Sitting of 17 April 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,—
West Gloucestershire Water Bill [Lords].
Birmingham United Hospital Bill [Lords].
Newport Extension Bill [Lords].
Bills to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely,—
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Shipley) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),—
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Reports from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely,—
Dartmouth Corporation [Lords].
Ramsgate Corporation [Lords].
Reports referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Private Bills [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of
862
Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely,—
North Lindsey Water Bill [Lords].
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    TRADE AGREEMENTS AND NEGOTIATIONS.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that the trade commercial negotiations with Japan are to be complicated by the introduction of political proposals; and whether he proposes, so far as this country is concerned, to keep these negotiations with Japan on a purely trade basis?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. McEntee).
    Mrs. TATEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in considering any future agreements with foreign countries, he will make provision that any such agreements do not extend beyond the date of the expiration of the Ottawa Agreements Act, in order that the Government of that time may not be prejudiced when negotiating alterations or revisions of those agreements?
    Dr. BURGIN: My hon. Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the President of the Board of Trade on what approximate date it is expected that the formal trade negotiations between Great Britain and Poland will commence?
    Dr. BURGIN: I hope that it will be possible to begin negotiations in a few weeks' time.

    TRADE MARKS (JAPAN).
    Captain DOWERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make a statement with regard to the text of the proposals of the Japanese

    863
    Government to prevent their nationals from imitating and copying the trade marks of other countries and other such methods of unfair trading?
    Dr. BURGIN: I have seen announcements in the Press to the effect that the Japanese Government have introduced a Bill to deal with the question of unfair competition but I have not received the text of this measure.

    IMPORT DUTIES.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the imports in 1931 and 1933, respectively, of those classes of goods on which, result of recent agreements with foreign countries, we are debarred either from imposing any duties at all or from imposing higher duties than those which were in operation at the time the agreements were entered into?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am having a statement prepared which I will send to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Mr. ALAN TODDasked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of imports in 1931, 1932, and 1933, respectively, of all those classes of goods in respect of which additional duties, higher than those imposed under the Import Duties Act which came into force on 26th April, 1932, have been subsequently imposed?
    Dr. BURGIN: Particulars of the value of imports of goods dutiable under the Import Duties Act, and subsequent additional Orders are given in Table 8 of Volume II of the Annual Statement of Trade for 1932, for the period beginning 1st March, 1932, when the Act came into operation, and ending 31st December of that year. Corresponding particulars for periods prior to the 1st March, 1932, are not available, while those in respect of 1933 have not yet been compiled.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is prepared to seek a revision of the trade agreement with Germany under which the duties on clocks were reduced from 33⅓per cent. to 20 per cent. in some cases and 25 per cent. in others, having regard to the fact that the imports of clocks and clock movements increased from 419,712 in the first two months of
    864
    1933 to 677,245 in the corresponding period of 1934, an increase of 61.4 per cent.?
    Dr. BURGIN: No, Sir.
    Sir A. KNOX: In view of the large percentage of increase in imports in a single year does the hon. Member think that this British industry has sufficient protection?
    Dr. BURGIN: That is another matter. What I have said is that once a trade agreement has been made with a foreign country the Board of Trade does not propose to interfere with it until it has had a run.
    Mrs. COPELANDasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is prepared to seek a revision of the trade agreements with Norway and Sweden under which duties on kraft paper were reduced from 25 per cent. to 16⅔per cent., having regard to the fact that the retained imports of kraft paper increased from 215,277 cwts. in the first two months of 1933 to 365,366 cwts. in the corresponding period of 1934?
    Dr. BURGIN: No, Sir. The import duty on kraft paper was reduced as part of a trade bargain concluded for a term of three years under which this country obtained concessions in, other directions.
    Mr. BURNETT: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, when the time comes to reconsider this matter, that it is not only the reduced duty but also the Scandinavian exchange with which the British manufacturers of kraft paper have to contend?
    Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir, all those considerations will be borne in mind.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much coal these increased imports represent?
    Dr. BURGIN: Not without having the question on the Paper.
    Sir WILLIAM RAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the large increase in the quantities of many classes of manufactured goods imported in the first two months of the present year as compared with the corresponding period of last year; and whether, under these circumstances, he is prepared to provide

