussed in the House, possibly because no one but the Solicitor-General understood what it meant. I suggest that, having met the case of the universities, colleges and other educational institutions in principle, whether or not by some conceivable reading or interpretation of Clause 20 or any other Clause, it would be very much more satisfactory if the point was covered by a specific Amendment. There is no advantage in leaving these things open to chance.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hate to butt in on this happy family party, where everybody is getting all that they want, but I do not quite know whether someone ought not to ask the Government exactly what these concessions and exemptions are costing the country. If the Church of England, and if the Church of Rome, and if the Nonconformist churches and charitable organisations of this country are all getting a finger in the pie, might we not have some idea as to how deep the finger is going? Whenever on previous occasions when Finance Bills have been under discussion in this House concessions have been made, we have had from the Government an estimate of what they

  509
  would cost if they were going to refuse them, and an estimate of what the concessions would cost by the person who was demanding them, if he thought he was going to get them. On this occasion, the figures have been left in the background, and we do not know with how large a sum of money we are endowing the Churches of this country.
  As I ventured to tell the Committee yesterday, Mr. Gladstone held the now quite unorthodox view that any remission of taxation was the equivalent of a grant to the person or body getting the remission, and here we are giving grants of substantial amounts to the teaching of different religious sects in this country. I do not approve of it, of course, but the majority of people seem, to approve of it, and I think we ought to know the extent of the endowment. It ought to be realised in the country how much the Church is getting, and it ought to be realised how much the Church of Rome is getting from all that property around Westminster Pro-Cathedral. I do not think: it is fair that the country should not appreciate the sacrifices that other taxpayers are making for the benefit of these religious bodies. But if we are agreed to make all this sacrifice for the teaching of true religion, I cannot understand why a distinction should be drawn between the true religion of the Socialist and the true religion of the Christian. We have always been told that Christianity and Socialism are one.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Who told you?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have heard hon. Members on the Government Bench perorating on the great question of whether Socialism or Christianity came first. The moving perorations that I have heard on that question alone should have decided half this country to become Socialists.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that Christianity says that you should love your neighbour as yourself, and that Socialists say that you should hate capitalists?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Brotherly love is the foundation of Socialism. I am speaking of brotherly love in a Socialist Sunday School.
  The CHAIRMAN (Sir Robert Young): I think we had better get back to the more mundane subject of the Amendment.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I was perhaps slightly out of order, but the Amendment is one for the benefit of religious bodies, I do not know how wide the definition of religion goes, but I feel certain that it ought to include that religion which is represented so largely on these benches. The little local preaching that I have done has always been done in a Socialist Sunday School. I cannot see why a building in which is carried on the charitable and educational work of teaching children the way they should think should be deprived of the benefits of this largesse that is being scattered broadcast. The real danger is that once you take to endowing the innoculation of the people of this country with specific dogmas, there is no end to it. Spiritualism, theosophy, Socialism—they have all got just as good a right as the Catholic Church.
  Dr. MORGAN: I want to ask the Solicitor-General whether he can make the position with regard to the Catholic Church a little clearer. In England the property of the Church is not vested in a trust but is really vested in the diocese, of which the Bishop is the head, and I would like to know whether in the case of the exemption that he mentioned, the Bishop came under that classification of exemption. I want to ask whether the Government cannot make this exemption Clause a little tighter. I am a sectarian. I believe in a certain religion, but I also believe in the taxation of land values and that the principle of land ownership is wrong. That being so, while one would be in favour of the exemption of certain sites in particular areas which are used definitely for religious and educational purposes, I want to ask whether it is right, granting that the principle of land ownership is wrong, that investments in land by either religious or educational bodies should be exempt from this tax.
  I want to point out exactly how far we are going. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), whose predilection for land value taxation is as great as is his puzzling prejudice against Catholicism, mentioned in his two speeches

  511
  against exemption the question of the Pro-Cathedral or the alleged Pro-Cathedral, of Westminster. Why did he not go a little further? If he went across the river, or if he entered the Library of this House and looked across the river, he could see there land owned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, a report on whose property eight years ago is a standing disgrace to anybody who says that they are going to use the income derived from that morass of vice and immorality for religious purposes. [Interruption.] Ask the people who were on that Committee for the confidential report on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' slum property in London.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. Member think that the Roman Catholic Church owns equally bad things from which they get money?
  Dr. MORGAN: My remarks apply equally to any Church which makes an income from investments in land. It does not matter which Church it is, and I only mention the Ecclesiastical Commissioners because my right hon. and gallant Friend in front of me twice mentioned a particular kind of sectarian body. I practise in Paddington, and there is a certain street there known as Eastbourne Terrace, which is a regular morass of the vice and immorality such as you find near any London terminus. That land is owned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It is leased to people and hotel proprietors, who use those hotels for one purpose and one purpose only. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Bishop of London's estate derive their income from that land, and under this Bill—[Interruption.] I know it, because I am on the Paddington Borough Council, and constant reports are coming to us about this particular bit of land. Constantly private complaints and police complaints are coming to us, asking us to get the ground landlords to deal with this particular type of land. The particular people who own this land are the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, jointly with the Bishop of London's Paddington estate, and under this Bill that land, the income of which is derived from immoral purposes——
  Sir CHARLES OMAN: On a point of Order. Is not this tedious repetition?
  512
  We have heard this particular statement about the Ecclesiastical Commissioners repeated four times.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not know that I have heard the argument repeated, but I have heard certain words repeated in the course of the argument.
  7.0 p.m.
  Dr. MORGAN: I am always glad when a representative of a classical university interrupts me, especially when he is a Conservative, because it means that I am getting beneath his skin. I have heard the hon. Gentleman himself do worse in Debates in this House than I am doing, inexperienced as I am. My point is this. This land is going to be exempt from this tax. If land ownership is immoral and against the principles of justice, I cannot see why this land and similar land should be exempt from land value taxation. I do not want to vote against the Government, but I am sorry that the Government are exempting so many people from this tax. I have mentioned a religious body and I would now like to mention an educational body. Near the constituency I represent is a body known as the Trustees of Dulwich College, an alleged educational body. I am not saying that the product of Dulwich College is not a good educational product——
  Sir F. HALL: What do you mean by "an alleged educational product"?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with an educational institution. This deals with charitable institutions.
  Dr. MORGAN: I understood that this was a wide discussion, and that educational purposes were included. I am glad I am getting these interruptions from the other side, and I expected that one. This body is on the border of my constituency, and in the same borough. It owns land given as a trust by an actor in the time of Shakespeare for the specific purpose of the education of poor boys. In the course of centuries this educational endowment, like many others, has got into the hands of the rich, and now this educational body, with the increased value in the land resulting from those investments, is deliberately using their monopoly of land owned by them to keep

  513
  overcrowding in other parts of Camber-well, and to keep the land owned by them in Dulwich at a high price by keeping large houses there, and seeing that there shall be no flats. Instead of a place like Ruskin Manor being used for the housing of workers, it is used as a boarding house with a large private golf course.
  Every statement I am making here tonight can be verified up to the hilt. There was a law case quite recently In which Dulwich College were deliberately using their power as landowners to prevent the property depreciating in value, as they call it, by being let in flats. What they call depreciation of property means that in other parts of Camberwell—and the Camberwell Borough Council have built no houses for the last 10 years—there is overcrowding, with all the consequencies, such as disease and immorality, which it brings. But the parvenus of Dulwich, through the machinations of the Dulwich College trustees, keep the land valuable and this land, the income from which is being used for education, is land which is being used to the detriment of other people in the vicinity, is land to be exempt from land value taxation. I would have liked the Government to have been harsh on this point and to see that such land was not exempt. [Interruption.] These interruptions are very good to me, because I am a very inexperienced speaker and, when I get interruptions from the Conservative side, it means I am doing well. I would agree that, when the land is used by an educational body for a playground or by a church for the specific purpose of religion, it should be exempt, but I am not in agreement with the view of this Amendment, although I am a supporter of the Government. It is because I believe in loyalty and co-operation that, being a democrat, I support the majority of my party. I, personally, would have liked to have seen land used by educational and religious bodies as an investment not exempted by the Government from this tax, and I hope that future Governments will see that these bodies have to pay their tribute to the public purse.
  Sir F. HALL: I have heard many speeches in this House, but I have never heard an hon. Member pat himself so much on the back or so pleased with his
  514
  dissertation as the hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Morgan). No one would have thought from his speech that the Dulwich College authorities utilise, as they do, the whole of their income, with the exception of a few eleemosynary pensions, for the education of over 3,500 pupils in all parts of London. It is true that the authorities—and they are perfectly right—have allocated to themselves the right to say what buildings should be put up in Dulwich, and what should not. They have done their best to maintain the position, in order that they should receive sufficient income from their properties to educate not only poor children but those of various classes. The whole of their work is not confined to Dulwich or to Camberwell. Part of it is, of course, in the district represented by the hon. Member, who, apparently, does not appreciate their efforts. They have considered it right and advisable for the protection of the property handed down to them as trustees to utilise it as they consider best for the educational purpose for which it was intended.
  The speech of the hon. Member was wanting in appreciation of the great efforts of that educational authority. It may interest hon. Members to know that in various parts of Southwark, which is recognised as one of those parts of London which should receive consideration, a large portion of the income of the Dulwich College estate is spent on the education of the poor children of Southwark. The Dulwich College authorities have to submit their accounts to the educational authorities of this country, with the exception of a few eleemosynary pensions. I challenge the hon. Member to appeal to the educational authorities of the country and ask them if they are satisfied. If they are satisfied with the manner in which the trustees discharge their duties, then I leave ft to the hon. Gentleman to stew in his own juice.
  Mr. LOGAN: I am a little anxious about the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I should like to have it made clear in order that there may be no ambiguity. Paragraph (e) in the Bill provides exemption for land
  "used wholly or mainly for the purpose of public religious worship and owned by trustees for that purpose or by the representative of any religious body."

  515
  I understood that the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would cover all the difficulties, and I am anxious to get definite information on this particular point. I would like to know whether this Amendment exempts the land exempted in paragraph (e) of the Bill, which deals with religious worship. Is the right of the churches to this exemption being continued in the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I have not a legal mind, and I am not able to find in this Amendment the assurance which I desire, and so I should be glad to get from those who are acquainted with this subject, an assurance that this class of case is fully covered in the Amendment. I trust that, in order to avoid any ambiguity, we shall get a guarantee to that effect.
  Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: The hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Morgan) who has had medical experience, will agree with me that there are occasions when there should not be an excessive temperature on the part of the patient. The introduction of some of the matters which have lately been discussed has given rise to a temperature not altogether desirable in a discussion of this kind. I want to take the Committee to the church of the open air, to refer to a point which was raised by the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise), and to ask the Solicitor-General one or two questions on allotments. The Amendment provides certain exemptions. It has already been brought to the notice of the Committee that there are many allotment societies which, although they are not wholly exempt from the payment of Schedule A Income Tax, have secured from Somerset House a concession by which they pay practically one-quarter of the ordinary amount of tax, and they are wholly exempt from any payment under Schedule B.
  The Chancellor informed the Committee, although there was scarcely need to do it, of his great sympathy with regard to playing-fields. He has also, as we would naturally expect, expressed his desire that nothing in this Bill will cramp the development of allotments. It is important in connection with the policy of the Minister of Agriculture, under which unemployed men are being encouraged to go upon the land, and where Government
  516
  assistance is being given to them, that no difficulties should be placed in the way of the development of the allotment system, especially in the larger towns. I am speaking as a supporter of the principle of the Bill and as one who is not anxious to allow any loophole by which people will be able for a period to let their land, which should pay its proper share of tax, for allotment purposes and, having held it during a time of rising values, suddenly sell it for building purposes, having escaped, through any exemption of allotments, their fair share of the tax. I realise the difficulty of the Chancellor and his advisers in desiring to obtain the fruit of the tax from the landlord without at the same time doing any injustice to the extension of allotments.
  I want to suggest one or two courses which I trust the Chancellor will consider. An allotment association does not occupy quite the same position as a local authority. It can, however, be registered as a friendly society, in which case it will come under the Amendment, or it may be registered under the Provident and Industrial Societies Acts. It is not a profit-making association. It consists of a limited number of shareholders who pay a nominal sum of one shilling or 2s. 6d., and any profits which may accrue are distributed for the general benefit of the Association. I am anxious that the allotment movement should not in any sense be cramped by the Amendment. I fear that under its provision there is not sufficient safeguards for allotment societies. In the Midland area, of which I have the most right to speak, this is a very powerful and growing institution, and we all desire to see its extension. I therefore ask the Chancellor whether, in the case of the ordinary allotment association, which does not exist for private profit, which owns land which it means to retain for allotment purposes, but which it can sell if it were so disposed for building purposes at a profit, he will try and meet the situation in which they find themselves. There seem to be two alternatives. The first is to make the tax retrospective on the owner when allotment land comes into the market as building land.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am doubtful whether we can discuss allotments now. Last night we discussed an Amendment

  517
  dealing with allotments, and I intimated that we would deal with the whole subject then.
  Mr. WINTERTON: I am pointing out that certain allotment associations will probably come within the exemptions under this Amendment, because they are exempt from Income Tax, as they are registered under the Friendly Societies Act, and urging that it is desirable that the scope of the Amendment should be widened to meet the case of other allotment associations which, though equally deserving, are excluded by the working; of the Amendment. Therefore, I suggest that I am within the bounds of the Amendment which we are discussing.
  The CHAIRMAN: That may be so, but last night when I called an Amendment dealing with allotments, I said that that would cover any other Amendments dealing with the same subject. We discussed allotments last night.
  Mr. WINTERTON: The Solicitor-General, in opening the Debate this afternoon, indicated the four categories which would be covered by the Amendment, and among them were "other purposes beneficial to the community." I suggest that the question of allotments comes in that category.
  The CHAIRMAN: If that be so, I shall have to allow discussion on 15 more Amendments.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This point was raised earlier, and Mr. Dunnico expressly said that he would not take the Amendment next on the Paper, which proposes to insert words dealing with allotments registered under certain Acts. He expressly refused to take it.
  Mr. WISE: But he said that we might argue the question, and have a general discussion on this Amendment.
  Mr. WINTERTON: If I may continue, I will not keep the Committee more than a few moments. The second alternative for the consideration of the Government is that they should be prepared to exempt land used for allotment purposes, or make a remission of taxation in oases where the land is held on lease from a private owner and there is no breaking clause, and that they should treat all allotment land, whether in rural districts or town areas, as agricultural
  518
  land for the purpose of this Bill. I should be glad if the Solicitor-General could clarify the situation so far as the Amendment applies to the general question of allotments.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I dealt with allotments last night, and it would not be right for me to occupy the time of the Committee in dealing with that subject once more. With regard to the question of the property of the Roman Catholic community, my own view is that this is fully covered by the Amendment in its present form, but, if the hon. Member has any specific doubt in his mind, I will look into the matter again in order to make certain.
  Mr. MARKHAM: May I put two questions to clear up the position of museums and art galleries? As soon as this Amendment is accepted, national museums will be exempt under paragraph (a) of the original Clause; corporation museums under paragraph (b); and a certain number of museums, which are now exempt from Schedule A Income Tax, will be exempt under the Amendment. Is it the intention of the Government to exempt all museums that are open to the public free of charge? In cases that are under consideration by the courts, and have yet to be decided, such, for instance, as the Montrose Antiquarian Society, will the exemption apply to future decisions as well as to decisions that have been given in the past?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The exemptions from Income Tax by virtue of the Sections mentioned in the Amendment will of course apply to Land Tax as to Income Tax, whether they are past decisions of the court or future decisions. With regard to the question whether it is the intention to exempt museums to which the public are admitted free of charge, they will probably be included under the general charitable exemptions, but I can imagine cases which are in private ownership, to which the public are admitted free of charge, which would not be exempt, because they would not be charities. Apart from such cases, I think that most of them will be exempt. I cannot give the hon. Member further information without knowing the precise conditions of tenure and the trust under which the museums are held, and the particulars of any case he has in mind.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I take it that museums owned by antiquarian and learned societies, which are open to the public, will be exempt under the Amendment, but that museums owned by private individuals will not be exempt. I ask that society and private museums which are open to the public free of charge, should be exempt.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 19, line 23, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:
  "(e) is owned by any religious body or community or charitable body, or by trustees for or any representatives of such body, and either—

  (i) is used wholly or mainly for public religious worship or as a place of residence for ministers, officers, or employees of such body;

  (ii) is used wholly or mainly by persons living together as a religious community;

  (iii) forms part of the property or endowment of such religious hotly or community or charitable body and which, or the income or profit of which, is used wholly for the purposes of such religious body or community or charitable body;

  (iv) is owned by or vested in trustees on behalf of and is used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes, being a university, university college, college, hall of any university, training college, hospital, sanatorium, convalescent home, asylum, orphanage, hostel, school, almshouse, or a colony or institution for the care of the blind, deaf, deafened, dumb, crippled, aged, destitute, mentally defective, or tuberculous patients;

  (v) is held by any governing body or body of persons for charitable, educational, or religious purposes who are exempt from Income Tax under the provisions of Section thirty-seven of the Income Tax Act, 1918, and amending Acts."

  In accordance with the arrangement made with the sanction of the Chair I propose to move this Amendment formally, with the necessary alteration to make it fit after the words last inserted.
  Mr. KELLY: I think it is an outrage on the Committee——
  Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: On a point of Order. I am sure the hon. Member will realise that no discourtesy is intended towards the Committee. The position is this. We were allowed by the Deputy-Chairman, when he was in the Chair some time ago, to have a general discussion both on the contents of this Clause and on the Amendment which has just been passed.
  520
  I am sure none of us wish to do anything that might be embarrassing to the Chair or contrary to the agreement that was then arrived at by the permission of the Chairman. I am sure the hon. Member will realise that there is no discourtesy; we are proceeding according to an agreement under the Ruling of the Chair.
  Mr. KELLY: That may have happened. I have been engaged in another part of the House on other work and did not hear that Ruling, and I want now to hear from the Mover of the Amendment, or somebody who is supporting it, an explanation of each part of it.
  The CHAIRMAN: I did not intend to interrupt the hon. Member's speech, but I did understand that there was an understanding that these Amendments would be put formally and voted upon, and such understandings are usually accepted and acted upon.
  Mr. KELLY: That may be, and I usually accept them even when they go against me, but, when I find the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) prepared to stand up and say he moves formally and without the slightest explanation an Amendment of this length, all I can say is that he is abusing his position——
  Sir D. HERBERT: On a point of personal explanation. The hon. Member, I submit, has no right to say such things, after having been away from the House, in view of the fact that I spoke on this subject for at least 10 minutes.
  Mr. KELLY: May I say that the hon. Member was not out of the House? He was out of the Chamber, engaged in one of the Committee rooms on other work. The hon. Member for Watford has not even taken the trouble to remind us of the number of paragraphs in the Amendment, or to explain one of the institutions which are affected. The Amendment refers to universities, university colleges, the hall of any university, training colleges, and the rest, and not a word has been said about them. There is also a reference to the residence of a minister and I would ask what minister——
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is it not evident that the hon. Member is confusing himself and the Committee? We have heard all this.
  Sir D. HERBERT: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that the Committee have decided that these Amendments should be put without discussion? That was the decision of the Committee, which is binding upon hon. Members.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid no decision on that point was actually registered, but I understand that was the arrangement which was accepted by the Committee.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I think the Committee are placed in a great difficulty by this Amendment. I suggest that we have already decided the Question of Subsection (5) by the last Amendment which we put into the Bill. I fail to understand how, after we have decided without a Division the point about the societies that are exempt from Income Tax under Schedule A, we can again vote upon that Question under the Amendment which is now before the Committee. I submit that the Committee have already decided this Question, and that, if a new Question is to be put, at least the Sub-section dealing with that particular point must be amended, after we have already decided it by a vote.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Of course, the decision has not been recorded in writing, but the understanding clearly was that, the general discussion having been taken on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, a decision would afterwards be taken on this Amendment without discussion of it.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As I understood it, the position was that the general question covered by these Amendments should be discussed, and that, if the Committee were not satisfied with the Amendment of the Government, it would be open to hon. Members who had put down Amendments to move them. As I understand it, the Committee are satisfied with the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not appreciate, therefore, how this Amendment can really be moved.
  Mr. G. HARDIE: Is it the custom that a Member whose name is not attached
  522
  to an Amendment should be allowed to move it without at the same time explaining what it is?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can move the Amendment and he can, in accordance with the understanding of the Committee, move it formally, which he has done. I understand, also, that it was an agreement on the part of the Committee that this Amendment should be put. The Amendment has been moved and I understood there would be a vote on it.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I was not present when that agreement was arrived at, but I submit that no agreement can be reached which sets at defiance the Standing Orders. I submit that Sub-section (5) and the Amendment which you have just read out from the Chair cover the same Question which was submitted to the Committee and voted upon a few minutes ago, and, the Committee having decided that Question, they cannot be asked to vote upon it a second time. If this Amendment is to be put under an agreement, I submit that the Mover must at least leave out that part of it which deals with the same subject matter as has already been decided.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not want the Committee to be confused. What the right hon. Gentleman has just said would be true if this Amendment were exactly the same as the one which we have dealt with, but it seems to differ slightly.
  Mr. OLDFIELD: As I was one of those implicated, I may say that it is perfectly true that there was an understanding that, if we had a full discussion on the Government's Amendment, there was to be no discussion on the subsequent Amendments which cover that point. But we on our side made it fairly clear, I should have thought, that we did not expect to be moving our Amendment, and we thought it as likely as not that the Opposition would not move theirs. There was no understanding that the Opposition should in any case move their Amendment without discussion. The only understanding was that, if at the end of our long discussion on the Government Amendment the Opposition still wished to move their Amendment, then they would do it.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee will appreciate that an understanding was arrived at, and I always like to see such understandings accepted and acted upon by hon. Members, but I am not in a position to apply the Closure of my own volition to any hon. Member who does not desire to fall in with the understanding, and therefore I call upon the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. WISE: What would be the position if the Committee reject this Amendment? The Committee has just passed the previous Amendment on the Paper covering not only Sub-section (5) but, as I read it, most of the other points.
  Sir D. HERBERT: But we do not read it so.
  Mr. WISE: I was putting my point to the Chairman. Surely the whole of the proceedings will be thrown into confusion if we now reject the Amendment we have just agreed to. I have been present during the whole of the discussion, and, if there was an arrangement, it was that these other Amendments should be put if the Amendment we were primarily discussing, the one in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were rejected. There was no proposal to put two Amendments covering wholly or partially the same points.
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As I was the unfortunate person who proposed the arrangement, I should like to say that that was not so. What I said was distinctly this. When the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) started the discussion, I said I thought it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we had a wide discussion covering not only the Government Amendment but the others, but that my hon. Friends reserved
  the right, if they were not satisfied, formally to move their Amendment and to divide the Committee.
  Mr. WISE: May I submit that they have withdrawn their Amendments and have not moved them, and that we are discussing a new Amendment which has been moved with the wording altered after discussion of the previous Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Chairman had decided that the two Amendments should be discussed together. The first one has not been moved and the second one has. This Amendment differs in many respects from the one already disposed of by the Committee. I think the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) may proceed.
  Mr. DENMAN Mr. DENMAN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put,"but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. KELLY: I think what has taken place is a full justification for the action which I have taken. The Mover of the Amendment took exception to the interpretation which has been put upon the Amendment by those sitting on this side, but he had not the courage to explain what was meant by the proposal. The hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) has taken this opportunity of forcing the Committee to a Division upon an Amendment which he had no part or lot in putting on the Amendment Paper. We have not had one word of explanation of this Amendment, and, if it is going to a Division, and as no one seems to have the courage or capacity to explain it, I shall take this opportunity of voting against it.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 288.

  Division No. 350.]

  AYES.

  [7.48 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

  Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Albery, Irving James

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Boyce, Leslie

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

  Bracken, B.

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

  Balniel, Lord

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Allen, Lt. Col. Sir William (Armagh)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Brass, Captain Sir William

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

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Ashley, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Bellairs, Commander Cariyon

  Broadbent, Colonel J.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

  Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Atkinson, C.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

  Butler, R. A.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

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

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Cadagan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Remer, John R.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R.(Prtimth, S.)

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Reynolds, Col Sir James

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

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

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

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

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Christie, J. A.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Howard, Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Sendeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Savery, S. S.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)

  Crichton, Stuart, Lord C.

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Somerset, Thomas

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Cunllffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Locker Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

  Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

  Lockwood, Captain J. H.

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

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

  Long, Major Hon. Eric

  Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lymington, Viscount

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Thomas, Major L. S. (Kings Norton)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Thompson, Luke

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-t.-M.)

  Margesson, Captain H D.

  Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Faite, Sir Bertram G.

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Train, J.

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Meller, R. J.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Flson, F. G. Clavering

  Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

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

  Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

  Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsfid)

  Withers, Sir John James

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  O'Connor, T. J.

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Womerstey, W. J.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Greene, W. p. Crawford

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Peake, Capt. Osbert

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Penny, Sir George

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Major the Marquess of Titchfield

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  and Sir Victor Warrender.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Brothers, M.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayishirs)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Benson, G.

  Buchanan, G.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Burgess, F. G.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Calne, Hall-, Derwent

  Angell, Sir Norman

  Blindell, James

  Cameron, A. G.

  Arnott, John

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Cape, Thomas

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Bowen, J. W.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S W)

  Ayles, Walter

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Chuter, Daniel

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Church, Major A. G.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Clarke, J. S.

  Barr, James

  Bromfield, William

  Cluse, W. S.