    865
    in the Budget for a general increase in the level of import duties now in operation?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I would refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for the Stroud Division (Mr. Perkins) on the 28th March.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Am I to understand that His Majesty's Government mean that they have no responsibility for the general level of tariff duties?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I hope my hon. Friend will not understand anything of the kind.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: But is it not the ease that all previous answers have said that this is a matter solely for the Import Duties Advisory Committee?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend is as well acquainted with the law as I am, and he can draw his own deductions.
    Mr. LYONSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of applications for higher duties that have been under the consideration of the Import Duties Advisory Committee for periods exceeding 12 months and six months, respectively?
    Sir WILFRID SUGDENasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the maximum and the minimum periods, respectively, which have elapsed between an application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for an additional duty and the date on which an additional duty was imposed as a sequel to such application; and will he say on what basis the variation of period is agreed for the various types of products concerned therein?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am advised that it is difficult to say in many cases at what date tentative inquiries become a definite and documented application by the industry concerned. Moreover, an application may be held in abeyance by the applicants, or by the Import Duties Advisory Committee on the ground that the time is not ripe to take a definite decision either to reject it or to make a recommendation. Additional duties
    866
    have been imposed or varied on very many classes of goods, large and small, and I do not think I should be justified in asking the committee to undertake the lengthy research that would be involved in endeavouring to estimate periods which could not, for the reasons just given, convey any useful information.
    Mr. LYONSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the length of time taken by the Import Duties Advisory Committee in dealing with applications by certain industries, he will introduce amending legislation to empower immediate action where excessive importations are shown or where great delay is likely, so as to prevent the uncertainty and forestalling which may ensue?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend's suggestion would appear to involve putting on the duty first and inquiring into its desirability afterwards, and I do not think legislation of such a nature would be justified.
    Mr. LYONS: Will my hon. Friend consider listening to the representations of those industries which have been suffering in the manner I have indicated?

    IMPORTED CARPETS.
    Colonel GOODMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of carpets for January and February of 1934 were 629,000 square yards as compared with 364,000 square yards for the same period in 1933; and whether he is proposing to take steps to restrict the imports of these goods?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the figures quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer to the reply I gave on the 20th March to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. H. Williams).
    Colonel GOODMAN: In view of the fact that the imports of carpets have increased from 2,500 square yards in 1932 to 270,000 square yards for the corresponding period in 1933 will the hon. Member take some action?
    Dr. BURGIN: A large percentage of the increase comes from India.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the bulk of the increase comes from Belgium, whose imports have gone up by more than 1,000 per cent.?
    Dr. BURGIN: It is the fact that a large quantity comes from Belgium, but, when the figures are looked into, I think it will be found that my statement is the more accurate and that the greater quantity has come from India.
    Sir H. CROFT: If the greater quantity has come from India, is not that all the more reason why immediate steps should be taken to limit the imports from foreign countries?
    Dr. BURGIN: That is a point which will be taken into consideration.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Miss WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the tonnage of retained imports of iron and steel in the first two months of 1934 was only 3 per cent. below the level of those in the same period of 1923; and, having regard to this fact, is he prepared to introduce legislation for the purpose of restricting these imports to a point below their present level?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the figures to which my hon. Friend refers, but any question of a variation in the duties payable on these goods is a matter for the Import Duties Advisory Committee in the first instance.
    Mr. PIKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when an announcement will be made for the purpose of removing the doubt which prevails as to the continuance of the present scale of duties on iron and steel after 25th October next.?
    Captain ARTHUR EVANSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that the retained imports of steel bars, rods, etc., increased from 32,407 tons in the first two months of 1933 to 66,909 tons in the same period of 1934, he will make an early statement with regard to the fixing of the iron and steel duties in view of the uncertainty which now prevails, and which is delaying the erection of new plant for the production of steel bars?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Cardiff South (Captain A. Evans) on the 15th February last and the letter from the Import Duties Advisory Committee mentioned therein. I do not think that I can usefully add anything at present, except to say that the Import Duties Advisory Committee will no doubt make their report and recommendations on the subject in due course. I understand that a decision on the proposed scheme for a new central organisation for the industry is to be taken on Thursday next.

    DAIRY PRODUCE (IMPORTS).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of our total imports of dairy produce during the last 12 months has been imported from foreign sources; and whether he will undertake not to impose any restriction of imports from Empire countries until this percentage from foreign sources is substantially reduced?
    Dr. BURGIN: In the 12 months ended March, 1934, the value of the imports into the United Kingdom of dairy produce consigned from foreign countries represented 48 per cent. of the total imports of such products. I can assure my hon. Friend that in any measures which may be taken to restrict imports of dairy produce due consideration will be given to the interests of the Empire producer.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Ought not the Empire to have first call in this matter over foreign countries, and can the hon. Member say why there has been constant propaganda from Ministerial sources in support of a restriction of Empire products while foreign products are to come, in unrestricted?

    SWITZERLAND (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).
    Mrs. COPELANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the increasing obstacles placed in the way of the United Kingdom exports to Switzerland by the Swiss Government import restrictions, especially with regard to sanitary fittings, baths, etc.; and whether, in view of Switzerland's favourable trade balance with this country and also the money spent in recent months by British tourists in Switzerland, he will use such means as may be within his powers to obtain

    869
    an increase in the quota of these particular articles?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the import restrictions imposed by the Swiss Government on the goods referred to by the hon. Member and the matter is being taken up with the Swiss authorities.

    SHIPPING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the President of the Board of Trade the countries by which the Government has been asked to convene a maritime conference to help the shipping industry; what is the agenda for such a conference; and what has been the reply of the British Government?
    Dr. BURGIN: The Government has not been asked by the Government of any other country to convene a maritime conference to help the shipping industry, but as stated in the Press on 6th April, the Danish, Netherland, Norwegian and Swedish Ministers in London have, on behalf of their respective Governments, stated that if the British Government should convene a conference on the position of shipping, their Governments would be willing to send delegates. A reply is being sent to the effect that note has been taken of the representations. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Press statement on the subject.

    COMMODITY PRICES.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the great disparity between wholesale and retail prices of many commodities; and whether he will set up an inquiry to investigate the rate of profit obtained by retailers of commodities of all kinds, whether new or second-hand, with a view to checking excessive rates of profit obtained by retailers, middlemen and dealers at the expense of producers and consumers?
    Dr. BURGIN: My right hon. Friend is not aware that there has been any general increase in the margin between wholesale and retail prices and sees no reason to institute an inquiry of the nature suggested.

    CHINESE EGGS (IMPORTS).
    Sir H. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the percentage of the eggs in shell imported into this country from China increased from 6 per cent. of the total im-
    870
    ports? from all countries in the first two months of 1932 to over 17 per cent. in the same period of 1934; and will he take steps, by restriction of imports, to protect British poultry farmers against this growing Asiatic competition?
    Dr. BURGIN: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture informed the House on 15th March, steps are being taken to limit the imports of eggs in shell into this country from foreign countries during the period 15th March to 14th September to the figures for the corresponding period of last year. In the case of China the importers of the eggs have given the desired undertaking.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would it not be better that these Chinese eggs should be marked "Laid in China," so that buyers will know what they are getting?

    BEEF IMPORTS.
    Sir H. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that, out of a total importation of beef from all countries in the first two months of 1934, amounting to 1,913,459 cwts., 182,317 cwts. are shown in the trade returns as having come from foreign countries with which we have concluded no recent trade agreements; and, in view of the continued depression of the livestock industry in this country, will he take steps by restricting imports to protect that industry against this competition from countries that are extending to us no concessions?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the figures to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The restrictions on the importation of foreign beef provided for in the Ottawa Agreements and the emergency arrangements apply equally to all the foreign countries concerned, and my right hon. Friend is not at present prepared to depart from that principle.
    Sir H. CROFT: In view of the fact that there is no reason why action should not be taken in the case of foreign countries who do not come within an agreement, cannot we have some hope that early action will be taken?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am not sure what foreign countries the hon. and gallant Member has in mind, but with at least one of them to which he refers, trade negotiations are being actually conducted at the present moment.

    JUTE INDUSTRY.
    Mr. TEMPLETONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that unemployment in the jute industry is higher than in any other branch of the textile industry, and to the fact that the imports of jute sacks in the first two months of the present year were 59 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period of 1933; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the situation, in view of the fact that this increase in importation is diminishing the advantages given to the export of jute manufactures as a consequence of the trade agreement with Denmark?
    Dr. BURGIN: While I am aware that the position of the jute industry remains unsatisfactory, the increase in the exports of jute sacks and bags in the first two months of the present year, in comparison with the corresponding period of 1933, is considerably greater than the increase in the imports of these goods, and employment in the industry is appreciably better than it was a year ago.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: Is it not the fact that the decrease in unemployment in the jute industry has been more than 3,000 this year?
    Dr. BURGIN: I have it in percentage rather than in numbers, but I have no doubt that the hon. Lady's figures are, as usual, correct.