  Batey, Joseph

  Bromley, J.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R

  Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

  Brooke, W.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  526

  527

  Cove, William G.

  Lang, Gordon

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Daggar, George

  Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

  Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Dallas, George

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Ritson, J.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Romeril, H. G.

  Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawson, John James

  Rowson, Guy

  Day, Harry

  Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Leach, W.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Samuel, H. Waiter (Swansea, West)

  Duncan, Charles

  Lees, J.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Leonard, W.

  Sandham, E.

  Edge, Sir William

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Scott, James

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Scurr, John

  Elmley, Viscount

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Sexton, Sir James

  England, Colonel A.

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Longden, F.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Foot, Isaac

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Freeman, Peter

  Lunn, William

  Shield, George William

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Shinwell, E.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  McElwee, A.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  McEntee, V. L.

  Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

  Gibson, H. M, (Lanes, Mossley)

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Gill, T. H.

  McKinlay, A.

  Sinkinson, George

  Glassey, A. E.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Gossling, A. G.

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall. N.)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Gould, F.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  McShane, John James

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Gray, Milner

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Manning, E. L.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Mansfield, W.

  Sorensen, R.

  Groves, Thomas E.

  March, S.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Marcus, M.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Markham, S. F.

  Strauss, G. R

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Marley, J.

  Sullivan, J.

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Marshall, Fred

  Sutton, J. E.

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Mathers, George

  Taylor, R A. (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Matters, L. W.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

  Harbord, A.

  Maxton, James

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

  Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

  Messer, Fred

  Tillett, Ben

  Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

  Mills, J. E.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Harris, Percy A.

  Milner, Major J.

  Toole, Joseph

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Montague, Frederick

  Tout, W. J.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Townend, A. E.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Morley, Ralph

  Vaughan, David

  Hayes, John Henry

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Viant, S. P.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Walkden, A. G.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Mort, D. L.

  Walker, J.

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Muff, G.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Herriotts, J.

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Murnin, Hugh

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D, (Rhondda)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Hollins, A.

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  West, F. R.

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Westwood, Joseph

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Palin, John Henry

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

  Palmer, E. T.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Perry, S. F.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Potts, John S.

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Price, M. P.

  Wise, E. F.

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Kinley, J.

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Kirkwood, D.

  Raynes, W. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Knight, Holford

  Richards, R.

  Mr. Charleton and Mr. Thurtle.

  Question, "That the Clause' be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I select is the last but one on page 2,288 of the Amendment Paper, standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 19, line 39, at the end, to insert the words:
  "(2) No tax shall be chargeable in respect of any land unit for any period during which the unit—

  (a) is used as a park, garden, or open space which is open to the public as of right;

  (b) is used as a churchyard or burial ground;

  (c) is land which is a disused burial ground within the meaning of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, on which no building has been erected."

  This Amendment includes the words "is used as a park, garden or open space."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  8.0 p.m.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: There was a discussion last night with regard to playing-fields, but the Amendment which stood in the names of myself and other Members, not only of any party but above the Gangway and on the other side of the House, was not reached. The Solicitor-General paid little or no attention to it, but devoted practically the whole of his speech to the discussion of an Amendment which was peculiarly open to some of his devastating arguments; but he quite clearly stated his view, and, as we understood it, the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government, that our Amendment was one which the Government themselves viewed with favour. Whatever may have been the figures of the Division on the Amendment which was before the Committee, there is not the slightest doubt that the vast majority of the Committee last night was in favour, not only of the principle, but of most of the details which were included in the two Amendments. In the course of a somewhat confused discussion, varied by an irrelevant point of Order, it was extremely difficult to ascertain what the position was as it was left by the Government. I do not wish to weary the Committee, but would like to remind them of what I said. After the very interesting
  530
  and sympathetic speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), I said, referring to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of tile Exchequer and his statement:
  "The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a conciliatory statement, but I very much fear, unless we carry with us the party above the Gangway, we shall not represent, as one wishes specially to do in a matter of this kind, the House of Commons as a whole."
  My last sentence was this:
  "If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared in effect to accept the Amendment in the name of hon. Members below the Gangway and myself, I shall be delighted to accept that offer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1931; cols. 382–3, Vol. 253.]
  That was the offer of conferring with the Government and, preferably, also with the official Opposition in the House, to see if we could arrive at a concordat on this most important national question. After that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his reply, did not, I am bound to say, display what I hope are his real intentions at their best, if I may put it in that way, and, therefore, the Division which took place did not really represent the feeling of the vast majority of the Committee. It is quite open for either myself and hon. Members with whom I act, or for the right hon. Gentleman, or any other Members above the Gangway, to enter into a conference. That is often a very desirable and, indeed, a necessary part of our procedure, but I would very much prefer, and I am sure the Committee as a whole would prefer, that the Committee, and, indeed, the country, which is deeply interested in this matter, should be put publicly in possession of the real views of the Government with regard to that Amendment. I say that in the interest of the House and of the great object with which we are all concerned. I hope, therefore, that, before the House loses touch with this Clause in Committee, the Solicitor-General or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will inform the Committee of the specific intentions of the Government with regard to this most important matter.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I have just refreshed my memory, while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, as to what was said last night. He spoke of a rather confused discussion, but I really do not

  531
  see that I could have made my position clearer than I did. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, assumed too much just now when he expected that I should accept his Amendment. I made it quite clear last night that, although he had put forward the germ of a solution of this question, I could not accept it in the form in which it appeared on the Paper, and I gave one or two reasons. I pointed out that its effect would be to admit certain organisations which I could not possibly admit. I said I was quite prepared to give an undertaking that between then and the Report stage we would hammer away at the germ of an idea which is in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and see if we could arrive at a form which would be generally satisfactory. With regard to the question of a conference between the three parties in the House, I said I had no objection at all, and I am quite ready within the next few days to meet the right hon. Gentleman, and anyone whom he cares to bring with him, and see if we can arrive at some agreement. As I believe I said last night, I recognise that there is an almost, and perhaps quite, universal feeling in the House in favour of exempting genuine cases, but the Amendment that was considered last night went a great deal further, and as I said then, I am not prepared to exempt racecourses and dog racing, which would certainly be involved if the Amendment were accepted. I say, however, that between now and the Report stage I am open to receive any suggestions, or to meet the right hon. Gentleman or any of his friends and see what we can do to come to an agreement.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: If I may, I would add that what I said was that I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared in effect to accept the Amendment, which still stands on the Paper, and which is not open to any of the objections that the right hon. Gentleman has now stated—not one of them; it is clear of them all.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: May I just point out a verbal matter to the right hon. Gentleman? I think that if he looks at it he will see that paragraph (j) of his Amendment would in fact cover racecourses and dog racing, and what I think
  532
  my right hon. Friend means is that, because of the wide scope of the Amendment, it is really beyond the idea of what is commonly understood by playing fields, and that it is impossible to accept it in this form.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that he is prepared to accept what he calls the germ of the Amendment, but that the Amendment contains some words which in his opinion, and in the opinion of the legal advisers of the Government, might carry the Bill far beyond anything which my right hon. Friend contemplates. He certainly does not desire to cover the case of racecourses and dogs. Therefore, I think there is a great deal to be said for the suggestion that between now and the Report stage—I take it that it will not be very long before we come to the Report stage—there should be an opportunity of discussing the actual draft which is to develop this very admirable germ of an idea which my right hon. Friend has been endeavouring to incorporate in the Bill, and probably in the circumstances the matter has been carried as far as it can be carried. I think, also, that my right hon. Friend is perfectly right in saying that the issue was rather confused last night. No one was quite clear as to what had been said—[Interruption.] At any rate, what the right hon. Gentleman has now said is quite clear, and I think that my right hon. Friend and the rest of us will consider it satisfactory.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: May I ask the Solicitor-General a question? He seems to be banking up a terrific amount of work for the Report stage. May I ask if the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to bring before the House a Motion to alter the Guillotine procedure in order to deal with this enormous amount of work?
  The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss a Guillotine Resolution on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption from death duties in case of land given to National Trust.)
  (1) Where any estate or interest in land—

  (a) is given, devised, or bequeathed by any person to, and so as to become indefeasibly vested in, the National Trust and is held by that Trust inalienably for the public benefit; or

  (b) is given, devised, or bequeathed by any person to, and so as to become indefeasibly vested in, the Commissioners of Works, or a local authority, and accepted by the Commissioners or authority under Section two of the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913;

  the Treasury, may, if that person dies after the commencement of this Act, and the estate or interest was the whole estate or interest of that person in the land, remit any duties leviable on or with reference to the death of that person, and no property the duties in respect of which are remitted under this section shall be aggregated with any other property for the purpose of fixing the rate of any estate duty.
  (2) In this section the expression "National Trust" means the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty incorporated by the National Trust Act, 1907.—[Mr. P. Snowden.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I have put down this Clause in pursuance of a promise which I made last year to consider this matter. It provides that, where any property is left to the National Trust for the public benefit, or so as to be vested in the Commissioners of Works or a local authority under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Act, Death Duties on that property shall be remitted.
  Mr. E. D. SIMOM: I have put down a Clause on behalf of the National Trust to a similar effect. I need hardly say that I heartily welcome the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given exact effect to what we have been asking for, and, on behalf of the National Trust, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman very warmly indeed for having done so, especially at a time like this, when we know how hard it is to get concessions. I am quite satisfied with this concession, and I feel sure that the National Trust also will be satisfied with it.
  Mr. EDE: As one whose name was down to a similar Clause last year, I should like to join my thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for meeting us and to remind him that last year when I prophesied, in response to the reply that he then made, that I should be thanking him this year for doing it, we were met with some derisive comments from hon. Members opposite. I am glad to find that my right hon. Friend is still in his place and I am sure that next year we shall be able to look for-ward to seeing him there still benefiting the public.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW GLAUSE,—(Reduction of land value for purposes of assessment to tax.)
  (1) For the purpose of the charge of the tax, the land value of every land unit not being a unit comprising agricultural land shall be reduced either—

  (a) by a sum equal to four times the annual value of the unit for Income Tax purposes; or

  (b) by a sum equal to seven-eighths of the land value of the unit, whichever is the less.

  (2) For the purposes of any assessment of land value tax the annual value of a land unit for Income Tax purposes shall be taken to be the annual value of the lands, tenements and hereditaments comprised in the unit which has been adopted for the purposes of Income Tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, for the year comprising the first day' of January in the year of charge to which the assessment of land value tax relates:
  Provided that, where the area as respects which the annual value has been so adopted as aforesaid is not co-extensive with the area of the unit, the Commissioners shall make such apportionments of annual value as may be necessary to determine the annual value of the unit and, in the case of lauds, tenements and hereditaments as respects which no such annual value has been so adopted as aforesaid, the annual value shall be taken to be of such amount as may be determined by the Commissioners to be the amount at which the annual value of the lands, tenements and hereditaments would have been assessed for the purposes of the said Schedule if they had been assessed to Income Tax thereunder and in the case of lands, tenements and hereditaments comprising any minerals, if no minerals had been comprised therein.
  (3) For the purposes of the application of this Section to Scotland—

  (a) for the references to lands, tenements and hereditaments there shall be substituted references to lands and heritages;

  535

  (b) where the annual value of any lands and heritages has been assessed on the basis that local rates in respect thereof are payable by the landlord, that value shall, for the purposes of this Section, be reduced to such amount as would have been assessed if those rates had been payable by the occupier.—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This new Clause will not, I think, pass through the Committee with the celerity of the one which has just been incorporated in the Bill. In view of the fact that we are working under restrictions, I shall not occupy more time than is necessary in explaining the Clause and the circumstances that have led to its appearance on the Order Paper. It is to implement a promise that I gave last week to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) that, if no opportunity were given for the discussion of a Clause of a somewhat similar character that stood in his name, the Government would provide such an opportunity. This matter has had a rather chequered career. Amendments, and revised Amendments, and re-revised Amendments dealing with it have appeared in succession on the Paper, and even the Government printers seem to be in a conspiracy against its success. After the welcome that was given to these proposals in the discussion on the Land Tax Resolution and upon the Second Reading of the Bill from the benches below the Gangway, I never expected the opposition that developed a few days later. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), speaking on behalf of the Liberal party, I think on the Second Reading of the Bill, welcomed the land proposals most enthusiastically and expressed his regret that they were of such a moderate character and said his gratification would have been still greater if they had been of a more comprehensive character. The hon. and learned Gentleman said:
  "I can, therefore, understand that to most of the Members on this side of the Gangway and to all the Members on the other side, this Bill is welcome."
  He went on to express the criticism to which I have referred that the Measure was not radical enough to satisfy some of his friends. But it is to some other remarks
  536
  of the hon. and learned Gentleman that I want particularly to draw attention. He said:
  "With regard to the tax itself, I should like to say a few words. Frankly, it is undoubtedly an extra tax and an additional burden upon certain taxpayers.… There is only one justification for this additional tax and that is that it is based on the value of the site which has been created by enterprises other than the enterprise of the owner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1931; col. 1824, Vol. 252.]
  I quote that, because it is quite evident that at that time it was clear in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman that this was an additional tax; in other words, that it was a double tax. And it was also clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Leader, because his attention was drawn in the course of the Debate to this particular point. After having eulogised these proposals, he made a remark which has been very much in my mind during the Debates of the last fortnight, when he solemnly warned me about the ruin that would come to my proposals if I listened to the claims which, no doubt, I should receive for exemption from the tax. The right hon. Gentleman knew quite well that the tax was a double tax. It was to be a tax in addition to Income Tax, These observations were made after hon. Members had been in possession of the Bill for a week and, therefore, they could not have been under any misapprehension at all.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The speech that I made was made on the Resolution, before the Bill was introduced.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, but, as a matter of fact—I do not know whether this is a breach of confidence or not—he had the Bill two or three days before it was introduced.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When I made the speech and said I had not received the Bill or seen it, I had not seen it. I saw it afterwards.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman spoke on the Financial Resolution. Of course that was before the Bill was printed. When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery made his speech Members of the House had been in possession of the text of the Bill for a week, and, therefore, they

  537
  could have been under no misapprehension at all as to what was involved in. these proposals. They understood that it was to be a uniform, flat rate tax, and that it was to be a special tax of a special nature for special reasons. For 40 years the Liberal party had the question of the taxation of land values in the forefront of their programme, and there has never been anything indefinite in the way in which they have presented this question. It has always been in the same phraseology, the Resolution has always been exactly the same Resolution, that a uniform national land tax should be imposed on the capital site value of the whole country. That has been repeated at innumerable conferences, and no Member of the Liberal party has taken such a prominent part in the Debates upon this question at numerous conferences than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean).
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I spoke at a Yorkshire conference once and that must be the one to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. My speech contained one sentence. I know perfectly well what it is, and I am prepared to speak about it at any- time, but the right hon. Gentleman ought not to make a perfectly general statement of that kind which is wholly inaccurate.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten, I think; I referred to a conference of the Liberal party. As a matter of fact, I had not in mind any conference in Yorkshire in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. If he will refresh his memory, he will find that he spoke upon this question at a special land conference that was called and also at conferences, where this question has been raised, of the National Liberal Federation. There can be no doubt what the policy of the Liberal party has been. For instance, I find the case is put admirably in the Town and Land Urban Report of the Liberal Land Committee, which reported in 1925. It said:
  "On account of its peculiar character, the ownership value of land has been viewed in most countries as a fair subject for special taxation.
  If the nation gives secure rights of user of its land, it follows that the value of land is a form of wealth to which the nation has a special claim and which therefore is peculiarly appropriate for taxation."
  538
  It came to me, therefore, as a complete surprise, after those clear declarations and the justification of the double taxation by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire when they suddenly discovered that there was something immoral in this additional tax. And rather than agree with it, they were prepared to die in the last ditch. They discovered that double taxation was something quite alien to our system of taxation. There is nothing new in it. There are innumerable instances of double taxation in our taxation system. You might more appropriately call it treble taxation, because there is taxation under Schedule A, there is taxation for Estate Duty, and then there will be a special tax on land. There are innumerable other instances. Take motor oars. They are subject, I believe, to taxation four times over. You tax the car, you tax the petrol, you tax it by licence and by a driver's licence, and then, on an imported car, you tax him again. He is taxed about five times over. Lastly, arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's legislation in 1909, take the case of mine-owners, who are taxed three times over. They are taxed on profits, taxed on royalties, and taxed for the Miners Welfare Fund. Therefore there is nothing new in this except this difference, that, to use the argument by which the taxation of land values has been supported by the Liberal party, there is a special case here for special taxation.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall put down the Amendment which had such an untimely end. It was an Amendment which could never have been accepted. It would have wrecked the whole Bill. The only thing that would have been left would have been a few patches of land here and there, and probably, if the Amendment had been incorporated in the Bill, they would have been taken out of taxation by the various Amendments we have been considering. After all, there is something to be said for these Liberal Amendments, and there is something in them. It is, that it is unfair to tax land at the same rate whatever may be its degree of undevelopment or development. I quite agree. That is especially applicable or admissible in the initial stages of any tax.

  539
  After the unfortunate experience of those Amendments—if is common property, I am not seeking to shelve or shirk or hide it; it was a perfectly reputable thing to do—we entered into negotiations with the party below the Gangway and a formula was ultimately devised for trying to deal with the point I have mentioned just now, to see whether we can graduate the tax according to the degree of development, so that the person who had spent large sums of money upon the development of a site, and usefully from the point of view of the community, should not be taxed quite so highly as the man who was leaving his land unused and undeveloped. We drafted that formula in the first instance and the discussions ranged—[HON. MEMBERS "Raged?"]—ranged over certain cases and eventually under the capital value of Schedule A, we agreed to a deduction of four times. With that provision we have inserted in this Amendment another condition. The application of a formula pure and simple would have left some developed sites free from taxation altogether, but by this rather ingenious arrangement of a double calculation for purposes of the reduction of land value which we have incorporated in the Amendment, no site however highly developed it may be, will be taxed less than a penny upon the value after the deductions have been made, or in other words less than one-eighth of a penny in the pound of the original site value.
  I will explain how this plan works, and will try to do so as simply as I can, I will take three instances—first of all, that of the undeveloped site. The capital value has been assessed for the site at £1,000. It is practically undeveloped. It is assessed under Schedule A at £10 a year. We multiply that by four and get £40 for the deduction. We have to make a second calculation, and the second calculation is seven-eighths of the capital site value. Seven-eighths of £1,000 is £875, but we have to take the lesser of the two deductions, and therefore in that case we should deduct £40 from the £1,000 and the tax would be levied at one penny in the pound upon £960.
  I take another case where there is a fair amount of development. The capital site value is £1,000, and Schedule A assessment £100. Four times that gives £400. Therefore, £400 is deducted from
  540
  the £1,000. We have to make the second calculation before we come to a decision, namely, the seven-eighths of £1,000, that is £875. £400 is less than £875, and therefore the deduction would be £400, and a man would be taxed at one penny in the pound on £600. The last case is one of a very fully developed site. £1,000 is the site value under Schedule A, assessment £250. Four times that is £1,000. Of course, if £1,000 were deducted, there would be nothing at all. But then the other calculation comes in of seven-eighths, and we deduct £875, and that leaves £125 to be assessed at a penny in the pound. That is equal to one-eighth of a penny upon the whole of the site value. I hope that I have succeeded in making the purpose plain. That is how it works.
  Let us see how far the principle of the 40-year-old Liberal programme has been maintained. In all the conversations that I have had with the party below the Gangway on this subject my main concern has been to save the soul of the Liberal party and to bring back to the fold those wanderers who have strayed and erred like lost sheep. Under this new Clause every land unit, except such as are specially exempted, will pay a tax of 1d. in the pound on the value, after the deductions have been made. The rate of the whole value will gradually fall according to the degree of development, and in the most extreme cases it will pay a tax of one-eighth of a penny. Therefore, we get a tax upon every site value, varying according to the degree of development. It will be a special tax, an additional tax, and, if you like, a double tax.
  The second object of the Bill is the valuation. That remains intact, untouched. I have said, I believe more than once, that I look upon this proposal of valuation and of taxation as being a step forward in a comprehensive scheme for transferring local rates from improvements to site value. Therefore, the amount of the tax initially does not matter very much. Future Parliaments will settle that. Probably when the time comes for dealing with local rating on that basis a complete revision may be necessary in the scheme of national taxation. I submit that all the principles upon which the Bill is based remain unimpaired. The Liberal party can look the

  541
  whole world in the face and say that their 40-year-old programme has now been carried into effect. I said at the beginning that I would briefly explain the new Clause as far as I could, and I hope that I have made it plain. Therefore, I submit it for the approval of the Committee.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having redeemed his promise, not that I have ever had any doubt, because whenever he has made a promise I must say, whatever the way in which he redeems it, he does redeem it, and it is the substance that matters and not the form. He has introduced a new method—new during the 41 years that I have been in Parliament—of making concessions. He has been perfectly original in that respect. I have seen Ministers belonging to the party above the Gangway, to the party of which I am a member, and to the party of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is such a distinguished ornament, and up to the present when a Government or a Minister has made a concession it has always been done graciously, to create the impression that, whether you are getting something or not, at any rate they were giving something away. The right hon. Gentleman has adopted a totally different method. His method is to make it as offensively and as disagreeably as he possibly can, and there is no doubt about his capacity in that direction. I daresay there is a good deal to be said for it. The right hon. Gentleman wants to discourage people from asking for concessions, and he has taken probably, what he thinks is the right way. It is a dangerous way for a Minister. Ministers of longer experience than he have always come to the conclusion that that was not the way.
  I remember that when I first came to this House there was a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was very famous for having a pretty rough tongue in private. He was a distinguished member of the party above the Gangway, and a great Minister. I refer to Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. When he came to the House of Commons he adopted quite a different method, and he was a very successful Parliamentarian for that reason. It was part of my duty when I was a young Member rather to obstruct. In those days, people
  542
  did that sort of thing. It is an old and an obsolete Parliamentary weapon, but in those days we did it. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach always used to get up and try to persuade us. He would make little concessions and try to give us the impression that we were getting something and that he was making a great concession. The result was that he was a very good man at getting Bills through. This may be a better method, but may I just give a word of advice, as Father of the House, to young Members who are looking forward to becoming Ministers in their time? On the whole, I would advise them to follow the method of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach in public, whatever they may do in private. However, I am not going to deal further with what seems to be the method of reluctance and indignation adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in having to make a concession. The concession has been made, and I am grateful for it.
  I will say a few words in regard to what he said about our having departed from the line that we have taken before. I can answer him. I took the trouble to look at the report of the Conference to which he referred, the great Land Conference at which were adopted certain Resolutions on land generally, and at which the land Values resolution was moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). He made a very strong speech upon the subject and the attitude he adopted was pretty well the attitude that we have adopted in the negotiations with the right hon. Gentleman. But it is immaterial what either our attitude or the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman was. We have arrived at an arrangement which, on the whole, I think is good. The right hon. Gentleman has not had the whole of his way. If anyone doubts that, he has only to read his speech. On the other hand, we have not had the whole of our way. That is the very essence of all arrangements. It may be said that we have departed from a certain principle to a certain extent, but the right hon. Gentleman has done the same thing. That is the way legislation is carried through this House, that is the way in which government is carried on in any decent democracy, and especially in a democracy like our own which is the only one that has made a real success

  543
  of democratic institutions over a long period.
  I understand an Amendment is to be moved later which will challenge the essence of this Amendment, and in that case I propose to reserve what I have to say until we reach that proposal. All I wish to do now is to thank the right hon. Gentleman for redeeming his promise. It is true that he has been more successful as regards the question of draftsmanship, but it must be remembered that he has at his disposal not merely one of the most distinguished member of the Bar but all the resources of the Government, and there is a great difference between his position and the position of an Opposition, although it may have the services of a very eminent lawyer. It is a litle ungenerous, therefore, to criticise an Amendment of an Opposition in those circumstances. In substance, we are agreed. For the moment, I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for having moved this Amendment and redeemed their promise; and I shall await the moving of the subsequent Amendment to defend the principle of this proposal.
  Sir ROBERT HORNE: I do not think the Committee can part with the Second Reading of this new Clause without taking note of the very extraordinary circumstances in which the Debate takes place. We were led to believe only a fortnight ago that the country had arrived at a critical situation and that the position of the Government was in peril. A compromise has been arrived at, and one would not have paid much attention to the particular terms of the compromise were it not for the fact that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has not only made modifications upon the general arrangement, but has completely given up the principle upon which he said he was going to stand. I am not surprised at the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in regard to the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in defending this Clause. I have rarely seen so much truculence exhibited on the part of a Minister who had made an arrangement with an opponent, but perhaps his truculence was justified by his confidence that no matter what he said or did, no matter what insults he
  544
  poured on the Liberal party, it would not goad them into an opposition which would unseat him.
  Upon what principle is this new Clause based? It is based upon a theory that in some way or another by taking four times the annual value of a particular tenement of land as assessed under Schedule A of the Income Tax Acts you will arrive at some idea of the extent to which that tenement has been developed. The Liberal principle was that there should be no double taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes, as I understand him, that some notice shall be taken of the amount of development taking place on a tenement and that allowance shall be made in the taxation in respect of that development. I must point out to the Committee that the principle which has been adopted for the purpose of giving this allowance is irregular in its method, is uneven in its operation, and has no foundation in reason upon which it can be defended.
  Let me take an illustration to show how the principle at once breaks down. It entirely depends upon the value of buildings put up on a particular site as to whether a sufficient allowance is granted or not. If the buildings are expensive, then you may take from the site value a figure which may be high enough to equal the whole of the capital value of the site upon which the buildings are erected. But a site may be completely developed for its purpose and yet have buildings of very small value upon it. Take the case of public works, engineering works or shipbuilding works. The buildings are of small value as a rule compared with the buildings you have on sites in the centre of our great cities. In the case of a shipyard you will have no adequate allowance at all, while you may possibly have an adequate allowance in the case of shops and establishments, which certainly do not deserve more consideration at the present time than our great industrial organisations. So much for the principle.
  Let me give the Committee one or two illustrations of sites completely developed in the city of Glasgow to show how this multiplication by four works out. I take a property in St. Vincent Street in the centre of Glasgow. The site value, under the arrangements which were made in previous