    ARGENTINA AND JAPAN.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information as to what proportion of the Argentine Republic's exports for 1933 were taken by Japan?
    Dr. BURGIN: The total value of the exports from the Argentine Republic in 1933 amounted to 1,120.8 million pesos, of which 4.9 million pesos, or 0.4 per cent., represented the value of exports to Japan.
    Sir W. SMILESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether Japanese cotton textiles enter the Argentine Republic with the same rates of Customs duties as those from Lancashire?
    Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir.

    SILK DUTIES.
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his attention has been drawn to the fact that the yardage of the retained imports of silk piece goods in the first two months of the present year was 52 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period of 1933; and whether he will take steps to secure that the embargo on the investigation of the Silk Duties by the Import Duties Advisory Committee shall now be withdrawn?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Lyons) on the 11th April.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Will my hon. Friend give any indication whatsoever as to when the embargo is likely to be withdrawn, so that the inquiry can be continued?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My right hon. Friend expects shortly to make a statement.

    IMPORTED HEADGEAR.
    Colonel GOODMANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the imports of hats and caps in January and February of this year are 95 per cent. higher than in January and February of last year; whether any representations by the industries concerned have been made to the Import Duties Advisory Committee; and, if so, whether any recommendation has as yet been received from the committee?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am aware of the increase in imports of hats and hoods and shapes for making hats to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which was given on the 22nd May last to the hon. Member for South Derby (Mr. Emrys-Evans) of which I am sending him a copy.

    NEW ZEALAND (OTTAWA AGREEMENTS).
    Sir PERCY HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can publish the correspondence, if any, that has passed between this country and the Dominion of New Zealand

    873
    regarding the restriction of butter imports; and whether there has been any suggestion on the part of that Dominion that there should be a reduction on their part of duties on manufactured goods in return for the removal of restrictions on imports from their Dominion?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I am arranging for the early-publication of the telegraphic correspondence recently exchanged with His Majesty's Government in New Zealand in regard to dairy produce. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to my reply to a question addressed to me by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Johnstone) on 28th March.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that there has been an offer of some kind from New Zealand that she is prepared to let in goods from this country if we will allow her to supply a full quantity of their produce to us?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have already indicated that I am arranging for the correspondence to be published. The hon. Member will draw his own deductions when he sees it.
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: Is it not a fact that New Zealand buys more manufactured goods per head from us than any other country in the world
    Viscountess ASTOR: And sell us the best butter?
    Mr. THOMAS: That is true, and we buy 98 per cent. of the New Zealand produce.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS (for Mr. DAVID GRENFELL)asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what negotiations have taken place with regard to prolonging the provisions of the Ottawa Agreement beyond the date originally laid down; and what representations have been made on behalf of New Zealand with a view to reciprocal arrangements which will enable imports of New Zealand butter and cheese to be maintained?
    Mr. THOMAS: I presume that the hon. Member has in mind not the provisions of the Ottawa Agreements as a whole, but the particular provisions
    874
    relating to meat, which expire on 30th June next, and dairy produce, which expire on 20th August, 1935. No negotiations with a view to extending the periods specified in these provisions have taken place. As regards the second part of the question, no representations of the kind indicated have been made by His Majesty's Government in New Zealand, but I am arranging for the early publication of correspondence with His Majesty's Government in New Zealand which indicates the position.

    CANADA (PEDIGREE BREEDING PIGS).
    Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is aware that the Canadian Government are importing from Sweden between 60 and 70 pedigree pigs, including a number of large white Yorkshire boars; and whether, in view of the fact that the Ottawa Agreements permit free entry into this country of 2,500,000 cwt. of bacon and ham from Canada, he will make representations to the Canadian Government with a view to their purchasing future consignments of pedigree breeding pigs from this country?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am aware of the transactions referred to, but, according to my information, all but eight of these pigs are of a breed which is not available in the United Kingdom. In the circumstances, my hon. Friend will no doubt agree that no action such as that suggested is needed.
    Mr. GLOSSOP: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these eight pigs can be obtained in this country, and will he make representations with regard to that?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am always priding myself on being an authority on many things except pigs.

  GERMANY (ARMAMENTS EXPENDITURE).
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that Germany refuses to repay her loans though at the same time she is expending large sums on re-armament, he will take steps to put an embargo on all German goods coming into this country until such time as she reduces her extra expenditure on armaments?
  Dr. BURGIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on 21st March to the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead West (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen).

  FISHING INDUSTRY.
  Mr. DREWEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will make every effort to secure in the new French Commercial Treaty that agreement is reached to limit the size of mesh in French trawlers to the same size enforced by law on British trawlers;
  (2) whether he will make every effort in the new French Commercial Treaty to get an extension of the present three-mile limit so as to safeguard British grounds?
  Dr. BURGIN: Regulation of fishing operations and questions affecting territorial waters are outside the scope of the present negotiations with France. I am, however, informed that the subject of the limitation of the mesh of fishing nets, which has been closely studied for years past by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, will be the principal topic of discussion at its annual meeting next June. It is hoped that this discussion will lead to agreed recommendations for the consideration of the Governments concerned.
  Viscountess ASTOR: In case these negotiations fail and there is no agreement, shall we have to go on with a larger mesh and France catching all the fish, big and small?
  Dr. BURGIN: It is a difficult matter, and we cannot, except by agreement, induce the French to alter the mesh of the nets.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Surely we can alter the mesh of our own nets?
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member aware that the present position is highly disadvantageous to British fishermen who are suffering a terrible handicap in this respect?
  Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the earnings for each of the last three years of share
  876
  fishermen from the north-east and east of Scotland engaged in the herring fishing?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): As my hon. Friend is aware, there are great variations as between different ports, and different vessels and individuals as to the time devoted to the various fishings, the results of their operations and the extent to which the men participate in the net's share of the earnings in addition to the crew's share. This being so I regret that I am not in a position to furnish the particulars desired by my hon. Friend.
  Sir M. WOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will suggest to the Sea-Fish Commission the desirability of their making, if possible, an interim report with regard to their investigations into the herring-fishing Industry before the beginning of the forthcoming summer fishing?
  Sir G. COLLINS: I have consulted the Sea-Fish Commission about my hon. Friend's suggestion, and am informed that while they are making every effort to carry through their investigations of the herring-fishing industry at the earliest possible date, they will not be in a position to make a report before the summer fishing.
  Sir M. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it will be necessary for him to make emergency proposals before the commencement of the next season's fishing?
  Sir G. COLLINS: No, Sir, I must await the report of the Sea-Fish Commission.
  Sir M. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that there is a grave emergency to be met and that there is an opinion that the Government themselves must come forward and deal with the situation?
  Sir G. COLLINS: I realise the urgency of the situation, but, having appointed this Commission to do this particular job of work, I am anxious to get their report before I come to any decision.
  Sir M. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government waited for six months before they appointed the Commission after the Act had been passed?

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS (PROSECUTIONS).
  Mr. RANKINasked the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions were instituted in this country during 1933 under the Merchant Shipping Acts in connection with the overloading of ships; and what was the nationality of the ships in question?
  Dr. BURGIN: During the year 1933 proceedings were taken in this country against four ships for submersion of the appropriate loadline, one French, one Norwegian and two Swedish.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS (PROSECUTIONS).

    BANKRUPTCY ACT.
    Captain BULLOCKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in view of the decision of the courts that Sub-section 2 of Section 51 of the Bankruptcy Act does not apply to the prospective and contingent earnings of a professional man in the exercise of his profession, cases of considerable hardship exist where creditors in poor circumstances are unable to obtain any sums owed to them by persons who have been adjudged bankrupt and subsequently earn substantial sums in the above-mentioned way; and whether he will consider the introduction of amending legislation to deal with this matter?
    Dr. BURGIN: Any proposal to extend the provisions of Section 51 of the Bankruptcy Act to cases in which future income or earnings are contingent and fluctuating would be attended by serious practical difficulties, but other provisions of the Bankruptcy Act already enable the Official Receiver to intervene on behalf of the creditors in cases where evidence is forthcoming that an undischarged bankrupt is, in fact, earning substantial sums in the exercise of his profession.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    HORSES (CENSUS).
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a census of Horses suitable for military purposes is ever carried out; and, if so, what the total cost of such a census to the War Department is?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): A census of all horses and ponies in Great Britain is taken periodically. The last was held in 1924. A further census will be taken in May this year, the provision in Estimates being £l,000.

    MOBILISATION (EXERCISES).
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether practice mobilisations are ever carried out now by the various units of the Army as they used to be before the War?
    Mr. COOPER: Exercises in which formations and units are brought up to war strength by reinforcement from other units are held from time to time for experimental and training purposes, but it has not been possible, since the War, to practice mobilisation of units to the extent of calling up reservists.
    Brigadier-General NATION: In view of the fact that in the mobilisation in 1914 serious deficiencies were discovered, does not my hon. Friend think that these exercises should be more frequently held?
    Mr. COOPER: It is largely a question of the expense involved.