  545
  legislation, is estimated at £6,774. The assessable rental under Schedule A is £217 5s., which multiplied by four gives you £869 as against a site value of £6,774, in respect of a unit of land in the middle of the city of Glasgow which is completely developed and covered. How can it be said that any proper or adequate allowance is being made in such a case?
  Mr. GRAY: Can the right hon. Member give us the present value of the site?
  Sir R. HORNE: The site value is £6,774, and the total value of the tenement and buildings is £15,000, and you have a figure of £869 to be deducted from a site value of £6,774, although the land is covered with substantial buildings of four storeys high and is used according to the best method in which it can be used. I take another case in West George Street, in Glasgow, where the site value is £7,300. The assessable value is £330, which multiplied by four gives you £1,320 to be deducted from a site value of £7,300. That, again, is a case where the land is entirely covered by appropriate buildings for its use, and yet you have the great difierence between the amount of the site value and the deduction proposed under the Clause, as well as a great disparity between what is to be deducted in the one case and in the other. I could give the Committee a number of cases of the same kind to show that this principle cannot be worked out upon any fair basis or arrive at any results which do not show amazing discrepancies as between one ease and another, although they may be contiguous properties in the same street. I suggest that we should not give adherence to a principle which operates so fantastically.
  I would like to say a word or two about the point of view which the Liberal party took up in this matter. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs went up to Scotland and made speeches there. In Edinburgh there was perhaps a more stimulating air than he enjoys in Southern England. He could not have said that his foot was exactly on his native heath, but at least it was on a soil which tends to lead to accuracy and inspiration and also to some element of courage. Upon that occasion the line
  546
  that the right hon. Gentleman took was that this was entirely an unjust form of taxation. He pointed out that although a penny was a rather small thing it was a little bit bigger than it appeared, and he added that, being a penny on the capital value, it represented 1s. 8d. of the annual value. Then he referred to the iniquity of a person being obliged to pay 4s. 6d. in Income Tax under Schedule A. and 1s. 8d. in addition. He made reference to an objection which is certainly very strong. He said the proposal would penalise improvements. Yet we have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day that the justification for the modification that he is making is that he must encourage improvements. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs thinks the proposals will penalise improvements, as they indeed will.
  Next the right hon. Gentleman went on, progressing still further in the ardour of his arguments, and said, "We will not levy a tax twice over," and that was the principle upon which he finished. He said it would be entirely unjust, and added, "We mean to stand by it, whatever the consequences may be." Then he gave a somewhat pathetic account of the ignominies which the Liberal party had suffered in keeping the Government in power and in consenting to methods of procedure which went very much against the grain, and he said that Liberals were entitled to consideration on that account; accordingly that if the Government insisted upon its attitude the Liberal party would be adamant upon this question.
  The right hon. Gentleman came back to London; he came to the more enervating atmosphere of this House, and I have no doubt at all that he was subject to the mellifluous influence of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). No doubt he felt also the difficulties in which many of his colleagues might find themselves if anything were to happen to compel the Government to go to an election. The result was the series of negotiations to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred; and the further result has been what we have seen to-day. So far as the Liberal party is concerned it ended in producing an Amendment which consisted of a jumble of words which no

  547
  one could interpret or make sense of. That only exhibited the confusion in which their minds were. Now we have the Amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which departs entirely from the principle upon which the Liberal party said they were going to stand, no matter what the consequences might be. It is true that the amount of the tax has been brought down from a penny to one-eighth of a penny, but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, future Parliaments will look after that figure. The figure matters nothing so far as this Amendment is concerned. No doubt necessity, or supposed necessity, will induce some future Parliament to make one-eighth of a penny into a penny or ultimately a shilling. The words in the Clause are, "not less than one-eighth of a penny," which is a very sinister expression, when we consider the principle for which the Liberal party was to stand. We ought to protest against the idea of passing the Second Reading of a Clause constructed upon no principle which can be reasonably explained—a Clause which departs entirely from that sound principle upon which the Liberal party found itself and from which it has now run away.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: After the speech of the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), I am not sure whether he is disappointed or not at the Government having proposed this Amendment. I understood that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of the Conservative party were opposed to this tax in any shape or form, and that they were determined, come what may, that not a penny, not a fraction of a penny, should be levied upon site value. Now apparently there is disappointment at the fact that we have shown a way in which at any rate the full penny will not be levied on fully developed sites. We have shown that way, and because it did not occur to the right hon. Gentleman he has expressed his disappointment. As to the way in which this Amendment was proposed, let me remind the Committee that the Liberal party throughout has been in favour of taxation of site values. For 40 years the party has had this matter upon its programme. The Liberal party has also been in favour of a complete
  548
  valuation. When I spoke on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill I welcomed the fact that the Chancellor was proposing once again to tax site values, but I expressed disappointment that the valuation was an incomplete valuation, and that the Chancellor was not following the true line of the true tax valuer. The true tax valuer has always said that there should be no tax upon improvements, and that there should be one tax and one tax only on site values.
  This, as I have admitted, is an additional tax so long as Schedule A remains a part of the financial programme of this country. The right thing to have done was to have introduced this as a separate and complete tax, and to have abolished Schedule A altogether. Schedule A is not a true Income Tax. It is levied upon hypothetical valuation of the land as between a hypothetical landlord and a hypothetical tenant. It is levied not only on improvements, but upon the site—the positional value of the ground upon which the buildings and improvements have to be. In that respect and to that extent it is an annual tax upon a particular site. If the site is a fully developed site the tax will amount, roughly, to about 2½d. in the pound of capital value. If the site is undeveloped the tax will amount to only a fraction of a penny. In that way it taxes unfairly the fully developed site and does not tax properly the undeveloped site.
  This was meant to be an additional tax, and I said so frankly when speaking in this House. So that it would have meant, left as it was in the Bill, a tax upon the fully developed site of an additional penny, with 2½d. already paid, bringing the amount paid in respect of the land up to 3½d. in the pound on the capital value. On the undeveloped land it would have meant 1d. plus a fraction, so that, again, undeveloped land would escape at the expense of the fully developed land. That being so, I put down an Amendment which aimed at this result—that the land paying tax under Schedule A should have the credit of such payment so that it would not have to pay, over and above that, a full 1d. The result would have been that fully developed land would escape this tax altogether; that under-developed land would have had to pay a portion of it, and that

  549
  undeveloped land would have to pay practically the whole of it. That was the purpose of the first Amendment, and I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead should have referred to the way in which the Amendment appeared for the second time on the Order Paper. I think it was rather ungenerous of a member of my own profession to accuse a fellow-member of that profession of faults which were obviously due to a printer's error. What happened was this. The first Amendment was certainly in order and in its right place——
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member may think that, but he must not assert it.
  Mr. DAVIES: I apologise. I was not referring to the Amendment which was ruled out of order. I was only referring to the one which wag on the Paper and Was withdrawn. That Amendment which was on the Paper and was withdrawn, was to Clause 20 of the Bill. It was an Amendment which allowed the tax to be assessed in full but having allowed the tax to be assessed in full—and thus followed the desires of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, in preserving the tax—it provided that before the tax was actually paid, allowance should be made in respect of such amount as has already been paid by the land under Schedule A. The Chancellor of the Exchequer saw fit to refer to negotiations which took place between Members who sit on these benches and himself and other Members of the Government. There was one phrase which he used in that connection with which I would agree. It was a misuse of a word by the right hon. Gentleman but it was a true representation of what took place. The right hon. Gentleman meant to say that the discussion "ranged" over certain matters, but I think what he actually said was that the discussion "raged," and the discussion was a raging one as far as he was concerned, because he realised that the Amendment which we were putting forward was a just Amendment, and that it had to be met.
  There was only one objection to it and that was a real objection, an objection in substance, namely, that it would involve a double valuation. There was the valuation which would have to be made under the Bill to ascertain the site value.
  550
  and there was the second valuation which would then have to be made, under that Amendment, to ascertain what the site paid in respect of Schedule A. That would have meant expense and delay and in order to avoid the double valuation it was suggested—and since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has claimed that the form now put forward was invented by his colleagues, I may say that it was the invention of the Solicitor-General himself, who put it forward in order to avoid double valuation, but the express object of both forms was the same—that those who paid fully on the site under Schedule A, should no longer be called on to pay more under this tax, while those who paid less than they ought to pay under Schedule A, namely, the owners of under-developed or undeveloped land, should pay in proportion and in a proper proportion.
  The only discussion which took place between us was as to the proper multiple to use. The multiple suggested by them was two; the multiple which we fought for was that which experience has taught every valuer in the land is the proper one in respect of fully developed land, namely, four. [Interruption.] Every valuer of experience will tell hon. Members that usually a building is worth four times the value of the site. [HON. MEMBERS: "Five times!"] Well, five times. If the buildings and improvements are properly valued under Schedule A, the multiple which we have chosen will thus exempt the fully developed land from the further payment of this tax. It is purely arbitrary, I quite agree, but it is the nearest multiple that we can obtain which will not involve any injustice to anybody, and it will, at any rate, avoid the enormous expense to the country of another valuation. But the ultimate object both of this Amendment and of the Amendment which was first put on the Paper, is exactly the same and I hope that experience will show that, in insisting upon this, we have achieved the object which we set out to achieve. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway do not think so, why did they not put down again the Amendment which I had upon the Order Paper in the first instance? They might have put it down to Clause 20 at that time but they did not choose to do so.

  551
  With regard to the one-eighth, I agree that that was a concession to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted every fully developed site—not merely the underdeveloped or the undeveloped but the fully developed site also—to bear the same tax and in order to meet him we agreed to what we thought would amount to no more than a nominal tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, a nominal tax where the land is properly valued and properly paying under Schedule A and where it is a fully developed site; and if it is paying more than a nominal tax it means that the owner has already been escaping his due share under Schedule A. But it is no more than an acknowledgment that every site should bear a site value tax and it is only intended as such. It is for that reason that we put down the Amendment which has now been accepted by the Government and has now been proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer although somewhat ungraciously.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) on making a very interesting historical survey of the steps which have led up to the Clause, the Second Reading of which has been moved this evening. My hon. and learned Friend played a very distinguished part in those discussions, and I think the Committee are beholden to him for his statement. I cannot say as much about the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Never was a more graceless, grudging speech made than that which he delivered this evening. I do not know what effect he calculated it would have upon the enemy, but it has certainly frightened some of my hon. Friends here. I do not see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any reasonable man, can hope to enlist sympathy for his proposals, if that is the spirit in which they are to be advocated. His speech was, first to last, a suppressio veri and a suggestio falsi. He said that the principle of an additional tax upon land values had been in the Liberal programme for the last 40 years. That is not the case. It never has been the case, and I trust never will be the case, and not only is it not in the policy of the Liberal party, but it has never been in the policy of a single land
  552
  taxer. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), who is such an authority upon these matters, on the very day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his proposal said:
  "I want to remind him of this fact—it must have escaped his memory—that it was agreed that if anything was paid by any landowner in respect of his land under Schedule A, he would be relieved to the extent of an equivalent amount if a land tax was imposed upon him."
  He made that statement several times in the course of his speech, and he said quite distinctly that it was understood that remissions would be given under Schedule A for the exact amount of this tax. He said indeed that that was the superiority of this tax over the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in 1909, that they were going to remove taxation from industry' and to begin by imposing taxation on laud values instead; so that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down here and says that it has been the principle of land taxation for 40 years to treat the new impost as an additional one, he cannot have been paying attention to the hon. Member for Burslem, nor can he have read the great and luminous works of his master, Mr. Henry George.
  I happen to have here what is considered to be the Bible of the land taxers. It is called "Progress and Poverty," by Mr. Henry George. The whole case for land taxation is based upon dissatisfaction with the present system of taxation. If it were not for the evil effects which were thought to ensue from the present system of taxation, none of these proposals of Mr. Henry George would ever have seen the light of day. He attributed every single human misery to taxation upon improvements. He seeks to prove it at considerable length, in a considerable number of works, and with very great eloquence. He says, in effect: "If I build myself a house, and I show industry and energy in building it, the tax collector comes down upon me and penalises me because of my industry. That is all wrong. You must take the tax off improvements and place it upon the site value." He says, in Chapter I of Book IX of this learned work:
  "To abolish the taxation which, acting and reacting, now hampers every wheel of exchange and presses upon every form of industry, would be like removing an immense weight from a powerful spring."

  553
  He says the same sort of thing in varying language throughout the whole work. He says:
  "To shift the burden of taxation from production and exchange to the value or rent of land would not merely be to give useful new stimulus to the production of wealth; it would be to open new opportunities."
  That is the whole theme of the land taxer, and has been so for many years, even before Mr. Henry George. It was the physiocrats at the time of the French Revolution who advocated what they called l'impêt unique, and they based their claim for this new tax from first to last on the evil effect of taxing improvements, which, they said, discouraged enterprise and ingenuity and brought about all the sorrows to which the modem world is heir. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to find a short cut to the Millennium, he cannot do better than take off the Income Tax altogether, and every other tax upon industry, and substitute the proposals of this work. He will then see, as Mr. Henry George tells him he will see, that poverty will be abolished, that everybody will have a happy home, that war will be banished from the thoughts of men, that there will be international peace and good will, and that everybody will enjoy the fruits of their industry in comfort and in happiness.
  Mr. JAMES HUDSON: Has what the hon. Member is now saying about the single tax been the policy of the Liberal party for the last 40 years?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I never received such a thrill in my life since I read "Labour and the Nation." I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem, who has devoted the whole of his working life, I understand, to the advocacy of this proposal—and I think the House is indebted to him for the lucidity with which he has expounded it, for only yesterday he said that the idea of this tax was that it should be a substitute for existing taxation—I asked him where I could obtain, in a compendious form, an explanation of what this tax really involves, and my hon. Friend was kind enough to send me, or to have sent to me, a little book called "Land-Value Policy," by a former Member of this House, Mr. James Dundas White. What does he say, and what does he gay repeatedly, because all land taxers
  554
  repeat themselves, just as historians do? He says:
  "The policy of taxing and rating landed properties on the real value of the lands is bound up with that of untaxing improvements. The two reforms are complementary to one another. The first would make the natural opportunities available for use on fair terms, and the second would promote their development."
  There is no doubt about it here. What you put on by way of land tax you must remit by way of Income Tax. I was interrupted just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson), who takes charge of these proceedings during the unfortunate absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am grateful to him for putting me the question. He said, "What about the Liberal party?" In doing that, he was only echoing his master.
  Mr. J. HUDSON: No, the interruption was to ask whether what the hon. Member was saying about the single tax had been the policy of the Liberal party for the last 40 years.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly. The 40 years' policy of the Liberal party has been to remit Income Tax and put on a land tax.
  Mr. HUDSON: Not to remit it, but to remove it entirely.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Chancellor of the Exchequer may well behave like Pilate and ask "What is truth?" and refuse to wait for an answer, but I ask my hon. Friend to give me an opportunity to answer him. Naturally, as a Liberal, I would not——[HON. MEMBERS: "As a what?"]. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that the privilege of criticising the Government is a monopoly enjoyed by them. I naturally would not rely exclusively on the tomes which I have quoted. I naturally had recourse to the literature of the Liberal publication department, and this is a published pamphlet on the subject which will answer my hon. Friend's question. It is written by that eminent publicist, Mr. Harold Storey, and he says:
  "This (new tax) is, for the most part, a new method of assessment for purposes of revenue, and not an additional imposition. It would be paid by the people who now pay Income Tax on income derived from the ownership of land, and in their case it would be in substitution for that part of their Income Tax."

  555
  He then sets out a table on the next page as follows:
  "New national land values tax—£52,000,000"—
  I think there he was a little optimistic—
  "deduct present tax paid on income from ownership of land (say) £24,000,000—surplus of £28,000,000."
  He deducts the whole of the Schedule A receipts from this tax. This is a pamphlet which is circulated to every Liberal in every constituency. Why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should so far suppress the real facts as to suggest to the small minority of hon. Members in this House who are not acquainted with the intricacies of this subject, that this tax was to be an additional one and that that was the Liberal policy, I cannot understand, any more than I can understand his general revocation of his faith upon every one of the taxes in this Budget, including the Petrol Tax. This, then, is the central principle of Liberal policy, as it has been of land taxation also from its inception—there shall not be a double tax. We have asserted that again and again. I was prepared to accept this new Clause in its present form, because I understood there was some technical reason why a token tax ought to be imposed, but when I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer I was informed that that was not the case. The reason for this additional tax, he explained, was in order that the principle of double taxation might be affirmed. In view of what the Chancellor has said, is there one Liberal who adheres to the policy of his party who would go in support of him in the Lobby to-night? Why, the protest against double taxation was made in very, very firm and undoubting language by my leader, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who said that it was a matter of conscience. How then could we support this Clause except by giving life to the old adage that
  "Conscience does make cowards of us all."
  Mr. MORRIS: The powerful speech which the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) has delivered puts the case of the Liberal party quite clearly. This Amendment was first of all put on the Paper as a protest against the principle of double taxation. That was the reason why it was placed there at all.
  556
  That reason was reaffirmed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at Edinburgh, and reaffirmed there in an unmistakable way. He said we were prepared to stand or fall by it. I, for one, have very great admiration for the tenacity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is a man who knows exactly where he stands, and he gets his way. He has got his way in regard to this Amendment—practically the whole way. He has achieved it by the imposition of one-eighth of a penny tax in order to reaffirm the principle of double taxation. That is not the only thing he has done. I agree with what has been said by another hon. Member in regard to fully developed land, that a comparison is being made between Schedule A and the principle of this tax. The whole fallacy arises from comparing the two taxes, one with the other, by taking Schedule A and setting that off against the tax which is intended to be imposed under the Bill. Actually Schedule A has nothing whatever to do with the tax proposed under this Bill. To set out and subtract, in this form or any other form, the impost under Schedule A from the tax proposed, is like trying to subtract Thursday from the North Pole. It is upon a totally different basis.
  As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir E. Home) pointed out in the perfectly valid illustration he gave, in London and the Provinces, and far more in the Provinces, a great portion of the valuation would fall not to one-eighth of a penny tax, but the full 1d. tax on the greater amount of the assessment. You have the case given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer where the capital value was £1,000. The value under Schedule A was £10. Four times £10 is £40 and that, taken away from the £1,000 is £960. That will fall to be taxed not at one-eighth of a penny, but for the full 1d. tax. The remaining £40 falls under the one-eighth of a penny. It will come in for the whole 1d. tax, so that the concession actually made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is practically valueless. No one who believes that the principle of double taxation is a wrong principle can possible support this proposal. No one who has said that this is a matter of conscience can possibly support it, and for that reason I hope it will not be carried.
  Mr. MacLAREN: I apologise to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) for not being present when he opened his speech, but I gathered from the tail end of it that he was having a night of revelry, and, apparently, he had been quoting from what he had discovered in a book 40 years ago written by Henry George. I hope that those other members of the Liberal party will show the same assiduity and enterprise, and will also secure a copy, or I will send them one. I know something of the Liberal party; indeed, I knew a good deal of it in the old days when the fight was on before. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at the outset of the campaign, was extremely anxious, irrespective of double or treble taxation, to have his valuation and tax operating in the Budget of 1909–10. He went out into the country, and I wish his example was copied by some of the Leaders of our Front Bench. He fired the imagination of the people for the land tax. He made the people sing, "God gave the land to the people," but something happened inside the Liberal party itself to make the new tax quite abortive.
  I well remember a cave forming inside the Liberal party led by one of the most prominent and influential members. They came to the right hon. Gentleman and told him, "If you dare to go forward with your penny tax on the value of land, there will be disruption in the party." I remember, even as late as 1912, that three by-elections were pending, and the late Lord Oxford was rather wondering what would happen to the fortunes of his party, because by that time the bureaucratic proposals of unemployment insurance had been transplanted from Germany into England, and the stock was going down. There were three by-elections, and what did the Liberal party do then? It is all very well now for the hon. Member for Devon-port to stand, in his youth and sublime arrogance, and repeat——[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Let me tell the Committee what happened. When the stock was falling there were three by-elections, at North-West Norfolk, Holmfirth, and Hanley. They came to the single taxer and the Henry George men, and asked whether we would go forward and fight the by-elections, and if we won, then they would be very much surprised at the
  558
  strength of the policy. I went forward into the fight. I took part in three elections, and we won those three elections.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: The hon. Member cannot expect the Committee to accept his interpretation of that. I was in the by-elections.
  Mr. MacLAREN: It came to such a point that Lord Oxford, who was then Prime Minister, became afraid of the intimidating influences of the caucus in his party, and he stood at that Box and told the country that there were no Henry George men in the Cabinet. I am saying this to remind the Liberal party that their leader in those days was more aggressive in handling the policy of Henry George than some of his followers are here to-night. The Liberal party gradually sank into the position in which it finds itself to-day from the moment that they were false to the principles with which they had fired the people in 1909–10. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) and a few others have been looming before the country as the men who have been drafting this Clause because of a remark I dropped about Schedule A when I was speaking in the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Arrogance!"] I have nothing to swank about, because I want to put the Committee right about this. The proposition that this Amendment was built on anything I said is an entirely false conception. What I wanted the Committee to understand when I was speaking was that if a tax was levied on the value of the land and was in full operation, regard would have to be had for what was happening under Schedule A.
  The Liberal party, swift and keen to come into the picture somehow, although the leader of the party had told the Chancellor to make no concessions, and warned him against making any exemptions, ran upstairs and had a party meeting. They drafted their Amendment no less than five times. Finally, the great Edinburgh speech was made because the leader of the party was wholly unconscious of the anxiety running through his own party in London. They were going to hold fast to the principle of no double taxation. I put this to the Liberal Members of the House. For years the Liberal party have advocated the

  559
  local rating of land values. Since 1906, when Campbell Bannerman was determined to lead the party in that policy, the party stood for the rating of land values. I ask any hon. Gentleman on the Liberal benches if he can show me any document in which it is stated that, if the rating of land values were introduced, any regard would be had to Schedule A.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I read the passage from the Liberal pamphlet.
  Mr. MacLAREN: The hon. Gentleman was speaking about taxation. I am speaking about local rating.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This passage that I have read says exactly the same thing, that
  "the tax, like the rate, is not an additional burden."
  Mr. MacLAREN: When was that pamphlet published?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In 1927.
  Mr. MacLAREN: Since 1906—and I know the literature of the Liberal party on this question upside down—— [Laughter.] I give hon. Members the pleasure of that, because it will be the best joke they will have to-night. I know the literature on this matter from A to Z, and at no point was there ever in the literature, nor in the published speeches made by the leaders of the Liberal party to the effect that if the rating of land values was in full swing any regard would ever be had to Schedule A. Indeed, it would have been nothing short of a farce if any responsible statesman in this House had proposed some new system of rating and land values and had adjusted local rating in relation to something in national taxation. This talk of double taxation is a new idea. Taxes fall upon consumable subjects, and the average man is taxed on his beer and on his tobacco, and he is taxed 10 or perhaps 20 times on the things that he consumes. Men pay Super-tax and Income Tax and there are any number of instances of more taxes than one falling on the same subject. Suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, thinking back on the old days when he had the mass of the people behind him, as he often must think, were at this Box and endeavouring to get through
  560
  the valuation of the land of this country. Does any Liberal suggest that in the transitional period between the time that the valuation was being made and when the first tax upon the valuation was achieved, there would not be a large element of double taxation? Of course there would be, and all this talk about double taxation is so much political window-dressing.
  I was surprised to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Devonport, because if there ever were a real democrat on the Liberal benches it is he, and I am astonished that he should have taken up such a reactionary attitude. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to give way on this question, he has won a greater victory- than many men and women in the country appreciate, because he has had to stand almost single-handed against intrigue and all sorts of forces trying to drag him down. He stands here to-night victorious on the great principle that the valuation of the land will remain intact and it will not go down to history that the Liberal party aided him in this most gallant fight. When I joined the Labour party I thought there would be no vested interests in the party. I thought at one time that inside the Liberal party there would be no vested interests, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs knows that when he was endeavouring to press this matter as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was intimidated by reactionary forces inside the Liberal party itself. Therefore, although I did not hear all the speech of the hon. Member for Devonport, I suggest to him that if he goes back into the history of his own party it will bring him round to a saner idea of what the politics of this principle really mean, and I hope that he will live long enough to join in the plaudits of the people who will look back upon this proposition, the proposition of making the value of this land known to the people of this country, untaxing the products of labour and bringing to bear the hammer of taxation upon this historic anomaly of land monopoly.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