    SOUTH WALES BORDERERS (BATTLE HONOUR).
    Captain A. EVANS (for Mr. TEMPLE MORRIS)asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the petition by the Natal provincial council for the grant of the battle honour of Rorke's Drift to the South Wales Borderers; and whether he can make any statement as to the attitude of his Department on this matter?
    Mr. COOPER: With regard to the first part of the question, I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press. I am unable to say in advance what the attitude of the War Office would be if such a request were referred to them.

  SCOTLAND.

    ABERLOUR ORPHANAGE TRUST.
    sir IAN MACPHERSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the scheme has been prepared dealing with

    879
    the Aberlour Orphanage Trust by the Educational Endowments Commission; if it has been submitted to him; and, if so, when he proposes to give his decision upon it?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The scheme prepared by the commissioners has been submitted to the Department and is now being considered along with the objections thereto which have been received. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that the commissioners, after negotiation with the executive committee of the Representative Church Council of the Episcopal Church in Scotland and with the Committee of Management of Aberlour Orphanage, have themselves proposed that the scheme be remitted to them by the Department in order that effect may be given to certain agreed amendments which, I am informed, will render the scheme acceptable to the afore-mentioned bodies.

    DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many officers who qualified at entrance by examination for the lower branches of the British Civil Service are employed by the Department of Agriculture in Scotland; how many qualified at entrance by examination for the higher administrative or first division positions in the British Civil Service are employed by the said Department; and, particularly, how many of each division are employed in connection with land settlement in Scotland?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The staff of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland includes two officers who entered the Civil Service by the examination for Class I clerkships (now administrative class) and 176 who entered by other examinations. The corresponding numbers for the land settlement division are none and 34. These numbers relate to the examinations for entrance to classes common to the Civil Service, excluding typing grades.
    Mr. LEONARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider approaching the Treasury as to the position with regard to the employment of officers in these grades, with a view to providing that some of the higher officials shall be placed in Scotland, having regard to the peculiar
    880
    problems arising there, especially in connection with land legislation?
    Sir G. COLLINS: That matter is presently under consideration.

    MILK SUPPLIES.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action has been taken by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board to ensure that milk intended for liquid consumption shall be adequately tested for the proper maintenance of a pure milk standard?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The board have prescribed a minimum butter fat content standard of 3.4 per cent. The question of fixing a standard for cleanliness is engaging the attention of the board.
    Mr. LEONARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that dissatisfaction has already arisen in regard to the test by the Department's independent laboratory and that one prosecution has already taken place in which it was shown that a farmer in 10 days had supplied 560 gallons and had introduced 96½gallons of water; and will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to deal with this matter?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I understand that there have been some complaints. The matter is engaging the attention of the board.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the Scottish Milk Marketing Board is levying haulage charges upon farmers whose milk is drawn in their own vehicles 100 per cent. more than those farmers are credited with for performing this haulage; and under what authority the board has acted in creating a special fund from this excessive charge and for what purpose has it to be used?
    Sir G. COLLINS: As regards the first part of the question, I am aware that the haulage position under the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme is to the effect suggested by the hon. Member. As regards the second part, the authority for the action of the Board is contained in Sections 21, 24 (3) (e) and 61 of the scheme. I am informed that any sum at the credit of the fund is taken into account by the board in determining at the end of each month the average price payable to the producers for the milk supplied by them.

    EDUCATION (ADVANCED DIVISION SCHOOLS).
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in which education areas the 37 advanced division schools in Scotland were situated?
    Mr. SKELTON: As the answer is in the nature of a tabular statement, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    Education Area

    Number of Advanced Division Schools.

    Ayr

    2

    Bute

    1

    Dumfries

    1

    Fife

    2

    Lanark

    3

    Perth and Kinross

    1

    Renfrew

    1

    Stirling

    1

    West Lothian

    1

    Aberdeen (Burgh)

    7

    Dundee

    3

    Edinburgh

    5

    Glasgow

    9

    EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS COMMISSION.
    Sir M. WOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of their work has already been completed by the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Commission; and whether it is expected that their work will be completed by the end of this year when the commissioners' term of office expires?
    Mr. SKELTON: The Commission have completed rather more than half of their work, but they still have to deal with the endowments of Glasgow, Dunbarton, Fife, Lanark, Perth and Kinross, Renfrew and Stirling. I am informed that full details of the state of progress will be given in the Commissioners' Fifth Report, which will be published at an early date and will be available for hon. Members. It will not be possible for the Commissioners to complete their work by the end of this year.
    Sir I. MACPHERSON: Is it proposed to end the life of this Commission at the end of the year?
    Mr. SKELTON: The question of whether legislation will be introduced continuing the life of the Commission is at present under consideration.
    Sir I. MACPHERSON: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the people
    882
    of Scotland desire that the Commission's life should be ended?
    Mr. SKELTON: All relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    STONE DUST.
    Mr. DAVID DAVIESasked the Secretary for Mines the number of tons of stone dust used in each of the inspectorate districts for the country during the years 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, respectively, giving the output of coal in each district for the same period?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): Information as to the amount of stone dust used is not available and presumably, therefore, the second part of the question does not arise, but if the hon. Member still wishes to have that information, I shall be glad to send it to him.

    PITHEAD BATHS (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines if accidents that occur to persons using pithead baths are reported to his Department; and, if so, will he give the figures for 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The official returns of accidents at coal mines do not include accidents to persons using pithead baths, but I understand that during the four years in question compensation was paid in respect of about 150 such accidents. I should explain that the trustees of every baths installation are required to take out a policy of insurance to provide every colliery employé who is injured whilst using the baths with the same compensation as he would be entitled to under the Workmen's Compensation Act if the injury occurred in the course of his employment at the colliery.

    STOCKS.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines the amount of the stocks of coal at the pit-heads for the years 1925 and 1933; and will he give separate figures for Lancashire?
    Mr. E. BROWN: At 31st December, 1925, the quantity of coal in stock at pit-head in Great Britain was 4,971,000 tons and at 31st December, 1933, 6,096,000 tons. The corresponding figures for Lancashire and Cheshire were 661,000 tons and 648,000 tons, respectively.

    RAGLAN COLLIERY, SOUTH WALES (OVERTIME).
    Mr. E. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that miners engaged at Raglan Colliery, South Wales, are compelled to work excessive overtime in shifting conveyors after the termination of their statutory hours; and whether he will take steps to prevent these breaches of the law?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I have not yet completed my inquiries in this case, so perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put down his question again in a week's time.

    OUTPUT.
    Miss WARDasked the Secretary for Mines if he can give the output in the mining industry of the first quarter of the years 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934, respectively?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The output of coal in Great Britain during the first quarter of 1931 was 57,311,000 tons. The corresponding figures for the years 1932 to 1934 were 55,847,000, 56,177,000, and 59,669,000 tons. It should be noted that the output in 1931 was affected by a dispute in South Wales and that in 1932 and 1934 by the incidence, in whole or in part, of the Easter holidays.
    Miss WARD: Does my hon. Friend attribute this improvement in trade in the main to the policy pursued by the National Government?
    Mr. BROWN: Naturally.
    Mr. BATEY: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the National Government have done?
    Mr. BROWN: I have done that on many occasions, and I hope to do it on many more.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are fewer men working in the mines?
    Mr. BROWN: I am aware that they are working more shifts per week.

    SAFETY COURSES, NORTHUMBERLAND AND DURHAM.
    Mr. DICKIEasked the Secretary for Mines what progress has been made in the organisation of courses of safety instruction for boys employed at the mines in Northumberland and Durham?
    Mr. E. BROWN: Courses of safety instruction covering a period of three months were started last Autumn at con-
    884
    venient centres in both counties, and over 1,750 boys in all were enrolled. A second session of classes was started in the New Year, and enrolments, which numbered about 1,400, represent an entirely fresh set of boys except for a few boys who are taking the course a second time. These results have only been achieved by the combined and unremitting efforts of men of good will in the education authorities and all sections of the mining industry, and of the boys themselves. I have great hopes of the advantages to be secured from these courses of safety instruction, and I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing my warm appreciation of the public-spirited work of all those concerned, and of the success which is attending it.
    Mr. DICKIE: In view of the advantage of this particular form of instruction, will the Minister encourage the formation of similar classes in other districts?
    Mr. BROWN: My hon. Friend will understand that other counties follow Yorkshire, Notts and Derby, Lancashire, and other districts, and we are doing all we can to get every district to take them up.