  561
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put accordingly, and agreed to.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in line 1, after the word "tax," to insert the words "and for the better avoidance of double taxation."
  This Amendment must be read in conjunction with the Amendment at the foot of the page—In line 2, leave out the word "either"—and the Amendment at the head of the following page—In line 4, to leave out from the word "purposes" to the end of the Sub-section. The effect of the three Amendments taken together would be to leave out paragraph (b) in the first Sub-section of the Chancellor's Clause. The fact that we have allowed the Clause to pass its Second Reading without challenge does not mean that we have in any way abated our hostility to the proposals which the Clause proceeds to modify. Our opposition to the proposals as a whole is the same as it has been throughout, and when the time comes to move that the Clause be added to the Bill we shall go into the Lobby against it; but we have been anxious for an opportunity of moving this Amendment, and did not desire to take up time with unnecessary Divisions. There is another point we should like to draw attention to, and may have the opportunity of doing so before the Guillotine falls. I refer to the multiplier in paragraph (a) of this same Sub-section. Although this Amendment has no reference to that multiplier I do not wish it to be supposed that in our opinion four times the annual value is the proper figure to take.
  But leaving that aside for the moment, I come to the real purpose of the Amendment I have moved. Its purpose is to go as far as possible in the direction of putting a stop to double taxation. Although we Strongly opposed the proposals for land taxation from the first moment when we were aware of their nature, I think I am right in saying that it was not our party which laid particular emphasis upon the question of double taxation. If we have a characteristic as a party it is, I think, that we do not so much regard theory as practice, and that
  562
  we approach the consideration of any new proposal from the realist's point of view and not necessarily from the point of view of whether it conflicts or accords with some theory. The characteristic of the Liberal party is that they are particularly concerned with theory, and it is an illustration of that point of view that they fixed at once—well, not at once perhaps; I am going too fast. Their first reaction was that there was nothing wrong with the proposals, except that they did not go far enough, but after they had had time to take in the contents of letters they received from their constituents they had recourse to theory, and they pitched upon the question of double taxation. They stated that the principle of double taxation was one to which they could never give their adherence, that the principle of single taxation was violated by these proposals, and that they themselves were prepared to fight for that principle at all costs. They followed that up by putting down an Amendment the purpose of which was to carry into effect the principle to which they had declared their adherence. Their Amendment provided that the Land Tax should be assessed, but that after it Shad been assessed the tax payable under Schedule A should be deducted from the amount of the Land Tax. Therefore if it were equal to or greater than the amount of the assessment to the Land Tax, there would be nothing to pay at all.
  Whatever may be thought of that Amendment, at any rate it did carry out the principle. If I may so describe it, it was an honest Amendment, one about which there was no mistake. It definitely secured the principle that there should not be double taxation. Therefore, I am not surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been astonished at the extraordinary tergiversations of the Liberal party, although I think his astonishment was directed to their earlier reversal of policy rather than to the one which took place after they had had conversations with him. In my opinion, the first Amendment of the Liberal party represented the only honest course for a party to take which had laid down its adherence to the principle of single taxation. They have now—or some of them have—apparently given in to a new proposal which is no longer in accordance

  563
  with the principle they had themselves laid down, which, in fact, directly contravenes that principle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his opening speech on this subject this evening, stated that double taxation was nothing new. He gave instances from existing taxation to show that more than one tax was placed upon a particular article or upon a particular form of income. That is true, and; yet I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer's analogies were false analogies, and that there is a definite and separable principle which may be extracted from the case of the Land Tax and tax under Schedule A. What is the Income Tax? The Income Tax, whether under Schedule A or another Schedule, is, in effect, the measure of a man's ability to contribute towards the expenditure of the country. Having assessed ability, and put upon it a tax which carries out and puts into Operation that ability to pay, you have no right to double that tax.
  Therefore, I cannot agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that because there are various taxes for instance, placed upon the man who uses a motor car, that is a fair analogy with the double tax involved in this tax. In their struggles to try and make it consistent with what they said a little while ago, I gather that the Liberal party are going to argue, although in fact they have given away the principle, that the transgression is only a small one. I do not think that I ever heard a more merciless exposure of the Liberal party than that to which they were subjected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not wonder that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said that this was a new way of making concessions, because they have had their faces fairly rubbed in the mud. I do not see how they can pretend for a moment that they have saved the principle of their original Amendment. What is now proposed is rather an ingenious arrangement which has entrapped the Members of the Liberal party by providing, in the Chancellor's words, that "there will be a tax on every site value, or to put it in another way, that we still get the double tax." No wonder the official organ of the party opposite said:
  "On every point of principle, the Liberals have made a complete climb down. Under it (the new Clause) every unit of land (except
  564
  exempted land belonging to hospitals, etc.) will bear a tax graded according to the degree of development. So the Liberals have swallowed all they have said about double taxation."
  How is this new principle going to work? Is it really only a small departure from the principle of double taxation which is involved by the proposal on the Amendment Paper? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) gave us an illustration as to how the principle would work in Glasgow. I will give some instances nearer home. Here are particulars of an actual case of a block of offices and residential flats in London in a locality principally of a shopping character. It is a case where the property is let on a lease with 45 years unexpired. In this case the annual value for Income Tax is £1,360 and the estimated site value is £34,460. If you multiply the annual value by four and deduct it from the site value, you get £29,020. Therefore, the tax at 1d. in the £ would be £120 under the proposal which is before us. The amount under the original Bill would be £143 11s. So that the whole difference in this case is a difference of £22 a year, or a saving of less than one-sixth of the tax, which is equivalent to an Income Tax of 6s. 3d. in the £. Here is another case. In a shopping centre in London, the estimated site value of the land was £62,500, and the annual value for Income Tax purposes was £1,538. Multiplying that by four, and deducting it from the site value, the balance would be £56,410. Under the original Bill, the tax would be £260, and under these new proposals £235, a difference of only £25.
  10.0 p.m.
  Take another case of a somewhat different character. This is the case of a house and garage in which the original tax is £61, and under these proposals it will be £53, or a difference of £8 a year. I could multiply these cases over and over again, but in every case the practical and net result is that not only has the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I said on a previous occasion, got away with the principle at the expense of the cash, but he has got the cash, too. The unfortunate taxpayer who thinks that he is going to avoid double taxation by any proposal of this kind, will certainly find

  565
  himself utterly deceived when he comes to work out the actual figures.
  I conclude by saying that I think this Amendment is really the acid test of the sincerity of the Liberal party in their determination to stand by the words which their leader used at Edinburgh, when he said that he would never consent to tax the same property twice, and that that was a principle for which he was going to fight at all costs. Even if this Amendment be carried, the Clause will be still deserving of our condemnation, and, at any rate, I hope we shall have the satisfaction of seeing the Liberal party stand to their guns for once.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) said that one of the characteristics of his party was to be practical, but, in my opinion, he seems to have given us a particularly bad example. What practical purpose can be served by inserting these words it is impossible to conceive. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman wishes that words which are put into this Clause by way of a compromise between two different points of view should be interpreted as showing only one point of view, and that is not a practical suggestion. I will deal with the practical aspect of this matter and the effect it will have in such eases as were stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston. Take the case of the shipping centre with a site value assessed at £62,500 by whom I know not, and the Schedule A assessment by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue at £1,538. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that 5 percent. on the site value alone comes to over £3,000; and does he consider that the site is fully developed when the receipts for rent for the site, plus the building, come to 2½ percent. on the value of the site, without any building at all? The right hon. Gentleman's idea of a full return on site and building is very different from that of most surveyors and of most people accustomed to dealing with land.
  of course, if one gives such examples as that, and such examples as were given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir E. Horne), which are perfectly ridiculous examples, if I may say so with respect, one can reduce this Clause to what appears to be a farce; but if, on the other hand, one takes
  566
  examples which actually occur in practice as regards fully developed sites, one will find that the result is extraordinarily different. It is quite well known among people familiar with values that, in a case where you have the value of the building less than the value of the site, you must have a very grossly undeveloped site.[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have other figures as regards other sites, but I am quite sure of this fact, that, in any case where a building and a site together are let for less than 5 per cent. on the value of the site alone, either the site is valued wrongly or the building and site together are valued wrongly.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the examples given by my right hon. Friend of double taxation were not true analogies, but I would point out that one of the examples which my right hon. Friend gave was the Mineral Eights Duty, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman ever dealt with that analogy, which, it would seem, is a perfectly true analogy. It is upon a subject matter, the mineral, the profits from which are taxed under the Income Tax Acts, and the Mineral Eights Duty is an extra tax upon this particular source of income. It does seem that that is a true analogy, but the question whether what is incorporated in the Clause before the Committee is double taxation or not would seem to be for the moment an academic question. [Interruption.] I am not suggesting that our view may not be one thing and the view of other persons another thing. The whole point of the Clause, and it was expressed quite clearly by my right hon. Friend, is that this Clause is a compromise. It is an arrangement which has been come to—[Interruption.]—and as to which neither we nor right hon. and hon. Gentleman below the Gangway need be in the least ashamed; it only shows that we are both endowed with common sense. [Interruption.] We are practical people, as the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe his party is. As the result of the compromise, an arrangement has been brought out—[Interruption.]—which does carry out two things. It carries out the principle of valuing all the units, and the principle of having some tax upon every unit; and it also carries out the principle of diminishing the effective amount of the tax in accordance with the amount of development which has

  567
  taken place on the site. In that sense I find it difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman is intending to vote against it. Presumably it is because he desires the full tax of 1d. to be effective on the whole of the land value, whether there is development or not. That is the only ground upon which he could vote against this Clause.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have only one or two words to say in further reply to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain). His case has been disposed of so effectively by the Solicitor-General that it is not necessary for me to add anything more. The right hon. Gentleman said that our first Amendment was an honest one. In his view, every compromise must necessarily be dishonest. You may state a principle, and you may put it in the form of an Amendment which embodies that principle, but any departure from that in the direction of an opponent with whom you want to effect an arrangement upon that particular question must necessarily be dishonest from his point of view. What about the right hon. Gentleman himself? From his point of view, there is no more dishonest man in politics to-day. For weeks and months he has been fighting against a principle which he opposed. The gyrations, the meanderings, the contortions of the right hon. Gentleman were simply the derision and contempt of everybody in politics. [Interruption.] I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, and hon. Members must listen to me.
  The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been forced to make an arrangement. On the face of their correspondence, it was something that neither of them agreed to in principle, but it was necessary for some purpose of their own politically, which they regarded as a more important matter, to enter into this arrangement. There is no man in this House—[Interruption]—there is no man in this House, I repeat, who has less right, in the face of his record of the last 12 months, to taunt anybody.
  May I point out—it has already been pointed out by the Solicitor-General—that the right hon. Gentleman himself
  568
  does not seem to understand the very principle which he is here to advocate—[Interruption.] I will show that that is so. He gives two cases. Obviously, those are not cases of double taxation under this Amendment. Both of the cases he gave were cases, obviously, of under-taxation. The second case was referred to by the Solicitor-General when he referred to a site value of £62,000, 5 percent, of which is £3,100, and a Schedule A figure of only £1,500. That is without any building at all. Obviously, it is an undeveloped site; obviously, it is under-taxed; that particular unit is not contributing to the taxation of the country according to its value. What has that to do with double taxation? The other case he gave, not quite as striking, but striking enough, was a site of £34,460. Schedule A is only £1,360. Five percent. on the site alone would have been £1,700, without a penny-piece upon the building. Obviously that unit ought to be taxed far more than at present. This Amendment will cover both those cases because they are undeveloped. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the case he is trying to make. This is not a case of double taxation. It is obviously, on the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman himself, a case of under-taxation which will be remedied by this Amendment.
  Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I can actually give the right hon. Gentleman a case where there is double taxation. I agree with what he said just now. I will not interrupt him now if he will allow me a few minutes at the end.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I was justified in sitting down, apart altogether from being anxious to show every courtesy to the hon. Gentleman. He himself admits that these are not cases of double taxation. The right hon. Gentleman has been badly briefed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to have supplied him with better figures. As a matter of fact, the whole thing has been grossly exaggerated. I was very much struck by a speech we heard about the Peabody Buildings and the Guinness Buildings and the Trust. They were to pay £20,000 a year. Obviously those are fully developed. That means that the sites alone of all these buildings are worth £38,000,000. It is preposterous. It shows the kind of exaggeration that has been

  569
  used in the country where you cannot check the figures, while, if they are used here, there is someone who is ready to put them right. The same thing applies to other cases. Instead of giving these very big cases, which affect a few rich corporations as a rule, let us take a case which affects a multitude of people. Let us take the case of a site of the value of £1,000 and a shop built on it worth another £4,000. That is £5,000. Four times Schedule A will be roughly £1,000. That would be a fully developed site. What will happen there? Under the Bill as originally drawn there would have been a charge of £4 3s. 4d. That has been exaggerated, to begin with. Under this Amendment there will be a charge of 10s. 5d.
  You may say that to that extent we have given away the principle. Does anyone mean to say to me that, in the conflict of politics, in the conflict of the House of Commons, it is an illegitimate thing, an outrage on the conscience, that, when you are fighting for the full establishment of a principle, you should be prepared to compromise after seven-eighths of the demand is conceded? When you come to an under-developed site where the site is so valuable and where the building is obviously not adequate to the site—that is the sort of case that has been given by the right hon. Gentleman—there, of course, the tax will be higher, but, when you come to a fully developed site, that is the position that will occur. There are lawyers on both sides of the House. Many a time they appear in the courts and fight for something which they regard as complete justice for their client. Does it mean that when they settle an action for a variety of reasons—[Interruption.] I have never concealed from the House or the country why I was anxious to have a settlement—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway are jeering as if it was something I was revealing for the first time. I was anxious, as I said here a week ago, for a settlement for reasons which I regard as paramount. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway are equally anxious that there shall be no settlement for exactly the same reasons. Can anyone in his senses imagine that their indignation is about the charging of 10s. 5d.? They want to sit on the benches opposite. They thought that their opportunity had
  570
  come at last. There was all this indignation and this talk about conscience as if nothing had anything to do with this particular Amendment! ulterior motives are prompting hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen, and they have no right to complain—Interruption. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have no right to criticise if those who regard the whole field of politics, who regard the great ultimate issues which are hanging upon the traditions of this House, and those who are in responsible positions, weigh and balance the whole thing, just as the right hon. Gentleman weighed and balanced the whole thing when he compromised with Lord Beaverbrook, and when he sold his principles.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose——[Interruption.]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would assist the conduct of the proceedings if hon. Members would retrain from making interruptions.
  M. CHAMBERLAIN: I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to quote any speech or any words of mine showing any principles that I compromised or departed from in any shape or form.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he says that he did not compromise any principle when he made that arrangement, why did he not say so before, and not wait for six months? [Interruption.] He was either fighting for principle when he was opposing Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere, or he was abandoning principle when he made the arrangement. He can choose the dilemma. He made an arrangement when there was a division of opinion inside his own party, in order to reconcile two conflicting parties, two conflicting sections, two conflicting principles. Having done that in his own party, he has no right to impute motives to anyone else. [Interruption.] I promised the hon. Member on the back bench that I would give him a couple of minutes, although I have a few more words to say. I say, without any hesitation, that this is an arrangement which, in my judgment, is a fair one. It is a reconciling of the principle which the right hon. Gentleman contends for, that there should be a universal tax, with the principle which we would have preferred,

  571
  that it should have been upon the basis of development. So far, in relation to double taxation, we would point out that so far as fully developed property is concerned it is reduced to a minimum. I say that that is a perfectly fair arrangement.
  Sir W. BRASS Sir W. BRASS rose——[Interruption.]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is entitled to speak.
  Sir W. BRASS: The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) told us that land was not fully developed if the Schedule A assessment of the building on it could not produce when multiplied by four the equivalent of the site value. I will give him one example from the City of London. The assessment under Schedule A is £93,000. Four times £23,000 is £92,000 The ground rent is £9,319 a year which at 20 years' purchase, or five percent., the figure which
  the right hon Gentleman took, gives £186,380. The site value of that land on the amount of four times Schedule A assessment is £92,588 so that the full one penny will have to be paid on £93,792. In the City of London you cannot erect a building high enough, under the Building Acts, to be able to produce a sufficient Schedule A assessment to equal a site value like that.
  Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his ideas on double taxation are based on his statement that the figures that I gave would have worked out at £48,000,000?
  It being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 4th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided; Ayes, 247; Noes, 289.

  Division No. 351.]

  AYES.

  [10.31 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel

  Castle Stewart, Earl Of

  Fielden, E. B.

  Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Albery, Irving James

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R.(Prtsmth, S.)

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir I.

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

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

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

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

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Astor, Viscountess

  Christle, J. A.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Atkinson, C.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Balniel, Lord

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Bellairs, Commander Cariyon

  Cowan, D. M.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Dcuglas H.

  Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

  Crichton-Stuart. Lord C.

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

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Boyce, Leslie

  Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Bracken, B.

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Briscoe, Richard George

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

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Broadbent, Colonel J.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hills, Major Ht. Hon. John Waller

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Dixey, A. C.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Buchan, John

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Howard-Bury. Colonel C. K.

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Edmondson, Major, A. J.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Butler, R. A.

  England, Colonel A.

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Inskip, Sir Thomas

  Campbell, E. T.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Somerville, A. A, (Windsor)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Lambert, Rt. Han. George (S. Molton)

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R.

  Penny, Sir George

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Llewollin, Major J. S.

  Pybus, Percy John

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Lockwood, Captain J. H.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Thompson, Luke

  Long, Major Hon. Eric

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Remer, John R.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Train, J.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

  Tryon, Rt- Hon. George Clement

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Robinson, Sir T, (Lanes, Stretford)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Wallace, Capt, D. E. (Hornsey)

  Margesson, Captain H. D

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Rothschilo, J. de

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Meller, H. J.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Salmon, Major I.

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Millar, J. D.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

  Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Winterten, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Monsell, Eyres, Com, Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Withers, Sir John James

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Savery, S. S.

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Womersley, W. J.

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

  Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Skelton, A. N.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

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

  Smith, R. W. Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Sir Frederick Thomson and Lieut.

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Colonel Sit A. Lambert Ward.

  O'Connor, T. J.

  Somerset, Thomas

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Church, Major A. G.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff-, Cannock)

  Clarke, J. S.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Cove, William G.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Angell, Sir Norman

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Arnott, John

  Daggar, George

  Hall, Capt. W. p. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Dallas, George

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Ayles, Walter

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Harbord, A.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

  Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

  Barr, James

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

  Batey, Joseph

  Day, Harry

  Harris, Percy A.

  Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Devlin, Joseph

  Haycock, A. W.

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Duncan, Charles

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Benson, G.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Edge, Sir William

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Blindell, James

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Herriotts, J.

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Elmley, Viscount

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Bowen, J. W.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Foot, Isaac

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Freeman, Peter

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Hollins, A.

  Bromfield, William

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Bromley, J.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Brooke, W.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Brothers, M.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

  Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

  Buchanan, G.

  Gill, T. H.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)

  Burgess, F. G.

  Glassey, A. E.

  Jones, Rt. Hon Left (Camborne)

  Caine, Hall-, Derwent

  Gossling, A. G.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Cameron, A. G.

  Gould, F.

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Cape, Thomas

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Carter, W, (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Gray, M liner

  Kelly, W. T.

  Chater, Daniel

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  574

  575

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

  Kinley, J.

  Mort, D. L.

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Muff, G.

  Sinkinson, George

  Knight, Holford

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Lang, Gordon

  Murnin, Hugh

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Smith, Lees-. Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)

  Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Smith, Tom (Pontetract)

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Lawrence, Susan

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Sorensen, R.

  Lawson, John James

  Owen, Major G, (Carnarvon)

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Palin, John Henry

  Stephen, Campbell

  Leach, W.

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Strauss, G. R.

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Sullivan, J.

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Lees, J.

  Perry, S. F.

  Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)

  Leonard, W.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

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

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Tillett, Ben

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Potts, John S.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Price, M. P.

  Toole, Joseph

  Longden, F.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Tout, W. J.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Townend, A. E.

  Lunn, William

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Vaughan, David

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Raynes, W. R.

  Viant, S. P.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Richards, R.

  Walkden, A. G.

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Walker, J.

  McElwee, A.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Wallace, H. W.

  McEntee, V. L.

  Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Watkins, F. C.

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

  Ritson, J.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  McKinlay, A.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Romeril, H. G.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Rowson, Guy

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  McShane, John James

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  West, F. R.

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Westwood, Joseph

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  White, H. G.

  Manning, E. L.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Mansfield, W.

  Sandham, E.

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  March, S.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Marcus, M

  Scott, James

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Markham, S. F.

  Scurr, John

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Marley, J.

  Sexton, Sir James

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Marshall, Fred

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Mathers, George

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Matters, L. W.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Maxton, James

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Messer, Fred

  Shield, George William

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Mills, J. E.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Wise, E. F.

  Milner, Major J.

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Montague, Frederick

  Shinwell, E.

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Morley, Ralph

  Simmons, C. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on the Clause and on an Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion.
  Question put. "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 237.

  Division No. 352.]

  AYES.

  [10.41 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Batey, Joseph

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

  Bromfield, William

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Bromley, J.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Brooke, W.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Brothers, M.

  Amman, Charles George

  Benson, G.

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Angell, Sir Norman

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Arnott, John

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Buchanan, G.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Blindell, James

  Burgess, F. G.

  Ayles, Waiter

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Caine, Hall-, Derwent

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Bowen, J. W.

  Cameron, A. G.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Cape, Thomas

  Barr, James

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kinley, J.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Chater, Daniel

  Kirkwood, D.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Church, Major A. G

  Knight, Holford

  Riley, F. F. (Stocktor-on-Tees)

  Clarke, J. S.

  Lang, Gordon

  Ritson, J.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lansbury, Rt. Han. George

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

  Romeril, H. G.

  Cocks, Frederick scymour

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Cove, William G.

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Rowson, Guy

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Lawrence, Susan

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Daggar, George

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Dallas, George

  Lawson, John James

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Leach, W.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

  Sandham, E.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Day, Harry

  Lees, J.

  Scott James

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Leonard, W.

  Scurr, John

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Sexton, Sir James

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Duncan, Charles

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Ede, James Chuter

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Edge, Sir William

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Sharwood, G. H.

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Longden, F.

  Shield, George William

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Elmley, Viscount

  Lunn, William

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Foot, Isaac

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Shinwell, E.

  Freeman, Peter

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. R. (Seaham)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  McElwee, A.

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

  McEntee, V. L.

  Sinkinson, George

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  McKinlay, A.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)

  Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Gill, T. H.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Glassey, A. E.

  MacNelli-Weir, L.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Gossling, A. G.

  McShane, John James

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Gould, F.

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Sorensen, R.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Manning, E. L.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Gray, Milner

  Mansfield, W.

  Strauss, G. R.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  March, S.

  Sullivan, J.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Marcus, M.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Markham, S. F.

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Marley, J.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Marshall, Fred

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

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Mathers, George

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Matters, L. W.

  Tillett, Ben

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Maxton, James

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Messer, Fred

  Toole, Joseph

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Mills, J. E.

  Tout, W. J.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Milner, Major J.

  Townend, A. E.

  Harbord, A.

  Montague, Frederick

  Vaughan, David

  Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Viant, S. P.

  Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

  Money, Ralph

  Walkden, A. G.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Walker, J.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Mort, D. L.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Muff, G.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Murnin, Hugh

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Herriotts, J.

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Oldfield, J. R.

  West, F. R.

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Westwood, Joseph

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  White, H. G.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Palin, John Henry

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Hollins, A.

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Palmer, E. T.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Perry, S. F.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Wilson, J, (Oldham)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Price, M. P.

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Wise, E. F.

  Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Raynes, W. R.

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Richards, R.

  TELLERS FOB THE AYES.—

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

  578

  579

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charlas

  England, Colonel A.

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Albery, Irving James

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S.-M.)

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

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

  Ferguson, Sir John

  O'Connor, T. J.

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

  Fermoy, Lord

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Ashley Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Peake, Capt. Osbert

  Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Astor, Viscountess

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Atkinson, C.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Pybus, Percy John

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Balniel, Lord

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Reid, David D, (County Down)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Remer, John R.

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

  Bellairs, Commander Cariyon

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Waiter

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

  Bevan, s. J. (Holborn)

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Boyce, Leslie

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

  Salmon, Major I.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Broadbent, Colonel J.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Savery, S. S.

  Buchan, John

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

  Sinclair, Cot- T. (Queen's U., Belfast)

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Butler, R. A.

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Campbell, E. T.

  Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Somerset, Thomas

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Hudson, Capt. A. u. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Cautlsy, Sir Henry S.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. B.(Prtsmth, S.)

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Cazalet, captain Victor A.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

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

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Christie, J. A.

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Thompson, Luke

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Train, J.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Lockwood, Captain J. H.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Long, Major Hon. Eric

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lymington, Viscount

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Crichton-stuart, Lord C.

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Wayland, Sir William A

  Cunilffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

  Melier, R. J.

  Withers, Sir John James

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

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Womersley, W. J.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)

  Dixey, A. C.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

  First Schedule (Incumbrances from which Land is not. deemed to be free for purposes of Valuation), agreed to.

  STCOND SCHEDULE.—(Requirements in connection with Production of Instruments of Transfer.)
  Question put, "That this Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 290; Noes, 236.

  Division No. 353.]

  AYES.

  [10.52 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Glassey, A. E.

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Gossling, A. G.

  MacDonald, Ht. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Gould, F.

  MacDonald, Malcoim (Bassetlaw)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  McElwee, A.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  McEntee, V. L.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Gray, Milner

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

  Angell, Sir Norman

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  McKinlay, A.

  Arnott, John

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Ayles, Walter

  Groves, Thomas E.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  McShane, John James

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Barr, James

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Manning, E. L.

  Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Mansfield, W.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Marcus, M.

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Harbord, A.

  Markham, S. F.

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

  Marley, J.

  Benton, G.

  Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

  Marshall, Fred

  Bavan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Mathers, George

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Matters, L. W.

  Blindell, James

  Haycock, A. W.

  Maxton, James

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Hayday, Arthur

  Messer, Fred

  Bowen, J. W.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Millar, J. D.

  Bawerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Mills, J. E.

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Milner, Major J.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Montague, Frederick

  Bromfield, William

  Herriotts, J.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Bromley, J.

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Morley, Ralph

  Brooke, W.

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Brother, M.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Mort, D. L.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Holline, A.

  Muff, G.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J, (South Ayrshire)

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Muggerodge, H. T.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hors-Belisha, Leslie

  Murnin, Hugh

  Burgess, F. G.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Calne, Hall-, Derwent

  Hunter, Dr. Joseth

  Naytor, T. E.

  Cameron, A. G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Chater, Daniel

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Church, Major A. G.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Clarke, J. S.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborno)

  Palin, John Henry

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Cove, William G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Perry, S. F.

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Daggar, George

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. JOSEPH M.

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Dallas, George

  Kinley, J.

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kirkwood, D.

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Lang, Gordon

  Potts, John s.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhuughton)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. Gaorge

  Pries, M. p.

  Day, Harry

  Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Devlin, Joseph

  Law, A. (Rotundata)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Raynes, W. R.

  Duncan, Charles

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Richards, R.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Lawson, John James

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Leach, W.

  Riley, F. P. (Stocttton-on-Tast)

  Elmley, viscount

  Lee, Frank (Darby, N. E.)

  Ritson, J

  Evane, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Foot, Isaac

  Less, J.

  Rameril, H. G.

  Freeman, Peter

  Leonard, W.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Rothschild, J. de

  Gardner, J. p. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Rowson, Guy

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Longden, F.

  Samuel, H. Watter (Swansea, West)

  Gibson, H. M. (Lams, Mossley)

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Gill, T. H.

  Lunn, William

  Sandham, E.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Scott James

  Stephen, Campbell

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Scurr, John

  Strauss, G. R.

  West, F. R.

  Sexton, Sir James

  Sullivan, J.

  Westwood, Joseph

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Sutton, J. E.

  White, H. G.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Shield, George William

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

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Thurtle, Ernett

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Tillett, Ben

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Shinwell, E.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanally)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Toole, Joseph

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Tout, W. J.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Townend, A. E.

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Sinkinson, George

  Vaughan, David

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Viant, S. P.

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Laughb'gh)

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Walkden, A. G.

  Wise, E. F.

  Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B.(Keighley)

  Walker, J.

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract).

  Wallace, H. W.

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

  Sorensen, R.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Albery, Irving James

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L

  Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

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

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Attar, Viscountess

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Inskip, Sir Thomas

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Atkinson, C.

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Davies, Ma|. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

  Lamb, Sir J. O.

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

  Dawson Sir Philip

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

  Balniel, Lord

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Dixey, A. C.

  Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Beilairs, Commander Cariyon

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  England, Colonel A.

  Lleweilln, Major J. J.

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Lockwood, Captain J. H.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Long, Major Hon. Eric

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Lymington, Viscount

  Boyce, Leslie

  Fermoy, Lord

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Bracken, B.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Fison, F. G. Claverlng

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Broadbent, Colonel J.

  Gaibraith, J. F. W.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Marjorlbanks, Edward

  Buchan, John

  Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Meiler, R. J.

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

  Butler, R. A.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S)

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptnf'ld)

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

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

  O'Connor, T. J.

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

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Omen, Sir Charles William C.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Christie, J. A.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Penny, Sir George

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  584

  585

  Pybus, Percy John

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Turton, Robert Hush

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Remer, John R.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Rontoul, Sir Gervais S.

  Somerset, Thomas

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lance, Stretford)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennall

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Stanley, Hon. O, (Westmorland)

  Wilson, 6. H. A, (Cambridge U.)

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Salmon, Major I

  Stuart, Hon. J, (Moray and Nairn)

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Sueter, Rear-admiral M. F.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingslsy

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. O

  Thompson, Luke

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Savery, S. S.

  Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U Belfst)

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain

  Skelton, A. N.

  Train, J.

  Margesson.

  THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)
  Amendment made: In page 41, line 21, column 3, after the word "eighty-Seven." insert the words "Sub-section (1) of."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 4th June.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, 29th June, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

MAURITIUS LOAN (GUARANTEE) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported; without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

MAURITIUS LOAN (GUARANTEE) BILL.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

SCOTLAND.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (MEDICAL REFEREES).
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (MEDICAL REFEREES).
  BARLEY MILLING (SULPHUR DIOXIDE).
  BARLEY MILLING (SULPHUR DIOXIDE).
TRANSPORT.
  STEEL RAILWAY COACHES.
  STEEL RAILWAY COACHES.
  CHARING CROSS AND WATERLOO BRIDGES.
  CHARING CROSS AND WATERLOO BRIDGES.
  ROAD TRAFFIC ACT (REGULATIONS).
  ROAD TRAFFIC ACT (REGULATIONS).
  LEVEL CROSSINGS, LINCOLN.
  LEVEL CROSSINGS, LINCOLN.
  AVIATION (ACCIDENTS).
  AVIATION (ACCIDENTS).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  COLONIAL EXHIBITION, PARIS.
  COLONIAL EXHIBITION, PARIS.
  TANGANYIKA (IMPORTS).
  TANGANYIKA (IMPORTS).
  WAR MATERIALS (EXPORTS TO RUSSIA AND POLAND).
  WAR MATERIALS (EXPORTS TO RUSSIA AND POLAND).
  COPYRIGHT LAW (GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES).
  COPYRIGHT LAW (GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES).
  INDIA (FOREIGN PIECE-GOODS EXPORT COMPANY).
  INDIA (FOREIGN PIECE-GOODS EXPORT COMPANY).
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  ENGLAND.
  ENGLAND.
  SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
  ADMIRALTY (OVERSEEING STAFFS AND GUN-MOUNTING EXAMINERS).
  ADMIRALTY (OVERSEEING STAFFS AND GUN-MOUNTING EXAMINERS).
HOUSING.
  PUBLIC UTILITY SOCIEITIES.
  PUBLIC UTILITY SOCIEITIES.
  HUTMENTS.
  HUTMENTS.
POOR LAW RELIEF.
  UNEMPLOYED.
  UNEMPLOYED.
  OUTDOOR BELIEF (SCALES).
  OUTDOOR BELIEF (SCALES).

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, LORD STANMORE on the Woolsack.
The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

EBENEZER CHAPEL BIRMING HAM BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, in the absence of the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly.

LINDSEY COUNTY COUNCIL (SANDHILLS) BILL.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in the name of the Lord Chairman.
Moved, That the Order made on the 10th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 23rd of June. next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

DESTRUCTIVE FOREIGN ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY on AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision for prohibiting or controlling the importation into and the
320
keeping within Great Britain of destructive foreign animals, for exterminating any such animals which may be at large, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

PREVENTION OF IMPORTS OF PRODUCTS OF CONVICT OR FORCED LABOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, it may not be a very inspiriting thought but I am afraid there is very little that can be said to be new under the sun. There is certainly very little that is new about the battle of human liberty. There is certainly very little new about slavery. There is even very little that is new about that form of slavery which is now conveniently known as forced labour. There is even very little new in these evils finding defenders. And I hereby most solemnly aver that I am no pioneer striking out a new line, but a very humble follower in the steps of many who have already blazed the trail. I am anxious from the very outset to show that this Bill, whatever its minor defects may be, is in principle a Bill which carries out the avowed policy of this country. It is primarily in my opinion a Bill for the suppression of forced labour and only secondarily a Bill for the protection of our own standards of civilisation, important though that factor may be. It is, in the words of the Socialist Committee appointed to consider the sweated goods problem, a Bill in which there is no question of a tariff, but a Bill for the rigorous prohibition of imports; and it will perhaps mitigate any feelings your Lordships may have that I am over-bold in my bringing forward a Bill of such first-rate importance, if I go very briefly through the recent history of our country on this subject.
It is hardly necessary to remind your Lordships that ever since the days of Wilberforce we have put ourselves in the forefront of resistance to slavery. I need not, therefore, go back beyond the

321
year 1913, when many of your Lordships will remember that a strong Committee was set up to consider the question of the Putumayo atrocities. That was a comparatively minor affair, but it did lead to Sir Edward Grey laying down in a circular Despatch a principle which is certainly applicable to my Bill. Sir Edward Grey said:
"It is certainly desirable that sufficient information should be supplied to the Foreign Office to enable His Majesty's Government to take what action is necessary in order to expose or prosecute British employers responsible for oppressive or inhuman labour conditions."
And the Despatch went on to call for annual reports from consular officers to this end.
Perhaps the next step of importance to which I need refer your Lordships is the adoption by the greater part of the whole world of the Covenant of the League of Nations. It is too little remembered that Article 23 (a) of the Covenant lays down that the Members of the League:
"Will endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women and children, both in their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend."
Here, as far as I know, it is laid down and accepted by this country for the first time, quite definitely, that we should use our external commercial relations in order to obtain not in this country only but also abroad fair and humane conditions of labour. Your Lordships will not dispute that forced labour cannot be considered a fair or humane condition of labour; so that in this Covenant there is a principle of vital importance to my Bill. I venture to say that it does not lie in the mouth of anyone to accept the principle of the Covenant of the League of Nations and to refuse the principle of my Bill. The Article in the Covenant goes on to say:
"and for that purpose will establish and maintain the necessary international organisations."
Now, so far am I from decrying international organisation and international action in these affairs, that, after pointing out that what is a duty for one is necessarily a duty for all, I am going to bring up as my strongest reinforcement the action of that international organisation. The appropriate organisation in this case is the International Labour
322
Conference, and the International Labour Conference, as your Lordships all know, appointed a Committee in 1929, and in 1930 adopted a Draft Convention for the suppression of forced labour. There was complete agreement in that Committee that it was desirable to lay down the principle of the prohibition of forced labour in all its forms. A Convention was drawn up defining forced labour—it is the definition of that Convention that is employed in my Bill—and imposing on each Member of the Conference who ratified the Convention an undertaking to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest period.
The Convention was finally adopted by the Conference by 93 votes to 0, and, what is more, throughout all the discussions the British representative played the principal part, and it was largely due to British advocacy that the Convention was finally adopted. I think we may be proud of that, and I think, further, that we may be glad that His Majesty's Government did not rest content until they had announced their intention to ratify that Convention. They only waited for Liberia and Southern Ireland to give them a lead, and, first among the great Powers, they have announced their intention of ratifying that Convention. Nay, more, the Government propose to apply the Convention without any modification in all the non-self-governing Colonies, Protectorates, and Mandated Territories. There is a formidable list of these put out with the Command Paper, a list of 63 different, States. The only curious omission is that of the name of Great Britain, for how His Majesty's present Government could contend that the word "non-self-governing" was inapplicable to this country I cannot understand. Be that as it may, this short retrospect of our attitude towards the question of forced labour shows this country still in the forefront of resistance.
If I were here and now to put it to your Lordships that you were in favour of the suppression of forced labour at once without any modification, noble Lords of either Party would have to say: "We are." Yet, the evil persists. Nay, more, it grows. It has lately taken to itself a great extension. It has cloaked itself with a new authority. In at least one great nation it

323
has taken on the sanction of the law. Now what is our attitude? It is no longer a question of challenging the obsolete customs of some barbarous prince-let. It is a question now of resisting the policy of a powerful oligarchy in control of a great white people. John Stuart Mill, whom, perhaps, some noble Lords will still regard as a great thinker, in his introductory chapter on Liberty says on this question of freedom:
"In the stage of progress into which the more civilised portions of the species have now entered this question presents itself under new conditions."
He goes on to say that under new conditions different treatment is required. It is in my belief that no compromise with slavery is possible that I venture to bring forward this Bill.
The Bill attempts to provide machinery by which this country shall use its commercial relations, in the words of the Covenant, if not to secure "fair and humane conditions of labour," at least to suppress forced labour in the countries with which we deal. Again, I claim that in this I am clearly and indisputably in line with the avowed policy of my country. The Bill includes in its scope the question of convict labour, and it does so mainly for the reason so recently and so cogently expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster. I hope he will forgive me for quoting his words. He said:
"People can be exiled from their homes or sentenced to work in penal labour camps through the medium of a conviction prefaced by nothing that we should recognise in the nature of a trial."
In short, where there is the will, there is no difficulty in disguising forced labour as convict labour and the two, therefore, must receive the same treatment.
As your Lordships know, there is already on the Statute Book an Act known as the Foreign Prison-made Goods Act of 1897 under which the importation of prison-made goods is prohibited. Unfortunately, this Act has proved unworkable in practice, laying as it does the whole burden of proof—and this is a very important point—not on the Customs, not on the importer, not on any one in particular, but on the general citizen who, prima facie, is dealing with a country foreign to him-
324
self, is giving evidence with relation to goods produced in a foreign country and, what is more, in a country naturally anxious for concealment. The Act having failed of its purpose it is in this Bill repealed. It is a very great testimony to the acuteness of the late Mr. Labouchere that I think the only remark he made when that Bill was debated was:
"This Bill will have no practical effect whatever. Let us, therefore, vote upon it as soon as we may."
However, the principle of it remains and has been re-stated so lately as November 20 last in words which I could not better; that is to say, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council, who will remember that he said in your Lordships' House:
"If you ask me for my opinion for what it is worth, I think that to allow prison-made goods to be imported so as to compete with free-made goods would be to permit unfair competition, and in a case of that kind I for one would rejoice in prohibition."
With those weighty words echoing in our ears I think I should deal, with your Lordships' leave, with the clauses of the Bill, and I think it will conduce to clearness if I begin with Clause 5. Clause 5 is the clause which defines "forced labour" and "convict labour." It is unnecessary for me to say more than that I have adopted the definition of the International Labour Conference used in the Draft Convention which has been approved by His Majesty's Government. With regard to the definition of "convict labour" I have also followed the lines of the same Conference, merely adding a few words to show that stone walls alone will not a prison make.
Clause 4 follows established practice. I have already quoted to your Lordships the Report of the Putumayo Committee in this connection as to laying on consular officers the duty of transmitting the intelligence required "for the purpose of giving effect to this Act," and I venture to think it will be a useful provision. The Putumayo Report said, amongst other things:
"There is already a specific instruction to consuls to keep the Secretary of State and the diplomatic representatives fully informed on matters of interest in connection with slavery and the slave trade."
Again, Sir Harry Johnston testified to the value of visits in Siberia of British

325
consuls equipped with a liberal travelling allowance. I venture to lay emphasis upon that because it shows an obvious method. Further,
"given the means of obtaining disinterested information, the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office would be the natural channel through which it would come home. The Department, it is understood, does not regard itself as more than a channel of information for other Government Departments or for the services of the public. It is not an administrative Department. But if its information disclosed a serious state of affairs the matter would be passed on to the Board of Trade."
I think those statements show a certain amount of machinery already available to our hands.
Reserving for the moment consideration of Clause 3, I pass to Clause 1, which follows the Act of 1897 in prohibiting the tainted imports and prohibiting them with reference to the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876. Incidentally, I think I should mention here that the Customs Act of 1876, which is a very long Act, provides a whole quantity of useful machinery and a great many precedents which it is useful to consider with reference to this particular subject. The clause in this Bill I am now venturing to bring before you does not, however, contain the words "goods proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs by evidence tendered to them." That was the clause on which the Act of 1897 broke down. On the other hand, this Bill retains two of the three exceptions, though they are not important. "Goods not imported for the purpose of trade" were thought too trifling to invoke any machinery. "Goods of a description not produced or manufactured in the British Empire" are, and were presumably, excepted, because we might have debarred ourselves from the import of some essential product in war or peace, such as radium might have been.
Clauses 2 and 3 are, I venture to say, the most important clauses in the Bill, and both use the phrase "which the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have cause to believe." They both deal with the burden of proof, and in this respect there is an important change from the Act of 1897. I shall undoubtedly be asked: What will give the Commissioners of Customs cause to believe? The answer is, of course, information from
326
any credible source and inter alia information from the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office. At this juncture it is well to bear in mind that under the Customs Act of 1876 the Commissioners of Customs have already many semi-judicial duties. They are called upon constantly to form judgments based on prima facie evidence. There is, of course, attached to this power a balancing right of any one aggrieved to have recourse to the law—for example, in the case of certain things to a Judge in Chambers. It may be objected in this connection that the Act of 1876 deals with goods by categories and not by origin. That is a very important difference, but, important though that may be, the case of the Commissioners having to exercise their own judgment is very far from excluded. For instance, the Commissioners are brought in connection with obscene books, and have to exercise their judgment as to whether or not a book is obscene. I can think of nothing more arguable than the obscenity or otherwise of a book. As a fact, all through the Customs Regulations runs this right to take Parliamentary action based on prima facie evidence, and it is that right we are extending by this Bill.
It should also be noted—and I apologise for spending some time on this point, but this question of machinery will, I am sure, prove of importance—that the Customs have every facility given to them for obtaining the information they require. For example, Section 43 says:
"The master of every ship arriving from ports beyond the seas shall at the time of making report answer also all such questions relating to the ship, cargo, crew and voyage as shall be put to him by the collector or other proper officer."
That power already exists.
I pass on now to Clause 3 (1) of my Bill. This for the first time introduces the presumption that goods imported from a tainted country are themselves tainted. In other words, goods imported from a country where the Commissioners, in the words of the Bill, "have cause to believe forced labour is exacted" are prohibited entry unless evidence can be tendered that they are of innocent origin. That clause adopts a theory put forward by Sir Harry Johnston, who was, of course, a man of great experience, and adopted again by the Putumayo Committee—a theory of special areas of pro-

327
tection, which he suggested should be set up. It is, alas, only too clear now that there are many special areas and one great one where protection should be exercised. It is only too clear that there are now countries where the Commissioners would undoubtedly have cause to believe that forced labour was exacted. That is beyond dispute. In such a case the burden of proof under this Bill falls quite definitely on the importer. It is for him to prove that, though his consignment emanates from a tainted country—a country where forced labour is known to exist—yet that that particular consignment is free from taint.
It would take too long, and I should weary your Lordships to follow out all the workings of this clause. Suffice it to say that it is quite obvious to anyone at any rate who has had any commercial training, that any tainted country would speedily find it to its advantage to provide its exporters with such proofs or certificates of purity of origin as would satisfy the importing country. Further, it would very soon be quite clear to that country that it would be to its own advantage to allow our consular officers to visit places of manufacture of a suspicious character. Your Lordships will remember that our Foreign Secretary has had to repeat on many occasions that that permission has lately been refused to us. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is not here to-day, because he was instrumental in bringing about some part of the arrangement I am going to mention. You will remember that no great difficulty was found when we were at death grapple with Germany in arranging for visits by friendly official representatives to the prison camps in Germany, and that at a crisis in the world's history such as we may never see again. To Clause 3 (1) I attach the greatest importance. Before I leave it I should perhaps point out that the difficulty as to the source of origin has fairly recently been dealt with by the Revenue Act of 1909.
Now I have dealt with the clauses of the Bill. It may well be that the machinery I have put before you is defective for the purpose, and I wish to state with all the emphasis in my power that I welcome any attempt and any assistance towards improving that machinery, with this proviso only, that that attempt
328
is not an attempt to put sand into the machinery solely with a view to avoid having to deal with the great issue which this Bill brings up. It may have been remarked by your Lordships that I have said nothing so far as to the other side of this question. I have said nothing as to the effect which the prohibition will have upon conditions in our own country. It would be hypocritical in me not to say that I set a very high value indeed on the aid which will be given to our distressed labour conditions and commercial conditions in this country if this Bill should reach the Statute Book. In that I find myself in complete sympathy with the Socialist Party who, in their Conference in 1928, laid it down that where there were glaring examples of sweated goods produced under conditions against which British people could not compete without lowering their standard of life, the remedy was not safeguarding but prohibiting the entry of those goods.
A few years ago—say three years ago—I suppose no British statesman, no British industrialist, no British labourer would have admitted for one moment that a system based on conscript labour could possibly succeed, still less that it could succeed against a system based on free labour. But would they all say so to-day? I see reiterated again and again, and by no one more than by members of the Labour Party—is it not dinned into our ears?—that we must take the five-year plan of Russia seriously and that it is likely to succeed. And on what is that system based? But whether or not conditions in this country would benefit, I venture to suggest to your Lordships that you should pass this Bill even if it involves this country in loss. I at any rate would recommend this Bill to your Lordships as our bounden duty to hundreds of thousands of people who are now condemned to misery. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Phillimore.)
The LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord paid the compliment to me of recognising that there has been no more consistent opponent of forced labour for many years than I have been. In fact, often I think when his father was present in this House he and I expressed our very

329
strong agreement with Lord Cromer—I mean the great Lord Cromer who was Governor of Egypt—who laid it down that in his view forced labour could not really be differentiated from slave labour although slavery imported a change in status whereas forced labour only denoted the terms under which any actual labour was carried on. I say at once that I certainly have not altered my opinion, and I believe it is in accordance with the view held by all my noble colleagues here; and also by the Party to which I belong, which I rejoice to know is designated by the name Socialist, for that denotes a strong sense of social duty as against a mere claim of national or individual right.
Although I hold that view in the very strongest way, I think that the noble Lord foresaw what the nature of our objections to this Bill is likely to be. It is not in the principles that he has indicated, but it is in the formal way which he thinks could be conveniently and properly adopted for carrying out the objects which he has in view. As he has agreed with me in other matters, perhaps he will agree with mo in this: that if in seeking a solution of difficulties of this kind you propose a remedy which is not effective, instead of furthering the cause you have at heart you almost essentially and necessarily defer it for a, considerable time. The particular method which the noble Lord has suggested is the amendment of one of the clauses of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876. That Act has of course already been amended, in 1897, and made applicable to prison-made goods. There is no difference between us about that. The clause in the original Act has been amended to include prison-made goods. What does he go on to propose? He wants to include these words:
"Goods wholly or in part produced, manufactured or transported by convict labour or by forced labour."
He knows that in subsequent clauses of this Bill a distinction is drawn between convict labour and forced labour—I do not mean to say in the principle involved, but in the method of dealing with the principle which he has indicated.
Goods referred to there must mean particular goods, the particular parcel or lot of goods which is under the con-
330
sideration of the Commissioners at the time of import. I am obliged to say upon this point that in my opinion it would be perfectly futile to introduce words of this kind because they could not be made effective by the action of the Commissioners. I say that advisedly because on more than one occasion lately in another place the same point has been raised in terms, as the noble Lord, of course, knows. Usually Russia has been pointed to, but I do not wish to refer to any particular country. The question has been asked whether these difficulties which exist—perhaps I ought to say which are said to exist—and to which the noble Lord referred, cannot be met by an amendment, as the noble Lord proposes, of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876. That question has been answered by three very competent expert members of the Government in the other House. The President of the Board of Trade has said more than once that the Government could not undertake to make this amendment of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876. Not only has the President of the Board of Trade made that statement, but the Foreign Secretary has also made it, and, as I shall have to point out in order to show what our position is, the objections raised by the Foreign Secretary and by the President of the Board of Trade involve matters which cannot be overlooked if you desire to make an amendment of this kind effective in order to carry out the ends aimed at by the noble Lord who has proposed the Second Reading of this Bill.
Perhaps I may say at this stage that there has been experience in this matter, but only as regards convict labour, for reasons I will state in a moment, in the United States of America. In Section 307 of the United States Tariff Act, 1930, is a provision undoubtedly dealing with convict labour and forced labour, and I do not think I shall go very far wrong—it is a matter of drafting—in suggesting that the noble Lord must almost have adopted his wording from the clause of the American Statute. What has been the effect? For a long time there have been attempts to provide the Secretary of State in America with a practical method by which the general principle accepted by the United States Government could be enforced. The noble Lord is, no doubt, well aware of that. So far

331
as convict labour is concerned, there were cases of ships from Russia being held up on the ground that the goods in them were imported under conditions of manufacture by convict labour. The attempts to deal with the question in these cases failed. I think the last ship was released not very long ago. A number of ships were detained for inquiry in order that a provision of this kind might be enforced, but it was found to be impossible—and no country is more anxious than the United States to make this method a success—to enforce a condition of this kind. The provision speaks of the import of goods either manufactured, produced or mined by convict labour.
That being so, there has been a constant attempt in the United States to enforce the other part of the provision, directed against forced labour. The present position is that no prohibition regarding forced labour is to be attempted before February, 1932. It has been considered, and various objections have been raised, and at present it is postponed until that date. Let me read the words. I do not think any noble Lord will accept such words for a moment, but they show the trend of this legislation. The words are:
"In no case shall such provisions"—
that is, the prohibition—
"be applicable to goods, wares, articles or merchandise so mined, produced, or manufactured"—
that is, by forced labour—
"which are not mined, produced or manufactured in such quantities in the United States as to meet the consumptive demands of the United States."
That is not a proclamation against the principle of forced labour. I agree with what the noble Lord said as to the question of unfair competition arising, but that is not the matter with which we are dealing here. That is not the view of the United States, and I shall point out in a moment that it is not the view which the noble Lord takes in his proposed Bill.
What the United States say is that they wish to get rid of forced labour only where the products of it come into competition with goods produced in the United States. I understand that point, because we have so often argued it, but I am not arguing it at the present moment. That is not a declaration
332
against forced labour. It is an acceptance of the principle of forced labour in all cases where the goods produced or manufactured are produced or manufactured in such quantities in the United States as not to meet the consumptive demand of the United States. In other words, given that the United States and those who live there desire these manufactured goods—although they are produced by forced labour—because there is not a sufficient production in the United States, they are to be admitted. That is not at all the principle which I understood the noble Lord to advocate.
Just let me put this to him. Look at his own Bill, which, as I say, seems to be largely copied from the Act of the United States. In subsection (2) of Clause 1 it says:
"This Act shall not apply to goods not imported for the purpose of trade"—
that is, if they are not imported for the purpose of trade and trade competition, the Act is not to come into operation, and yet they may be made by forced labour—
"or to goods of a description not produced or manufactured in the British Empire."
Suppose certain goods are not produced or manufactured in the British Empire. Docs that palliate the evil of forced labour? Of course he will not say that it does. I would suggest that the real motive here, at any rate so far as these words are concerned, is not the abolition or prohibition of forced labour but quite another point of view. It says in effect: "Do not let us have these goods introduced here unless they are goods of a description not produced or manufactured in the British Empire." That means that it is a trade consideration, and what you are to have in mind is the trade consumer, if I may use that expression, as you do in other economic conditions.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord will allow me to answer that point—
LORD PARMOOR: If you want to answer it, perhaps you will wait until presently. If you think I am saying anything wrong, I will give way in a moment, but I want to get my argument consecutive if I can. Let me follow it a little further. I do not want to quote Russia particularly to-day, because it is

333
known that Russia, is a large factor in discussions of this kind and always has been. I accept entirely, as regards Russia, the various evidence from the Report of Sir Alan Pim, and the late Judge of the Egyptian Mixed Tribunals, Mr. Edward Bateson, which has been made to the association against slavery and forced labour and matters of that kind. Lord Buckmaster—I do not think it is necessary to go further than that—very ably summarises, in the preface to that Report, just what he thinks the conditions are. I will not read any more than I need, because on a future occasion we may have to consider this and it is only as an illustration that I mention it now, but lie says:
"That some of the labour in the timber camps is not voluntary is clearly established"—
I think that is quite true—
"but the greater part of it is drawn from people accustomed to the work"—
that is local seasonal work, as it is called—
"who work freely and at wages and under conditions fixed after consultation with their trade unions."
He goes on to say that those conditions are certainly not worse than the conditions of voluntary labour under the old Tsarist days. I should have thought from the evidence contained in the book that they were better, but I do not care to consider that now. Nor do I use the word "timber" at the moment, because it always seems to raise difficulty and prejudice.
If you have commodities imported from a district where the work is carried on "largely by voluntary labour"—those are the words used in the Report itself—but to some extent by convict labour, how are the Commission to deal with a matter of that kind? It is all very well to say that these things are easy to determine. They are exceedingly difficult, and that was found out by the United States in their attempt to prohibit, in very similar words, imports on the ground that they were made by convict labour. We also have, to consider this. Of course you cannot make a rule of this kind—the noble Lord did not argue for it, I admit—unless it is made general. You have special protective arrangements, for instance, in the Anglo-German Treaty, where in a Note
334
given at the time by Lord D'Abernon, the only exception in matters of this kind was the Customs Act as it then operated.
It is well known what were the terms of the Russian Agreement with us. The Agreement provides, generally, for mutual accord of most-favoured-nation treatment, and in particular stipulates that the natural produce and manufactures of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics shall enjoy in the United Kingdom all the facilities, rights and privileges which are at present, or may be hereafter, accorded to the natural produce and manufactures of any other foreign country in all that relates to the prohibition and restriction of imports. It is quite clear, therefore, that you could not impose a condition of this kind with regard to Russia without at the same time imposing a similar condition upon all other foreign countries. It is a difficult matter. I am told that the ruling opinion is that this provision, unless it is imposed generally, is inconsistent with what is called the most-favoured-nation clause, because there you have it stated that like commodities should be treated in a like way. It does not refer to the way in which they are produced, but to the commodities themselves.
I am not going to attempt to lay down any general principle with regard to the interpretation of these difficult matters, but it has been pointed out to me by those who are experts—by the Foreign Office—that they do not see how the difficulty in this way could be got over satisfactorily, either in the form of the Bill or of the special provision which the noble Lord proposes to introduce. He knows, as well as I do, and I think he has stated it, that the imports from Russia, so far as timber is concerned, are of the greatest importance. They are bartered, if I may use the expression, for machinery produced here, and in the great business which we now have in the building of houses for the working classes cheap timber is of enormous importance. Mr. Meyer, head of what is called the Consortium, illustrated that in a letter to The Times. We are dealing not with a small matter but with a big matter, because the value of soft timber and pit timber amounts to £9,500,000 a year—for which we get a market for our manufactured goods—as nearly as possible to the same level as existed in the old Tsarist days.

335
Your Lordships will recollect that in the Tsarist days the commodities from Russia included timber from Latvia, Esthonia and Finland, and parts of Poland. Figures show that Soviet Russia, with regard to her importations, has just reached the level of pre-War days, and beyond that there does not seem any immediate progress in amount; but it is quite certain, as pointed out by Mr. Meyer in a letter to The Times, that if you excluded by a stroke of the pen, as is suggested, imports of that kind, you would very seriously increase the cost of manufactured timber, that is, doors and windows and things of that kind, to the detriment of cheap building, and the cost of building would be considerably enhanced. I do not want to go too far into this to-day but only to indicate some of the difficulties.
Let me take the next part of the noble Lord's Bill. I think Clause 2 I have dealt with sufficiently, because that is a question of convict labour. In Clause 3 we come to the question of forced labour. Up to recently—I am not sure what it is now—there was a considerable amount of forced labour, particularly in backward countries, where forced labour was said to be required for public utility puposes, and was used for other purposes too. I am not quite certain, that all forced labour has been stopped entirely wherever we are in authority, but I recollect very well that in the old discussions at Geneva, when we were represented by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, not only was forced labour not ruled out entirely but it was argued that when dealing with backward people, especially in tropical countries, some form of forced labour could not be avoided. I think myself that all forced labour ought to be avoided, but you would find a very large area where what is called "forced labour" is still in operation, because forced labour includes, according to the noble Lord's definition, I think, what we call indentured labour.
LORD PHILLIMORE: No.
LORD PARMOOR: The definition is:
"all work or service exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its non-performance and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily."
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD PARMOOR: Noble Lords say "Hear, hear." I find no fault with those "Hear, hears." If you ask me, I would make forced labour even wider than that, but even if you take the definition in the Bill it means to say that compulsory labour is what the noble Lord calls "forced labour." Well, it has been often argued that in backward districts and territories, particularly in tropical regions, some form of forced labour is almost essential if you are to press on what are called civilised methods and civilised principles.
I think I ought to say one word about the League of Nations, and one word on the question of consuls. Great Britain desires that the conditions of Russia should, if possible, be considered, in order that we might get a thoroughly impartial expert view of what the conditions are. But the League of Nations could not investigate conditions of that kind in a country which is not a Member of the League. It is only through membership of the League that the League as a whole has authority to make investigations of that sort, and I suppose that such a proposal would probably be met with what we met with. As the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Henderson, stated, some suggestions were made that we might make independent investigations, but I think ho was quite right in saying that unless he had a clear field and a clear opportunity of ascertaining the whole truth it would be unwise for him to enter upon this matter at all.
Then as regards consuls in these timber districts, I do not think we have any consular representatives at the present time. We have, I believe, two or three consuls in Russia—one in Leningrad, one in Moscow and also a vice-consul. It is not impossible, I presume, to make arrangements for more consuls and consular services, but that is the condition now. I do not in the least take any adverse view to the statement of the noble Viscount, Lord Grey, of Falloden, but if we are to have this consular investigation—that is, if we could arrange it, because I do not know—large changes would have to be made as compared with things as they are at the present time. I want to say quite frankly, as I have often said, that

337
we cannot take this action in regard to forced labour in other countries. It cannot be done in this way. This has been considered and carefully considered by the Foreign Office, by Mr. Gillett of the Department of Overseas Trade and by the President of the Board of Trade. And therefore the attitude I am going to advise my noble friends here to take is this. I think it would very likely be misunderstood if we voted against the Second Heading of this Bill.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD PARMOOR: Well, do you want us to? It is very funny how merriment arises in an unexpected way in this House. It seems as though numbers gave force to merriment. But that, I think, is the right thing to do. At the same time, we state—I do not say we warn the noble Lord, but we state—that it is, of course, quite impossible that this Bill can go forward in the present Parliament. It is quite impossible for us to give any facilities. In our opinion there are a number of very important and difficult points which would have to be thrashed out, and therefore so far as we are concerned, although there may be value in discussion, particularly such kindly discussion as the noble Lord has suggested, we think there can be no use whatever in going beyond discussion; and if the Bill goes to a Committee we shall leave the matter to be discussed by your Lordships, but the Government will not be able to give any assistance.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, if anything coming from the Bench opposite could astonish me, it would be the speech of the noble and learned Lord to which we have just listened. The attitude of the Government on this Bill appears to me absolutely indefensible, all the more so because of the noble and learned Lord's opening words. He told us he was against forced labour and that he had no objection in principle to this Bill. If that is his real attitude, in the name of common sense, why did not he say: "I agree to the Second Reading of this Bill, and I shall help to make it a good one"? It appears to me that what the noble and learned Lord had in his mind when he spoke was not to help to make this Bill effective, not to amend it so as to make it enforceable, but to put forward a certain number of objections,
338
which appear to me for the most part largely frivolous, suggesting why the Bill is useless. There may be some undisclosed reasons, owing to the composition of his Party or other domestic reasons, why he thought it desirable to throw discredit upon this Bill. If there are such reasons, he was probably very wise not to disclose them. At any rate, the reasons that he gave why this Bill is likely to be useless, and why if he had had the courage to do it, he would have opposed the Second Reading, appear to me to be perfectly flimsy, unsubstantial and unconvincing.
I propose first to say why the Government cannot possibly, as I think, with any decency or reason, oppose the passage of this Bill. In order to justify the Second Reading you must be prepared to show, first of all, that there is forced labour in Russia or elsewhere, and that large imports are coming into this country which are the product of forced labour or convict labour. The second point you would have to show in order to justify the Second Reading would be that the proper remedy is by prohibition. On both those points I have the advantage of quoting the actual opinions of members of the Government. We had a debate in your Lordships' House on February 5, in the course of which striking and deplorable evidence was produced by Lord Newton, Lord Phillimore, and Lord Brentford as to the appalling conditions of forced and convict labour in Russia. And what did the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, say in winding up the debate for the Government? He said:
"I do not dispute the evidence for one moment."
I think he was quite right in that. He went on to emphasise it further. He said:
"We have heard a great deal said by the noble Viscount"—
that is Lord Brentford—
"with regard to these horrors. They may be true. I am not disputing the fact. They are very horrible."
In the face of that strong and deliberate declaration—because the noble Lord knew what was going to be brought forward—is it possible for anyone to say that the conditions of forced and convict labour in Russia do not exist, or is it possible for them to say that they

339
are not of a most horrible kind? That is the first point, as to the existence of forced labour.
The second point is as to the propriety of the remedy which the Bill proposes for prohibition. There again we have statements by very prominent and important Ministers; I have them here. The first important statement, which I think was referred to shortly by the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, is a quotation from the Socialist Party Committee on Sweated Imports set up in 1925, of which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Johnston, the Lord Privy Seal, Mr. Tom Shaw, the Secretary of State for War, and a very important person whom we rejoice to see here, Lord Passfield, and Mr. Arthur Greenwood, who is Minister of Health, were members. They stated:
"We do not suggest that cheap goods should be excluded because they are cheap."
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pass-field, recognises these words as his own. He was on the Committee, and I will read them so that he may confirm them if necessary presently—
"But we suggest that goods, whether cheap or not, should be excluded if they are made under conditions which violate the world standard."
I presume that the noble Lord opposite agrees with that statement made by himself and his colleagues in 1925. The conditions of humanity and morality I do not suppose have altered greatly since 1925 and, therefore, he would accept the views which he most properly laid down in that year.
When I speak of cheap goods may I say that I was surprised to hear some suggestion from the noble and learned Lord opposite that we should let in timber or other goods because they were cheap. If Lord Passfield and those other prominent members of the Government are right there is no reason whatever for letting these goods in if they are made under conditions which violate the world standard. So that, on both those points—the existence of this forced and horrible labour in Soviet Russia and the necessity for prohibiting the import of goods made under those conditions into this country—the declarations of Ministerialists appear to me to be absolutely conclusive.
340
I might stop there, but may I be allowed in very few words to give some reasons why, apart from these Ministerial declarations, I think your Lordships would be very well advised to give a Second Reading to this Bill? The evidence as to the nature of labour in Russia is twofold. In the first place, there is the evidence afforded by that remarkable set of documents representing labour legislation in Soviet Russia published in a Blue-book, Command Paper No. 2775, showing what the Russian Government have laid down as to the conditions under which labour should be and could be recruited and made compulsory. That is one class of evidence. The second class of evidence is the evidence of eye witnesses who saw these things for themselves in Russia and made affidavits and wrote accounts which appear in many public documents. Put shortly the effect of that evidence is, I venture to submit, that Russia is a country of almost universal forced or compulsory labour. If anyone takes the trouble to look at those documents he will see that is not an overstatement. If anyone takes the trouble, as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and others did the other day, to quote some of the conditions under which labour is exercised in Russia he will find—again, I do not think Lord Ponsonby would dispute it—that men and many women and even children of 15 or 16 are compulsorily deported from their homes in Russia day by day in many, many thousands. As regards men, they are deported to timber camps in Northern Russia, to mines on the Don, to oilfields in Baku, and to State farms—agricultural farms they are called, slavery farms practically—in the Ukraine. They are there forced to work with no alternative except that of death or starvation.
I think I should be occupying your Lordships' attention unnecessarily if I were to quote from what was to me the most heartrending report or rather series of articles by a correspondent of the Chicago Tribune. Those articles appeared in that paper not so long ago—between March 8 and 31, 1931—as the result of his experiences while on a visit to Russia. I can only say that if there is anyone who doubts the horrors of that forced labour let him read those letters. The writer deals specially with the tim-

341
ber camps in Northern Russia and with the treatment of that unfortunate section of the community the kulaks, the better to-do peasants, who are subject not merely to the most horrible indignities but to cruelties and are sent to work with the alternative of being starved.
I will not go into the question of the amount of these products of forced labour which are imported into this, country day by day and year by year. It is sufficient to say that last year there were something like £24,000,000 of imports of Russian goods and products—timber, wheat, china, glass-ware, fruit, pulp, and many other articles. One can guess, at any rate, under what conditions they were produced, and not merely guess but affirm. If that is so, surely there are two reasons why this Bill should be carried and made effective with the help (and I hope we shall get it) of the Front Government Bench. In the first place, there is the economic question and there I cannot do better than quote the words of the Bishop of Durham in his speech in your Lordships' House on February 5 of this year. He said this:
"… when this five-year plan is carried through"—
we all know what that means; it is for the destruction of our industries here and the setting up if possible, by means of discontent and starvation, the world revolution here and elsewhere—
"this country will be subjected to a strain of unfair competition against which no modern organised industrial community could hold out."
There is a worse thing than economic menace; there is the moral disgrace which would fall upon this country if we did not take measures to stop bringing into this country, and to discourage bringing into this country, the fruits of these abominable horrors which are being carried out in Russia. If we do not take steps for that purpose we shall be guilty to a large extent of condoning the horrors under which these goods are made. More than that, we may be justly accused of being wholly indifferent to the appalling misery and degradation to which these unfortunate defenceless men and women of Russia are subject. Why? For the sake of getting some cheap goods and saving an awkward moment for the councils of the Socialist Party.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I think this question is a much more serious one than many of your Lordships yet realise. This is a question which has been taken up by a large number of the wage-earning classes of this country. They are beginning to get information as to what is going on in Russia, and depend upon it, whatever Government may be in power, I feel sure that the principle contained in this Bill will have to be dealt with in some way or other by a Government which has the power to do it. We know what is going on at the present time. There is no doubt that the Russian Central Government has complete control of the whole of the labour conditions in Russia. It fixes the wages, it fixes the hours, it fixes the quantity that has to be produced, and if the quantity is not produced, most serious claims are made against those who fail to produce what they have to produce. I realise the difficulty of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, who spoke with regard to this matter, that if you deal with this principle you might have to deal with various other countries where possibly conditions do not exist such as exist in Russia, but in my judgment this is a Russian question, and unless something is done you will find that competition from Russia will be such as this country has not had to face, in my time certainly.
Timber has been mentioned. Russia supplies timber cheap, and merchants who have to make their Jiving do not object to it. It is not only timber. We are beginning to feel it all round. I read not long ago that in Turkey the Turks even were complaining of the import of coal from Russia below cost price, because it was taking away their trade. I need not go further than last week. There was an important contract of about 35,000 or 40,000 tons of gas coal, which has belonged to this country for years, captured by Russia selling at shillings a ton below the cost at which we can produce the coal in this country. How is that done? It is not done by fair conditions such as we have. It is done by conditions imposed upon the workmen by a central Government which is determined to injure us as much as possible. This question will have to be dealt with. The Government may put

343
it off now, but I feel sure it will not be long before the wage-earning classes of this country will see that it is absolutely necessary to put some check upon this competition, so that at all events competition may be on fair grounds. With competition on fair grounds I am sure this country has nothing to fear.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I confess that I have listened to this debate with some feeling of disappointment. The mover of the Second Reading in a speech which, if he will allow me to say so, seemed to me of the utmost cogency and to present most impartially and most forcibly the case for his measure, stated in terms that he was not wedded to any particular form of words provided the principles underlying this Bill were accepted and were made effective. On a Second Reading debate, as I have always understood it, the rule is that the House comes to its decision as to whether or not it approves the principle of a Bill. If it does approve the principle it votes in favour of the Second Reading and leaves Committee points to the Committee stage. If it believes the principle is a wrong principle, then naturally enough it votes against it. What are the principles which underlie this Bill? As I understand them there are two principles, one economic, one moral. The economic principle, I think, may be stated, perhaps not with precision but sufficiently accurately, as being this, that it is not right or reasonable to erect standards of living for our own people and then to allow those standards to be destroyed by competition of goods produced under conditions of forced or convict labour. The moral principle, I think, may be enunciated somewhat in these terms. It is not right for a country that calls itself a Christian country to make itself an accessory after the fact to the enslavement of populations less happily situated than our own by profiting from the cheapness of goods produced under slave conditions.
Are those principles to which this House gives its adhesion? Both of them have been recognised over and over again, both by legislation and by the voluntary action of people in this country. The argument in favour of the economic proposition I think is an overwhelming one. As has been pointed out, in the Socialist Party's own Committee
344
it was explicitly stated that there was here no question of tariff or of free trade. If we in this country insist on a standard of living for our workpeople and if we then allow the goods produced by those people to be driven out of our own markets by goods produced under slave or forced labour conditions, that must involve that our own people are either driven out of work altogether or else are compelled to lower their own standard so as to compete with slave conditions. The only remedy, as the Socialist Committee itself pointed out, is to prohibit the entry into this country of goods produced under those conditions. Now that principle has been recognised; we do not allow in this country goods produced in our own prisons to be sold in competition with goods produced under trade union free labour. Why not? Because we recognise that it is an impossibility to maintain cur standards of living if they have to face competition of that kind, and, as has been pointed out, as long ago as 1897 a similar prohibition was enacted with regard to goods produced in foreign prisons. It is true enough that that enactment has not in practice proved effective, because the condition necessary to bring is into operation—the condition that you must prove that the particular parcel of goods which you are challenging was produced in a prison by prison labour—is so difficult that it can never be complied with. But if the condition has proved difficult of application, the remedy is not to abandon your principles but to make your legislation effective.
And similarly with the moral argument. Have we forgotten how in the days of Wilberforce for many years large numbers of our people voluntarily refused to partake of sugar at all because they would not lend themselves to the production of sugar by slave labour in the West Indies, and that their action and voluntary sacrifice was a very potent factor in awakening the conscience of this country and in abolishing slave conditions in our own Dominions? Have we changed so much since the War? Have our consciences been so deadened that we do not care now under what conditions goods are produced so long only as they are cheap? Russian timber, said the noble and learned Lord the Leader

345
of the House, cannot be shut out as it might be under this Bill because, remember, Russian timber is cheap and it will possibly raise the cost of building working-class houses if you refuse to allow the use of timber produced in Russia under slave conditions. A magnificent exhibition of high moral standing!
But what were the arguments of the noble and learned Lord? I hope I shall not do him an injustice when I try to summarise them. He began by telling us that an Act was passed in the United States prohibiting the importation of goods produced by convict labour, and he said that in fact that had not proved effective in practice. No more has our own of 1897. The result is that in the United States, as the noble and learned Lord knows, they are now introducing legislation very like the legislation which my noble friend Lord Phillimore has introduced to-day, which it is hoped will be effective. Then, he said, the exemption in subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill was too wide because it lets in goods which are not produced or manufactured in the British Empire. Well, it may be that it would be advisable to tighten up the exemption. I am quite sure my noble friend would be willing to consider an amendment for that purpose. But that is not against the principle of the Bill.
"Then," says the noble and learned Lord, "we, the Socialist Government, have negotiated a Treaty with Russia and that Treaty has in it a most-favoured-nation clause and I think it is very doubtful," said he—or rather he did not say that, but "I am advised by some people that it is very doubtful whether or not this legislation would not infringe the most-favoured-nation clause in that Treaty." If that was true it would seem to me a most scathing indictment of the Government of which he is a member, but I think he is doing his colleagues and himself an injustice. I should not like to say of any argument of the noble and learned Lord that it is a quibble, but I would remind him that at the time he negotiated that Treaty, there was in existence the Foreign Prison-made Goods Act of 1897, which is to-day the law of the land and which is just as much an infringement of the most-favoured-nation clause as the Bill which my noble friend Lord Philli-
346
more has introduced. The difference between the two is one of machinery and of application to forced labour as well as to convict labour. If this is an infringement of the most-favoured-nation clause, how then could they have negotiated that Treaty two years ago when there was that legislation in existence which, if the present argument is right, prevented them making that Treaty?
Of course, in truth, it does nothing of the kind. It would be an infringement of the most-favoured-nation clause to introduce prohibition of the goods of one country only, but this Bill does not do that. It is not an infringement if it applies to every other country. This Bill does not differentiate between countries. It says with regard to any foreign country that if their goods are produced under what I may call for shortness slave conditions, those goods shall not come in, and it does not matter whether they are Russian goods or the goods of any other country in the world. Therefore there is no differentiation between countries. The only differentiation is between classes of commodities. The noble and learned Lord also said—in fact he said it twice—that there were difficulties seen by the President of the Board of Trade, by the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade. He told us that in the early part of his speech, and I waited anxiously to hear what they were; but we never heard. All that happened was that towards the end of his speech the noble and learned Lord told us that difficulties were foreseen by these colleagues of his (distinguished colleagues, no doubt) and that therefore—therefore what? One would have thought, that therefore the Government would be anxious to co-operate in removing them, but the answer he makes is that therefore the Government will take no part in the Committee stage of the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, in an eloquent peroration, said that the principles of this Bill had been dear to his heart for twenty years. He has for twenty years been anxious to carry out the objects which this Bill purports to enact. But (he sees in the particular machinery which this Bill proposes some difficulties. Therefore, he says, so dear is this principle to him that he will not

347
support it in the Division Lobby and will do nothing to help to bring it into practice. It is difficult within the limits of language which is approved in this House adequately to characterise an attitude of that kind. The truth is—and I think everyone in this House who has listened to the debate must appreciate it—that the Government are not afraid of passing this Bill because it will not be effective. The truth is that they are afraid it will be effective.
The truth is not that the Government have doubts whether or not slave labour and forced labour is in existence in Russia. They have repeatedly admitted in this House and in the other place that they know that the evidence cannot be controverted of the conditions which exist. The noble and learned Lord himself said this evening that they accepted the Report of the Anti-Slavery Society which actually found that such labour was being used in the timber trade. They know, therefore, that if this Bill becomes an Act the result will be to prevent goods produced under forced labour conditions being introduced from Russia. But unfortunately they have a considerable section of their Party which is passionately wedded to Russia. Therefore, the real difficulty which the Government see is not in bringing this Bill into operation, but in the conflict which will inevitably arise in their own Party if they try to give it effect.
I venture to submit to your Lordships that the attitude which the noble and learned Lord adopts as the representative of the Government is an attitude which does not commend itself to any impartial tribunal and will not receive the support of your Lordships' House. If it be true that the Government do not wish to make this Bill as good a Bill as it can be made, then let us do it without them. For myself, I congratulate the introducer of this Bill on the courage he has shown in bringing it forward. I hope he will press it through all its stages. I believe we on this side of the House will do all in our power to make it effective, and I hope very much, in spite of the prophecies of the noble and learned Lord, that those in another place will be given an opportunity of registering themselves either in favour of or against the im-
348
portation of goods produced under forced labour conditions to the detriment of the conditions of our own people.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down referred to the limits of language allowed in this House. I am afraid I have not been long enough in your Lordships' House really to know what those limits are, but they seem always to me to be stretched a little further whenever I hear the noble and learned Viscount speak. I want to keep very well within the limits of any heated language and to copy the noble Lord who introduced this Bill in such an admirable, clear and persuasive speech. I can assure him that in spite of what the noble and learned Viscount said with regard to the attitude of His Majesty's Government and of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, we are absolutely in sympathy with the underlying principle of this Bill. The noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down described these two principles—he economic principle and the moral principle—ith great lucidity and I subscribe to the definitions which he gave of both. There is no difference of opinion in that respect. We should like to see forced labour and convict labour abolished, but we cannot sit here and give our assistance and blessing to a measure which quite obviously will not carry out that purpose.
That has been gone into very carefully by my noble friend the Lord President. If I may have the attention of the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, I should like to put a specific case to him. I do not want to enter into a heated argument with regard to Russia, but we know perfectly well that it is against Russia that this measure is directed. Judging by all the reports that have come in from various quarters, with a bias one way or the other, there is no question that forced labour and convict labour exist in the timber trade in Russia.
A NOBLE LORD: And in other trades.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: On the other hand, we have been informed by the Soviet Government that, so far as the export of timber is concerned, no convict labour or forced labour is used. Say that this is not true, that they are not speaking the truth. After

349
all, it is a perfectly credible, statement, because the amount of timber that is used for export is a very small percentage of the total trade, since there is a very large consumption of timber in Russia itself. Therefore, although noble Lords may say that the Soviet Government are not speaking the truth, it is a perfectly credible statement. It may be that the export of timber is carried on by convict labour or forced labour, but how are we to find out under the noble Lord's Bill? How are the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to be satisfied? How are they going to have "cause to believe"? By investigation? By report? Well, we cannot make investigations and reports in a foreign country that will not submit to have the reports made. I do not think any sovereign State would allow another sovereign State to conduct an investigation within their boundaries; and they are perfectly within their powers and rights in refusing. We cannot ascertain, under the noble Lord's Bill, whether convict labour or forced labour is used in the production of the timber that comes over here.
The general principles that were laid down by the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down are very far-reaching and very interesting, and are worthy of very careful debate in both Houses of Parliament, but it is impossible to nibble at a great principle by an entirely inadequate measure which cannot effect its purpose and which, although it may be supported by moral indignation and by economic considerations, must not leave out of account further considerations of a diplomatic nature. We have to consider that, if any extreme measures of this sort could be taken against Russia, not only would it mean a rupture of our Agreement with Russia, but it would very likely lead to the breaking off of our diplomatic relations. The diplomatic side of the question must be borne in mind. I rose only because I thought it was not quite fair on the part of the noble and learned Viscount to taunt my noble friend the Leader of the House with insincerity in his declaration of adherence to the principle which underlies this Bill, as presented and advocated by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, because that principle must be sincerely held by all the inhabitants of the British Isles, without any differentiation, and it is not
350
because of a difference of principle, it is because we see that the method adopted by the noble Lord is impracticable, that we can allow the Second Reading but cannot take any part in further stages of the Bill.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I will not detain you for more than a few moments, but I think I am entitled to say that this debate has been of some use. We have, at any rate, and I welcome it with all my heart, common ground between all Parties that it is the policy of this country to suppress forced labour wherever we find it. By that I do not mean that this commits the Party opposite to take any definite action. I am not trying to twist their words in any way. But that is the object to be gained, and I have to thank the noble Lord who has just sat down for the very kind way in which he has treated my speech and for putting questions to which I can give a definite answer. I think he asked me two questions. The first was: How can I expect any sovereign State to allow an investigation that Russia, has refused? I thought I had already given that answer when I made my speech. It was that Germany, a far greater State, if I may say so, allowed such an investigation to a foreign country in the interests of a foreign country, during the heat of the War, and that we did the same. I think that is a very valuable precedent, and one which even Russia need not be ashamed to follow.
Then he asked me—I think this was his second question—how, in the case of a given parcel of timber, it was to be known whether that parcel was produced by convict labour, by forced labour or by free labour. No one is certain of that in the case of a country which is suspect. It can only be ascertained by investigation and, to be quite frank and open about, it, if a country openly practises forced labour it is the intention of my Bill that the goods from that country should not be imported into this country unless that country can see its way to prove that those goods are free from the taint. I do not think there can be anything clearer than that, and I cannot for the life of me see how it is an unworkable principle.
I was greatly honoured by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House venturing to pay so much atten-

351
tion to my few remarks, but it was rather, as I had anticipated, the sand that the noble and learned Lord managed to find to put into the machinery that was sought far and wide, and I cannot help thinking that, in one or two cases, he shut his eyes when he reached out for the bucket. For instance, one of his objections was that this Bill would apply to countries administered by Great Britain herself. How can he bring up that objection when he knows perfectly well that his own Government has just agreed in terms that all forced labour in all our mandated territories and non-self-governing Colonies, and so on, for which we are responsible should be immediately and forthwith suppressed—or, at any rate, suppressed in the shortest possible time? How can that be a valid objection?. Then the noble and learned Lord took, I venture to say, another handful of sand out of the bucket on the subject of indentured labour. I expect he knows very well and has followed the debate that took place at Geneva on the question of the Draft Convention. If he has, be will know perfectly well that the definition that is incorporated in the Bill was expressly arrived at in order to exclude the question of indentured labour. The question of indentured labour was very carefully considered by the Committee, and the Committee decided not to deal with it.
Again, the noble and learned Lord adduced an Act—I could not quite catch the date, but I believe it was 1837—of the United States of America, which he said failed. I would like to remind the noble and learned Lord that whatever was the action of the United States in 1837, the present position is that the United States' imports from Soviet Russia are less than any of the other great Powers. The noble and learned Lord even went so far as to produce Mr. Meyer as another bit of sand. That point, as to whether the noble and learned Lord wants cheapness at the expense of forced labour, has already been very ably dealt with by those who sit below me.
I would like, if I may, just to put this consideration to noble Lords opposite. Are they really anxious—have they really at heart the question of the suppression of forced labour? If they have, and do
352
not like the machinery of this Bill, where is their Bill? Is it an unimportant question to-day, or is it an important question? Are there many greater questions which trouble the world at the present moment? To pass to a very homely illustration, which may perhaps appeal in a different way to the noble and learned Lord opposite, in Victorian times, when children used to make objection to a course which seemed otherwise desirable and which was advocated by their parents, the answer of the parents was: "Well, if you do not like to do it, still you can truly try." I would recommend to the noble and learned Lord that he should truly try to find a remedy for this great evil.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I ask whether, if this Bill goes to another place, the Government will give an opportunity for its Second Reading to be discussed?
LOKD PARMOOR: I cannot answer that, but I should say that in the present state of business it would be quite impossible.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH COLONIAL SUGAR INDUSTRY.
LORD OLIVIER LORD OLIVIER had the following Notice on the Paper—To call attention to the plight of the British Colonial sugar industry, and to ask His Majesty's Government for information upon the subject and invite a considered justification of the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard thereto, particularly in view of the contradictory reasons given in this House and in another place for inaction in regard to that industry, and for the increase of subsidy to the British beet sugar industry, its competitor, respectively; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, you have had your interest greatly excited by a subject which is perhaps of more interest to many of your Lordships than that upon which I desire to address you, and Lord Passfield has informed me that it is necessary for him to leave this House at no very distant hour. Therefore I am afraid that I shall have rather to curtail what I wish to put before your

353
Lordships on this matter, which I think raises more than immediate questions of our commercial policy generally. I have desired to call attention to the plight of our Colonial sugar industry, but I will curtail that part of my observations, because I think there, is no difference with regard to the facts between my noble friend and myself. Generally speaking the industry is suffering, as we have always told you it was bound to suffer, under present conditions. In some of the Islands the conditions are extremely severe and distressing, but are largely due to drought and to shortage of crops, and I will not deal at length with those places where the conditions are aggravated by drought and shortage of crops.
With regard to Barbados, that Island is now suffering, as we foretold, very severely from conditions which are described to me in a letter by a distinguished member of the commercial community, which I will read to your Lordships:
"The situation locally is still very uncertain. The entire sugar crop has been disposed of to Canada at prices which net the factory about £8 8s. per ton. This of course means a heavy loss in practically all cases, particularly as the crop, owing to severe drought, has fallen short of last year's by about 30,000 tons, or a little more than one-third. … No arrangements have been made to assist the industry by the local Government up to the present. The only action taken has been to place before the Legislature certain measures for the relief of unemployment. Those involve the expenditure of about £5,000, and relate to work on roads, and repairs and improvements to elementary schools. It is understood that further measures are in contemplation. There is undoubtedly want and suffering among the labouring population, slightly mitigated by the fact that their chief imported food rice, biscuits, etc, are much lower in price than at this time last year. They are behaving wonderfully well under trying conditions, and there is no unrest up to the present. Whether this state of affairs will continue later on this year, when money received during the crop is completely exhausted, is a matter for conjecture.
"The position among the plantation owners is very serious in many cases. Several estates are being put up for forced sale, and I doubt if any buyers will be found; probably mortgagees will be forced to take them over to protect themselves, and endeavour to make arrangements to carry on. In a large number of other cases the means of carrying on for another year has not yet been settled. Except in a few instances no actual abandonment of land has taken place. In Bridgetown trade is suffering considerably; deductions in salaries
354
among shop assistants, etc., has been made and many dismissals have occurred. It is among these at present that the distress is at its worst as they cannot find fresh employment. There is no means of their emigrating and they are compelled to live on charity. It goes against the grain very much for these people to have to beg, particularly as they meet with many refusals; the incomes of nearly every one being so much reduced that they cannot afford to help others.
"Although in the Government estimates for the current year revenue is expected to quadrate expenditure, I am certain that those concerned have considerably underestimated the reduction in imports, which is bound to take place owing to the very much reduced spending power of all classes."
With regard to British Guiana, as Parliament is already aware it has been found necessary by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make applications for liberal assistance for the Colony owing to the very severe distress which is now being experienced there. In both Barbados and British Guiana wages have been much reduced. In Trinidad and British Guiana they have had extraordinarily heavy crops owing to a favourable season and that will relieve the difficulties of those Colonies to a considerable extent, because where the chief difficulty is the cost of cultivation it helps very much when you have a crop which is 10 per cent, above the average. In Jamaica, where I have spent three months this year, the sugar industry is in very great difficulties, largely owing, or to a great extent owing, to the fact that by reason of the heavy duty upon it there is no market in this country for rum. There is severe distress all round these Colonies. It does not move me to be told that there is depression of trade and industry all over the world, because in a country like this we take care that the workers out of work shall not suffer actual deprivation, but in the West Indies no assistance that can be given can prevent severe suffering being experienced by the West Indian population. Certain Governments came to the assistance of the industry and gave it subsidies. This year again the Government of Jamaica is giving a subsidy to the sugar industry. Without that assistance the industry could not be carried on, even in the struggling manner in which it is being carried on.
We have appealed again and again to o the Government to give the West Indies

355
that slight assistance to tide them over their difficulty which was almost promised to us two years ago, and the easiest form in which we put our plea for that assistance was that there should be a slight increase in the Preference, that is to say, increase the Preference by about Is. a cwt. so that the West Indian Preference might be made equal to the Canadian Preference. The last occasion when that proposal was made was in the House of Commons, not very long ago, and at that time the reply given was that since the decision had been taken on the Report of the Sugar Commission of last year, that that assistance could not be given, nothing had occurred to alter the situation, and that the arguments which were good then are equally good now.
Now I come to what I call the inconsistency of the Government. In some respects it is an inconsistency which I applaud. They have acted inconsistently in their arguments and in their policy with regard, on the one hand, to the British Colonial industry and, on the other hand, to the British beet sugar industry; because in regard to the British beet sugar industry they have taken an entirely different attitude from their attitude on the West Indian and Mauritius industry. The Minister of Agriculture gave what, from his point of view, were very good reasons why assistance should be given again to the British beet sugar industry in just such a pinch and for just such reasons as are affecting the West Indian sugar industry. He used two arguments. I may say that, with the subsidy, the British sugar beet industry and the British West Indian sugar industry were on about equal terms. The British sugar beet industry gets a subsidy of 6s. 6d. a cwt. It cannot produce so economically as the British West Indian sugar industry, but with its subsidy of 6s. 6d. per cwt. it may be said to be on about equal terms. Well, we have established by law that it shall have a subsidy of 6s. 6d. a cwt. It may be a good policy, or it may not. Anyhow, that is the accepted position. When that position had become impaired by the fact that the price of sugar had fallen, as it has fallen within the last year, the British beet sugar industry came to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and persuaded him to take account of that fact, and Dr. Addison in another place said, in effect: "The price has fallen. That is a
356
reason for putting up the subsidy, so that they may compete on equal terms with the foreign producer."
That is precisely the argument that I have again and again put before my noble friends in this House—that since the Preference was fixed, since you gave your decision on the Sugar Commission's Report of last year, the price has fallen and your consumers in England are getting their sugar still more cheaply than the beggarly price at which they were getting it. You accept that argument in respect to the British beet sugar industry, but you have refused to accept it in regard to the West Indian and Colonial sugar industry. Again, Dr. Addison said that one reason why His Majesty's Government thought it desirable to ask for this additional 1s. 3d. a cwt. in the subsidy to the British beet sugar industry was that otherwise severe unemployment would befall. Very well, we told the British Government that severe unemployment would be caused in the West Indies, and it is being caused. With regard to the West Indies, the British Government have told us: "No, we cannot help that. If your people are starving, we will give them a little poor relief and unemployment works." There is a discrepancy in the policy, and it is that discrepancy which, rightly or wrongly, the West Indian and Colonial subjects of His Majesty complain of; because they say British commercial policy is determined apparently without the slightest regard to their interests.
When, you come to the policy of the production of sugar in this country, you take what, from our point of view, is a reasonable line. You say the British public has received its sugar at an enormous reduction, and it is only reasonable that a little of this should be given away in bringing up the subsidy. Unemployment has been produced in the British Colonies, and we have used that as an argument. You rejected that argument with regard to the British Colonies, but you accepted it with regard to this country. Therefore I want to know whether it is the policy of the Government that British Colonial interests are not to be taken account of in the commercial policy of this country.
I want to come next to a further aspect of this subject. We have been having a debate upon the question of forced labour,

357
and very sound quotations were made as to the attitude of the Labour Party with regard to forced labour and sweated labour in the past, and with regard to the position taken up by the International Labour Organisation on the subject of sweated labour. At the present time you are buying your sugar in England for less than one-half of what it costs to produce anywhere in the world. That is owing to mass over-production for speculative purposes, which has flooded the world with an enormous surplus of sugar. I should have liked to give your Lordships a rather careful account of what is happening in Cuba. The state of Cuba is terrible. The Island is in a state of seething unrest, complete unemployment. All the Jamaicans and others who used to work in Cuba have been turned out because there is not enough employment for their own people, and nobody is getting paid for the work they do. I read a recent account of Cuba by Mr. Raymond Leslie Buell, a very well known American economist, who has just visited there. He says people are not getting paid at all for their canes, not getting more than the cost of transport; for, he says, owing to the fact that Cuba has been parcelled out into large factory areas, the Cuban farmer, who used to be a, small cultivator, has become practically a forced labourer for the factory. He has to supply his canes there, he cannot supply them anywhere else; and he gets paid no more for them than the cost of cutting and transport.
That is to say that the American exploitation of Cuba has, in Mr. Buell's words, succeeded in reducing the Cuban colons into the position of serfs tied to the soil, and working for practically no adequate remuneration at all. That is a sweating system, and I have again and again appealed to my colleagues to take into consideration whether it is decent for the British public to buy sugar much below cost price under a system which in Cuba, Java, and elsewhere is reducing the population to this condition of bond slaves working for a very small pittance.
I say it is a disreputable policy for a Government to encourage. But they say: "We want sugar to reach the consumer in the cheapest possible manner." Again and again, they have said: "It is our policy not to tax sugar. We want free food." Are you aware of what the
358
present price of sugar is? The present price of sugar in grocers' shops, is 2½d. per lb. Do you know what is the price of the sugar itself, and what is the Duty? The price of the sugar itself is 1¼d, and 1¼d. represents the Duty. This Government which refuses to tax food is, therefore, taxing the food of the people. We have again and again told them: "Reduce your duty by a halfpenny per lb., and you can still give us a farthing per lb. and pay us a decent price for our sugar." But no! they profess that they must not tax food; they profess that they must not sweat labour, and they refuse to give to Colonial producers a very small fraction of the enormous benefit which consumers in England are getting from the ridiculous price of sugar. I have said that before and I am sorry to have to repeat it.
The final point that I wish to raise is this. I want to hear some considered justification of the attitude of His Majesty's Government in this matter. I must remind your Lordships that we had this controversy about getting cheap sugar for the British public a good many years ago while we were still suffering from foreign bounty-fed sugar. It was then decided by the Government of which Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was a member, that this was not a proper policy and that the Colonies ought to be considered. Then ensued the negotiations which led to the Brussels Convention and the menace of foreign bounty-fed sugar was done away with. The Colonial members of this Empire have always held that that was a sound and proper policy. They say now that it is not a sound and proper policy that is being pursued and that the Colonial Office, whose constituents they are—they have no special representatives in Parliament-ought to keep up their end, and insist that they should be considered in relation to British commercial policy as well as the consumers of this country. That is what they claim.
I was very much impressed and interested to hear my noble friend a few nights ago at a dinner at the Corona Club, talking very soundly, as I thought, of how great an advantage it would be to have one Imperial Colonial service, the officers of which could be freely exchanged between one Colony and another

359
without feeling that they belonged to a Colony, but that they belonged, in fact, to the Empire. Some Colonies are always a little jealous of such a policy, because they say: "We are developing ourselves and we like to be able to produce and train our own officers." If anything could induce them to take a more favourable view of that administratively sound proposal it would be if it were definitely considered and recognised as being the duty of His Majesty's Government in dealing with the commercial policy of this country, to take into account the commercial interests of the Colonies. So long as, on the one hand, the Imperial Government says, "No, we cannot consider your producers at all," and, on the other hand, "We would like to have an Imperial Colonial service," so long will you have a great reluctance on the part of the Colonies to enter into more sympathetic relations with this country.
They all desire to come into more sympathetic relations with this country. Communications are becoming more and more rapid. The Imperial sentiment, if I may so call it, in the British Colonies is steadily strengthening; but the thing that disgusts and disheartens them is that when a Party wants cheap votes by talking about taxes on food their interests are thrown to the wind and they are simply regarded as parts of the Empire for which the Colonial Office has no special responsibility. The position is not remedied by saying that you will give a little assistance for industries and so on. Such things do not touch the matter.
Finally, I want to know what, if anything, His Majesty's Government have done on the recommendation I ventured to make to them very strongly, as Mr. Chamberlain did before, that they should take some action to secure an international consideration of this question of dumping. The practice of dumping with regard to sugar is developing to a more ridiculous extent than with regard to any other commodity in the world. Surely His Majesty's Government might have taken some action on that suggestion and called an international conference on the subject of sugar? No! I do not know whether anything was done but nothing has transpired. Action was left to be taken in the matter by Mr. Chadbourne, an American financier who represented
360
American and Canadian financial interests in Cuba and elsewhere. He set the ball rolling and went round to the organised sugar industries of the world and to different Governments. He has succeeded in getting a plan agreed to by Cuba, Java, Germany, Czecho-Slovakia and some other nations and by the associated sugar industries of all those nations, that they will put a certain amount of the enormous surplus of sugar which now exists in the world into cold storage and dole it out in five years by instalments. Also that they will restrict their production in Cuba and Java to a certain extent.
When those negotiations were proceeding the West Indian Committee wrote several times to the Colonial Office begging and urging His Majesty's Government to show some kind of interest in this very important movement and to make some kind of motion about coming into it as the German, Czecho-Slovakian and other Governments had done. I asked what had happened in regard to that and I was told that the West Indian Committee had never had any answer to any of those letters from the Secretary of State, not even an acknowledgment of them. I should like to know whether anything was done in regard to the Chadbourne plan. Further, whether anything was done regarding an international concordat about foreign bounties and dumping. I should like some information on those subjects. It is a curious thing if when the West Indies and the Colonies asked His Majesty's Government to take that international action the would not do it; but when the beet sugar industry, who have votes, asked them to take action with regard to the beet industry, Dr. Addison, the Minister of Agriculture, was able to put up a very good argument on behalf of the Government in favour of it.
I have tried to be as brief as I can, and I think the points that I have put have not been the less telling on that account, because I have called attention to the different arguments that are used in dealing with West Indian and1 Mauritius matters and in dealing with the beet sugar industry, and I have called attention, as I hope, to the differences in policy. I want to emphasise the very great and bitter feeling that has been created in all these Colonies against the

361
Government that so entirely neglects their productive interests. It is a very serious Imperial matter. I have been all round these Colonies lately, I have been through the principal among them twice, in the last two years, and I have been immensely gratified at their progress both in energy and in what I might call the Imperial spirit. They are most desirous of strengthening the Imperial connection, but they are constantly disheartened by the weak, flabby, inconsistent treatment of their interests as compared with the treatment of the interests of persons who can command the ear of the Government. I have put both of my points to the noble Lord. I gave him notice of both of them beforehand, and, as a matter of form, I beg to move.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lord, I ought to apologise to the House for answering my noble friend at once because I must confess that I have an important official engagement to-night which I cannot get out of and which I should be very glad if I could, but it is a duty. I had contemplated that we should have been able to devote the whole of the sitting to this particular question. I will answer as fully as the time permits what my noble friend has put to me. Of course I do not at all complain of his having raised the question again because, as he says, the plight of the West Indies and of all the sugar Colonies is indeed very serious. I am glad to tell your Lordships that it is perhaps not quite so serious as the noble Lord feared eighteen months ago—not yet quite so serious. At that time, your Lordships will remember, we were told there was a prospect that the whole industry would go out and would come to an end, and that we should find on our hands these Colonies absolutely destitute and bankrupt.
I am glad to report that taking the West Indies, in Trinidad, British Guiana, and St. Kitts there has been no reduction in the acreage under cultivation. No doubt those who are producing sugar are doing very badly, but they have not gone out of cultivation. They find it better, quite rightly from an economic point of view, to go on even at no profit, or even making a loss, rather than shut down altogether. Of course they cannot
362
go on doing that indefinitely. But in Trinidad, British Guiana and St. Kitts there is no reduction of the acreage under cultivation. In Jamaica the reduction has been about 5 per cent., and in St. Lucia it is email. In Antigua, which is one of the worst off in that respect, there has been a reduction of as much as 13 per cent.—that is to say where eight acres were cultivated before there are now only seven. That is the most serious case from the point of reduction of cultivation, and that means that whilst wages have fallen there has not yet been that amount of unemployment which we had feared. I may mention also—because my noble friend refers only to the West Indies—that we have to take account of other places. There is Mauritius. In Mauritius also the area under cane has been maintained in the same way as, mostly, in the West Indies. Mauritius had a special calamity lately in the great hurricane to which I will refer later. Then we turn to Fiji. There has been no reduction in the area of planting for 1931–1932. So that there has not been that considerable diminution in the industry that was at one time feared.
The noble Lord asked me what was the policy of His Majesty's Government. The policy which has been pressed upon us by the noble Lord, and by the West Indies, and, generally speaking, by most of those connected with the industry, has been to deal with the problem by one uniform measure, and indeed by one specific measure—namely, an increase in the Preference which is given, which is in the nature of a subsidy from this country. That is the one thing that they have wanted. Now I have to point out to your Lordships that His Majesty's Government are not prepared to adopt that policy. I would suggest to the noble Lord, and to any of your Lordships who care to consider the economics of the question, that when you have an industry carried on in a great many different places, under conditions differing very considerably one from the other, and also with the actual plight of the industry differing in the different places, so that in some cases they are suffering hardly at all whilst in others they are suffering a very great deal, no uniform policy is a wise one.
His Majesty's Government did not adopt the policy of giving increased

363
Preferences. I would like to point out that what was called lately increase of Preference means a direct gift from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, practically, it is an increase of the expenditure of His Majesty's Government in this country. The right thing to do, the noble Lord suggested, was to give that increased Preference equally to all the different sugar producers in the Empire, but in any case your Lordships must note that it would have meant an increased expenditure by the Government. I wish to ask whether there is any Party in this House, or in another place, which is deliberately going in for a policy of increasing the Government expenditure in this respect or in any other respect. At any rate His Majesty's Government refuse to adopt that policy with regard to the sugar industry. Their policy has been, in the terrible plight into which these sugar Colonies have fallen, to deal with each place separately and differently, according to its need and according to its circumstances.
His Majesty's Government have not opposed additional subsidies to the industry where the locality could itself find a subsidy. In Jamaica and in Trinidad, as the noble Lord has pointed out, a temporary subsidy has been given to the industry out of the local funds. Those Colonies were fortunate enough to be able to afford it. In the other places there were no local funds available, and some other expedient had to be used. In those places the policy of the Government has been to deal with the emergency according to its nature. The particular emergency in Mauritius, for instance, has been due to the coming of this hurricane on the top of the sugar depression. In that case the best policy seemed to be to guarantee a loan by this Government of £750,000 in order to remedy the damage and relieve the distress due in particular to the hurricane; but, of course, the intensity of the distress was owing to the fact that the sugar growing had not been paying. The area under cultivation has not been reduced, and, therefore, the unemployment has not yet become severe, but the hurricane has upset everything.
Other places have other needs. British Guiana is the worst off, although they have had a good sugar crop, but they are the worst off owing to the amount of
364
unemployment. There, as your Lordships know, this Government has given very large financial aid in the direction partly of a direct gift, a grant-in-aid, and partly by loan for executing various public works of utility. That is what has been done in British Guiana. Similarly, taking each Colony one after the other, the immediate need has been met in the way most appropriate to the particular circumstances of that Colony. That has been the policy of the Government, and I am glad to say that it has been possible to make some little beginning in the direction the noble Lord who raised the question is specially concerned with; that is, of getting started alternative products and peasant settlements in particular Islands. I cannot go into the details of that now. That has been the policy, and I am unrepentant about it.
I do not think that an increased Preference was a wise way to deal with the matter, and I do not think that any uniform action was a wise way to deal with it. I think the action taken by the Government of dealing with the circumstances of each place according to those circumstances, sometimes by guaranteeing a loan, sometimes by a large grant-in-aid, sometimes by grants from the Colonial Development Fund for public works of utility and public improvements of one sort or another, making a long string of grants for all sorts of public purposes, has been the right policy. When the noble Lord says that the slight assistance that was almost promised two years ago has been denied, I am not aware what was promised in that respect. Certainly there never was any promise made about an increased Preference or any additional subsidy or anything of that kind.
LORD OLIVIER: I am referring to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was seeing what could be done to help to tide them over, and was considering recommendations to tide them over.
LORD PASSFIELD: I have been explaining what the Government have tried to do. This is only an attack on Government policy. That policy has been to deal in these various ways with the circumstances of each place as far as it has been possible to do so. The noble Lord—this has been the special purpose of the discussion to-night—declares that the Government have taken an entirely

365
different idea with regard to the sugar beet production in this country from that which it takes with regard to the sugar industry in the West Indies. I will only say that that is in accordance with the Government policy of dealing with each of these localities according to its specific circumstances and its specific needs. It so happens that the circumstances of beet sugar in this country are different from the circumstances of cane sugar in the West Indies.
I would like to remind the noble Lord that if two years ago the question had been not merely the low price of sugar, but coupled with that low price of sugar the reduction of the subsidy or the Preference by half at one fell swoop, the Colonies would have come with an even greater complaint to His Majesty's Government, and they would have protested not so much against the price of sugar, but with all their might against the reduction of the subsidy at that moment by one-half. That was the position with regard to beet sugar. The fall in the price of sugar fell upon them and the West Indian producers alike, but in the case of the West Indian planters His Majesty's Government did not reduce the subsidy or the Preference. On the contrary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook first of all that so long as the Duty remained the Preference should certainly remain untouched. Then, very shortly afterwards, at the Imperial Conference he went further and said that whilst he could not pledge future Parliaments, he was prepared to promise that the Duty and the subsidy, the Preference, should remain untouched for three years or pending the outcome of the suggested Conference at Ottawa. He would say nothing further about the future.
In the case of beet sugar in this country, under the terms of the Sugar Subsidy Act, 1925—not in the time of the Labour Government, but in 1925—the subsidy was to be reduced from 13 s. in 1930–31 to 6s. 6d. in 1931–32, 1932–33 and 1933–34. Not only did the price of sugar fall, but in addition the subsidy was cut in half. As the policy was to deal with each sugar-producing place according to its special circumstances and special needs, the Government did not apply the same policy where the subsidy was cut in half as they did to the other
366
sugar producers where the subsidy was maintained at its full amount. The reduction was from 13 s. to 6s. 6d. but the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw lit to concede, in addition to 6s. 6d., 1s. 3d. That is to say, he allowed the subsidy to be reduced not from 13 s. to 6s. 6d., but to 7s. 9d. He granted that not in order to diminish the loss to the producers of sugar but under the distinct understanding, the distinct arrangement, that the whole of that extra amount of over £200,000—I think it was £225,000— should be passed on to the farmers and in that way to the labourers. Whether that was right or not I leave your Lordships to consider—the noble Lord says he approves of it—but at any rate it is the policy of dealing with each sugar-producing place according to its special needs and not according to any one uniform plan.
It seems to me that that is certainly wise and I would like to point out that this extra 1s. 3d. which is given to the English sugar industry is not given by any increase in price. It is given out of the Exchequer. That means that noble Lords will feel it in their Income Tax and Super-Tax. My view is that it is in that way that help had better be given rather than by any fiscal device. That is an arguable point, but at any rate the Government have been consistent in this matter as between the different sugar producers and in its policy of dealing with each sugar area according to its particular circumstances.
I must pass on, I am sorry to say, quickly. The noble Lord complained that the condition of Cuba was getting desperate. I think it is true that the condition of Cuba is getting desperate, but what does the noble Lord propose to do about it? Cuba is not under our protection. It is not our responsibility and I am afraid I know of no means by which we. can deal with the mad capitalist production of the American speculator to which the noble. Lord referred. The only way would be to have some change of system.
LORD OLIVIER: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, he seems to be going a little off the point. I did not say that he should do anything for Cuba. What I said was that it was a disgraceful thing that a Labour Government subscribing to the principles of the International

367
Labour Organisation should be importing goods sweated as goods are sweated in Cuba. That was my argument.
LORD PASSFIELD: The argument is, I suppose, that we import sugar. I cannot say that I know where the sugar comes from, but I rather suspect that not much sugar comes to us from Cuba. As a matter of fact, the import of Empire sugar into this country is now enormously greater than it was twenty or thirty yeans ago. We are increasingly drawing sugar from Empire sources, and less and less from Cuba and other sources. If I could alter the terrible state of Cuba I would do so, but I am afraid it can only be altered by a greatly changed system and by a greater planning of production than we are likely to get from the United States.
The most serious point perhaps was that the noble Lord complained that the commercial interests of the Crown Colonies were not considered by His Majesty's Government. I do not think the noble Lord is quite warranted in saying that. He does not quite know what has been happening. If he means that there has been no fiscal change, no attempt to foster the industries of the Crown Colonies by some new fiscal arrangement, that is perfectly true. But the principles of Preference have been adopted by nearly all the Crown Colonies without any let or hindrance by His Majesty's present Government, and the Government have not interfered to cause the Crown Colonies to give up those principles of Preference in any way whatsoever. We have let them do as they like in that matter. I can only say that a large part of the attention of the Colonial Office is devoted to trying to foster the commercial interests of the Crown Colonies not in the particular way of additional Preference, which some people seem to concentrate on, but in all sorts of ways. The noble Lord referred to the great advance in communications. I think that the biggest commercial interest of the Crown Colonies is certainly that of the education of their people, which we believe would lead to much greater production than at present takes place. That is one of the big necessities which I commend to the noble Lord—the question of education in the Crown Colonies. It is really a much bigger commercial in-
368
terest than anything which is to be gained by Customs tariffs.
Finally, there is the suggestion that we have not managed to get more international action with regard to sugar. I can only deplore with the noble Lord that there has been such delay in getting anything done about sugar, but I do not feel that the Government have been to blame in the matter. We have had to pursue a policy which is calculated, as we thought, to bring about international action as quickly as possible and that did not mean calling a sugar conference and getting everything turned down and rejected as we had reason to believe would be the case. It meant lying low and fostering things and not claiming credit for it. I am glad to say some steps have been made in that direction—for instance, the Chadbourne plan. The West Indies apparently ask why did we not come into that. We might probably have gone into it with calamitous results. I venture to think that the Government have pursued the right course of doing what was possible to bring people round to that idea without actually butting in and insisting on forcing the pace or even taking the lead.
The British Government have not even become a constituent part of the agreement, because we were not invited. It is just as well that we were not. We have got over a lot of jealousy and difficulty. We were not invited because the British Empire is not an exporter of sugar; the Empire, on balance, is an importer of sugar. Most of the exporting nations have gone into the agreement, and the sugar producers have agreed, with the consent of their Governments, to a limitation of the export of sugar, on the one hand, for the next five years, in order to reduce world over-production, and, on the other, to a special arrangement for putting into cold storage the world's accumulated stocks of sugar in order that the price may not be depressed. This will take a little time to have its effect, but it is common knowledge that the price has gone up by something like 20 per cent, since this agreement came into effect. The influence on the market has been such that I hope to see a slow rise in the price of sugar in the course of a few years. Those who are in charge of the agreement do not want a spec-

369
tacular rise in price, because that would lead to the renewal of the over-production from which the world is now suffering. They look to see a steady rise from the present price of 6s. 4d. a cwt., or thereabouts.
That is not the only thing that has been done internationally. Attempts have been made to see what could be done in the way of getting the nations to agree to some action for regulating the production, or at any rate the export, of sugar. The Chadbourne plan is proving a very promising way to a conclusion, and a very much better way than the Governments of the world could have attempted, because it has come from the associated producers in the several countries. We might have felt bound to take a hand in the game but, as a matter of fact, I do not believe it was possible to have brought off an International Convention of greater value or practical efficacy than that which has now taken place. I do not know what better thing could have been done. It will not remove the distress of the West Indies. It will not apply to them, but it follows the only course which, in my judgment, was useful—namely, to secure a concerted limitation of export by all the sugar-producing countries. They did not ask the West Indies to come in because the amount which the West Indies produce, though important to themselves, is small in relation to the whole world's production. They did not bother about them, any more than about Mauritius and Fiji.
The West Indies stand to gain all that could be gained out of the Convention without losing even the advantage of the limitation of output which is imposed on the other countries. I do not think we could have improved on that. It is the best possible arrangement for the West Indies and the Empire that could have been come to. I rejoice that it has been come to. I have not the honour of the acquaintance of Mr. Chadbourne, but I should like to give him a, laurel wreath for having brought off an exceedingly difficult task. I have endeavoured to answer my noble friend's Question, and I am only sorry that circumstances have cut short this debate so seriously. I will not take up any more time. I am sorry that there are no more Papers, but we will take care to publish future reports upon the state of things in the West
370
Indies from time to time as they accumulate. I undertake that, and I hope the noble Lord will not insist upon having Papers now.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I regret that the noble Lord who has just spoken is not able to remain in his place, but I quite appreciate the reason why he has to leave. I regret it especially because there are one or two points that I wish to raise outside those that have been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Olivier. We on this side of the House are very grateful indeed to Lord Olivier for raising this question once more. I felt, as I read the noble. Lord's. Motion, that he had wandered into a rather dangerous path in the way the Motion was drawn, and subsequently, as I listened to his speech, I felt also that he was going along a path that might lead us into even greater difficulties in the West Indies than those in which we find ourselves to-day. I hope the. noble Lord, with whom I have been associated for many years on this subject, will pardon me for what I am going to say, but I speak in the full belief that the method of dealing with this matter must be a method applied to the Colonies themselves, and not one that mixes them up with the question of sugar production in this country.
I am bound to say that I think it is wrong to play off, if I may put it in that way, the British sugar beet question against the Colonial sugar question. There may be matters that are applicable to both, but in this country we have our problems, just as the Colonies have their problems, and, so far as the British sugar beet industry is concerned, I think that the Government are bound to regard it from the point of view of this country, and largely apart from any issues that may arise in connection with the Colonial sugar industry. In making this remark I hope that those in the West Indies and Mauritius—(and I speak more particularly for the West Indies, which I know better and in connection with which I hold a somewhat important position even today)—I hope they will not feel that I am going beyond proper bounds. They are absolutely loyal and ready to respond to anything that His Majesty's Government can do for them, but I have never heard anyone connected with the West Indies suggest that, because something

371
is done for the British beet sugar industry, something must necessarily be done for the Colonial sugar industry.
I venture to suggest that there is room for both the British beet sugar industry and the Colonial cane sugar industry in the provision of sugar in this country. To-day we are consuming nearly 2,000,000 tons of sugar, and of that amount some 500,000 tons are produced in this country in the form of beet sugar, whilst some 700,000 tons are imported from Colonial sources, leaving roughly 700,000 tons to tome from foreign countries. If that is the case, is it not far better for us to consider the question of beet sugar from the point of view of this country and that of cane sugar from the point of view of the Colonies? If, for instance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget two months ago, instead of putting an additional tax on petrol had placed an additional tax on sugar and, at the same time, granted an increased Preference to Colonial sugar, that solution, while a partial solution and not a whole solution, would have been found to have partially solved the difficulty which exists in the West Indies and in Mauritius to-day.
We have heard a great deal about the United States of America, but I should like to point as well to what France has done for her Colonies. France, within the last few months, I think, and certainly within the last year, has practically entered into a state of free trade with her Colonies so far as sugar and other tropical products are concerned. We have here a practical example of what is called Empire Free Trade as between France and her Colonies, with the result that the French Colonies in the West Indies, Guadaloupe and the other Islands, and Madagascar and so on, are now in a far more prosperous condition than any of our islands which lie alongside.
It is because His Majesty's Government will not change their fiscal policy that they are unable to deal with this matter, and indeed unable to deal with any Colonial or Dominion question today. Lord Passfield admitted it just now. He said that they had done everything they could outside a change in their fiscal policy; and to what has it amounted? It has amounted to giving doles, just as doles are given in this country as a panacea for unemployment.
372
The Government are to-day giving doles in the West Indies and helping them to create unproductive public works.
The continued fetish of the Government is their belief in free imports and cheapness at any price, whether from forced labour, as we heard a short time ago, or anything else. That it is which is absolutely obsessing them, and which is the ruination of our association with our Colonies and Dominions to-day. The United States of America have just made a great and generous gesture to the world, and if President Hoover's proposal is accepted by the nations it will help the world to make a fresh economic start. This country, however, will still be left with its domestic difficulties, with its economic troubles, with its Budget deficit and its unemployment. Even with Mr. Hoover's proposal it will have to find an additional £10,000,000 in respect of repayments by the Dominions to this country, and how is it going to do this? It makes it all the more necessary to stimulate our trade with our Colonies and Dominions, a trade of which we are sure if we will only enter into proper arrangements with them. It is only in that way that we are going to get out of these difficulties.
I do not know why it is that Great Britain should be the only country which believes in doles, and hands out nothing but doles in this country and to her Colonies. We hand them out until the inhabitants of those Colonies consider themselves almost unfortunate to have been born under the British Flag and look with longing eyes—to my knowledge they do in the West Indies—to the Colonies to the east and west of them, under the French and American Flags, because those Colonies have received from their Governments certain advantages which have created more or less a cure for their ills, whilst all we do is to give our Colonies doles or assist them with loans, which give them only some ephemeral benefit. I do not wish to detain the House at this late hour, and will only conclude by saying that for several centuries these people in the West Indies and Mauritius have been loyal subjects of the Crown. They have served this country to the best of their ability, and I think it is for us to see that in these hard days of poverty and despair we do not let them down.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for more than a very few moments at this hour of the evening, but I do think that something should be said from this Bench to express how very strongly we feel upon this subject; and I should like to say a few words on the general aspect of the matter which Lord Olivier has raised once again. I do so not because I think that there is anything very new to be said upon the subject, but for the reason that if we go on hammering away it is just possible that we may, in time, get the Government to move, though I do not pretend to be very sanguine upon the point. It would appear, and I am confirmed in that belief by what Lord Passfield said this evening, that the Government have irrevocably made up their minds that however much money they spend on other matters they do not intend to spend enough money to be of any use to the sugar-producing Colonies at the present moment. Lord Passfield rather prided himself upon the fact that the Government were not dealing with this matter as a whole, but were dealing with the separate sugar-producing areas separately according to their circumstances. My complaint is that they are not dealing with this question at all, so far as our Colonies are concerned. They have done nothing which has been in any way of material help to them in the difficulties in which they find themselves.
This subject has been so thoroughly discussed on numerous occasions that I do not intend to repent the old arguments or to go into details, but for the purpose of putting my short argument I would like to explain the position as I sec it at the present moment. Owing to overproduction of sugar throughout the world during recent years there has been an enormous fall in the price of sugar. It is impossible for producers of sugar in our Colonies to obtain profitable prices for their sugar, and in fact they are probably losing money heavily on every ton of sugar manufactured. And this position is bound to persist unless one of two things happens—unless, in the first place, there is a very rapid change in world conditions, which I think everybody who has studied this subject agrees is not at all likely at the present moment,
374
or unless, in the second place, the Government do something for our Colonies, and I am afraid we must agree that that is a more unlikely contingency still. Unless either of these two things happens, then it is absolutely certain that the sugar estates in the West Indies will gradually go out of cultivation—not all at once, naturally, but they are bound gradually to go out of cultivation, as they cannot compete in present conditions; and that great industry, upon which practically the whole of the population of the West Indies, both employers and employed, depends, will gradually be ruined. There really can be no two opinions on that point, and, as far as I can see, it is only a question of time and of how long they can continue to hang on.
Well, the Government apparently refuse to move, and one of the reasons—I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, give it this evening—that I have often heard brought forward to account for that attitude is that this industry, or at any rate a portion of it in our Colonies, is not economically sound, and that the Government maintain that it is useless and a sheer waste of money to bolster up an uneconomic industry. As a general proposition I think there is possibly a certain amount to be said for that argument, but as applied to the present situation in the Colonies, it really is quite meaningless. Lord Olivier has repeatedly told us that if there were complete free trade in the sugar industry, our Colonies would emerge very successfully. They can produce sugar more cheaply than most other parts of the world, and this industry only appears uneconomic owing to the utterly artificial conditions which at present obtain throughout the world. In order to tide over these difficult times other countries are helping their industry, and I should have thought it almost incredible that our Government were prepared to stand by and watch what was a very flourishing, and what is in normal conditions a quite economically sound industry, being crushed out of existence in our Colonies because of an entirely artificially imposed set of conditions, which ought in the course of time to be put right. That is the argument that I want to stress this evening. The sugar industry in our Colonies is not uneconomic. In normal

375
circumstances, it not only pays its way, but it is profitable; and I can hardly conceive that the Government are prepared to see this economic industry in our Colonies wiped out, in order to make room for sugar produced in some other part of the world much more expensively than we can produce it in our Colonies.
I have heard it repeatedly said, and the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has said so this evening, that as far as many of our Colonies are concerned they would probably be far better off if they belonged to some other country. It is humiliating beyond words to hear such a thing said, but, as far as this specific matter is concerned, I am sorry to say that that statement cannot be very far from the truth, and I think it is utterly deplorable. If there is any meaning in the decisions of the recent Imperial Conference, and if there is any meaning in the constant protestations of the Government that they are anxious, and more than anxious, to do everything they can to extend and develop trade within the Empire, I say they ought to do something now which is going to be of some material help in the grave crisis in which the Colonies find themselves. I quite agree that this is a case where international arrangements might prove very valuable indeed, and I join with others in urging the Government to try to explore every avenue in order to reach an arrangement of that kind. But one is not very sanguine that, with a thousand and one important questions which have to be considered, this one will receive as much attention as it ought to receive. But in the meantime surely we cannot allow our Colonies to be let down, and if we do eventually come to some international arrangement it is quite obvious that in that case any benefit which resulted from such an arrangement would accrue only to other countries than ours.
Lord Olivier has spoken of the beet sugar industry in this country, and has referred to it as a competitor of the cane sugar industry in our Colonies. This is only true, surely, to a very limited extent, and I think the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has explained why. It is really a far vaster question than that. Surely the real competition which our Colonies have to face is not specifically the beet sugar industry in this country but the competition from sugar produced in vast
376
quantities throughout the rest of the world. Lord Elibank has said that the amount of sugar consumed in this country is almost twice as much, I think, as the total amount of sugar produced both here at home and in our Colonies; and in those circumstances, it is quite obvious that both these industries can quite well flourish side by side. I do say, however, that if the Government are willing to help our sugar industry here they ought equally to be prepared to help the older-established industry in our Colonies. It is very often said as an excuse by the Government that the people of this country cannot be expected to shoulder any burden in this matter. I think that the heaviness of that burden is very often exaggerated by the Government. Sugar is at a. ridiculously low price at the present moment, and personally I feel absolutely confident that the people of this country would be prepared and willing to make a small—an almost infinitesimal—sacrifice in order to save another part of our Empire from what is virtually ruin.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I greatly wish that the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, had not given me anything to answer, but there are two or three points upon which I should not like his speech to go on the record without a little correction and contradiction. One was that he said the price of sugar had risen 20 per cent, since Mr. Chadbourne made his arrangements. That is hardly correct. The price of imported raw sugar has, I think, not risen much more than. 10 per cent.; and one of the last things I read before coming into this House was a speech made by Mr. Chadbourne, in which he expressed his great astonishment at the very sluggish response of the sugar market to the far-reaching arrangements that had been made. He said: "We have taken about 6,800,000 tons of sugar off the market and put it in cold storage, and reduced the crops of the world by about 2,000,000 tons, and yet sugar does not move, and I do not know when it is going to move. That is a thing I do not understand." And no one that I have met in the sugar world has the least expectation that sugar is going to rise within two or three years to a price at which our Colonial sugar would pay its way, even with the Preference. So we have two or three years at least to wait and there is this large load of over 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 tons of

377
sugar in cold storage which is to be fed out upon the market by instalments during the next five years. So the price of sugar is going to keep down and the crisis, as the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, said, is to continue for a long time. That was one thing.
Then the noble Lord said that he thought that Mr. Chadbourne had done much better by going to the producers themselves than the Government would have done by international negotiation. I am very glad that Lord Plymouth has said that he still believes in international negotiation. We want international negotiation in order to get hold of Governments on a matter which is one of Government policy. The Government of Czecho-Slovakia and other Governments authoritatively and of set policy maintain the policy of dumping. We are suffering not only from over-production. Mr. Chadbourne deals with over-production and only with over-production. He does not deal with dumping. Cuba, at present, is dumping sugar. Czechoslovakia is dumping large quantities. Germany, Poland and Hungary are all dumping sugar. As I say, Mr. Chadbourne does not deal with that; he only deals with over-production and, therefore, the noble Lord left unanswered my argument in behalf of international action on the lines taken by Mr. Chamberlain with regard to bounty-fed sugar.
I was very much surprised to hear my noble friend in the latter part of his speech positively contradicting what he. said in the early part. He must have been in a hurry to get away to his dinner. He said that giving an increased Preference would mean expense, and no Government could possibly face expense by giving away Preference. Then he went on to say that the Government had thought it reasonable to give an increased subsidy to the beet sugar industry which he thought was much better. It was much better to give a. direct subsidy than to incur expense by giving away duties. I could not follow his argument. He seems to think it is much better to give a direct subsidy out of the Exchequer than to fail to take into the Exchequer a certain amount. I do not see the difference myself, but of the two I should have
378
said that the subsidy had much more in it of genuine expense than the failure to collect the necessary revenue. With the leave of your Lordships. I beg to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (GRAD ING AND MARKING) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, at this late hour I do not think it is necessary to detain the House for very long in moving the Second Reading of this Bill It is a comparatively small Bill directed to the extension of the scope of the National Mark scheme which, as your Lordships know, originated from the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act,. 1928. Since then certain additions have been made to the scheme. We have already introduced a scheme for a very considerable advertising programme with the assistance of the Empire Marketing Board. We have also extended its scope to a very large number of articles including eggs and dressed poultry, apples and pears, tomatoes, cucumbers, strawberries, cherries, wheat flour, malt products, home-grown fruit and vegetables, cider, Scottish potatoes, broccoli and home-killed and Scotch-killed beef. We are hoping, during the next few months or at any rate by next year, to have a scheme for possibly mutton and lamb, cheese, butter and honey. Your Lordships will admit, I think, that this is a very considerable extension. As the law stands at the moment there is considerable doubt, amounting almost to certainty, as to whether we can carry the scheme in certain directions in which it is very desirable to do so. At present, it is considered that jam, for instance, which is an important product from an agricultural point of view, is really too far removed from being a direct agricultural product to be included in the scheme. For that reason, mainly, we have decided to introduce this small Bill which, I think, will prove to be non-controversial.
Clause 1 makes provision for applying the National Mark to fishery products. Clause 2 is the clause which deals really with the question of jam. It is drafted

379
in very much wider terms so that any other like commodity can be brought into the scheme. Your Lordships may think that the terms are very wide, but I would remind you that schemes are of an entirely voluntary and permissive character and that no industry that does not want a scheme need have one. Once an industry has applied for a scheme, it is for the Minister to approve regulations and lay the Order before Parliament before anything can actually be done. Clause 3 deals with certain charges which have always been made until now In regard to the expense of labels and machinery, but it is doubtful whether in law those charges could really have been made. This clause is therefore inserted in order to regularise an existing practice.
The last point this Bill deals with is the question of safeguarding the words "National Mark" and anything connected with the National Mark. At the present moment, a number of industries quite outside agriculture are using the term "National Mark" or a designation somewhat like it, and we consider it most important that the words "National Mark" which are indicative of a scheme that is being built up by the joint efforts of the agricultural industry and the State should be safeguarded. In that clause there is ample protection for existing interests which are already using this designation. Some people think that it would have been very much
380
better to make the legislation retrospective; but it has been felt to be absolutely essential to keep this Bill of a non-controversial order and, as that might be considered controversial, it has not been inserted. Those are the three or four purposes that are aimed at in the Bill, and I trust that it will meet with the agreement of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Earl Be La Warr.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to say that we on this Bench do not offer the slightest opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill; indeed, we are willing and anxious to facilitate it. There is just one point which has been. drawn to my attention, and that is that in Clause (4) (a) the date selected is the 17th day of June. It is an arbitrary date and we do not quite know why it has been selected. It is a Committee point but, perhaps, the noble Earl will enlighten us upon it.
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes, it is a Committee point; it was the date of the introduction of the Bill into your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.

SHEFFIELD GAS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
GRAND UNION CANAL (LEICESTER CANALS PURCHASE, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
Committed for to-morrow.

LINDSEY COUNTY COUNCIL (SANDHILLS) BILL.
Committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, AND CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES (WORKS) BILL, [H.L.]
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
SEATON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Mendip (V. clifden) be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Derwent: Read, and agreed to.

SALVATION ARMY BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Rathcreedan be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Earl of Minto: Read, and agreed to.