    SAFETY BOOKLET.
    Mrs. SHAWasked the Secretary for Mines whether steps have been taken to bring to the notice of those engaged in the mining industry the booklet recently published by the Safety in Mines Research Board dealing with the problem of preventing accidents from falls of ground; and whether copies of this booklet can be made available for Members of this House?
    Mr. E. BROWN: Yes, Sir, this valuable booklet has been given wide publicity by notices and lectures, and in the general and technical Press, and nearly 18,000 copies have been sold in the period of 10 weeks since the booklet was published. In response to the latter part of the question, I have arranged for a supply of copies to be available in the Vote Office.

    VENTILATION.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS (for Mr. D. GRENFELL)asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has a report of the number of cases in which firemen or deputies report the presence of gas on their daily inspections; and whether he is able to make comparison of the state

    885
    of ventilation in coal mines from such information?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the first part of the question is "No." As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that was given him in reply to a similar question on 4th December last. The statutory reports of the inspections made by deputies are studied at the mines by His Majesty's inspectors in relation to their own inspections and reports.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS (for Mr. D. GRENFELL)asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received reports of the emission of sparks from the violent contact of steel rings on removal by mechanical appliances; and whether, having regard to the possible ignition of firedamp by such means, he will require special attention to the state of ventilation on all roadways where such operations are to be carried out?
    Mr. BROWN: I have a long answer, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Yes, Sir. In a few instances, flashing or sparking associated either with the withdrawal of steel arching or with its sudden fracture, has been observed underground. These phenomena are being studied by the Safety in Mines Research Board, and their investigators have recently succeeded in reproducing them experimentally, using a special testing plant belonging to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, which was generously placed at the board's service by the railway company. An account of the work will be published shortly in the board's annual report and, in the meantime, the hon. Member's question and this reply will serve effectively to bring the matter to the notice of mine managements and others concerned. I may add that it is not known at present whether these flashes or sparks are capable of igniting firedamp.

    ARMS TRAFFIC.
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the situation in many European countries, he will introduce legislation to forbid the sale of armaments abroad by British armament firms?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I am sure it is obvious to my hon. Friend that if his object is to promote disarmament and peace by such legislation, similar legislation would be needed and would have to be strictly applied in other countries also where armament factories exist. In this country certain powers to regulate export of arms exist, but there are no such powers and no such practice in most other countries, and our attempts to get international agreement upon the subject have not met with much support hitherto.
    Mr. MAXTON: My purpose in putting the question is not to raise the general question of disarmament; the specific question that I put to the Prime Minister was whether he would do something to prevent British armament firms arming our potential enemies on the Continent?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The point is that armaments dealt with in this way must have an object. The object is undoubtedly general disarmament and peace, and that can only be done by agreement.
    Mr. HANNON: Has there come to my right hon. Friend's notice any particular case in which an armament firm in this country has taken action in foreign countries of the nature suggested in the question?
    Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there were British soldiers killed in the last War with British shells?
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the failure of the efforts of the League of Nations' Commission to settle the dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay, he will consider the advisability of proposing at a public session of the Council of the League that every country should place an embargo on the export of arms to these two States?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) on the 27th November, it has proved impossible to obtain unconditional acceptance by all the Governments of the States members of the League Council of a form of declaration submitted to the council on the 8th March, 1933. The Commission appointed by the League of Nations to investigate the Bolivia-Paraguay dispute has now re-

    887
    turned to Europe but has not yet presented its report, and it would not seem that any further action can usefully be taken until the recommendations of the Commission have been submitted.
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that if the armament interests of the world as a whole were to cease to supply arms to these two blood-thirsty nations they would not go on fighting?
    Mr. EDEN: That may be, but His Majesty's Government have already taken an initiative in this matter. It is not their fault if others do not follow.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    INCOME TAX (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).
    Mr. CAPORNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the additional income derived from co-operative societies in respect of the last financial year by reason of the provision of the Finance Act, 1933?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: A special inquiry is being made to ascertain the increased liability to Income Tax resulting from last year's legislation regarding industrial and provident societies, and I hope to be in a position to furnish the information which my hon. Friend desires at a later date.

    UNEMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if

    The amounts paid in subsidies or subventions in each of the years mentioned are shown in the following Table:—

    Financial Year.

    Civil Aviation (Comercial subsidies).

    Sugar Beet.

    Housing.

    Coal Industry.

    Total.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    1920

    …

    …

    —

    —

    3,238,093

    —

    3,238,093

    1921

    …

    …

    75,625

    —

    9,768,478

    7,048,630

    16,892,733

    1922

    …

    …

    181,762

    —

    10,492,512

    —

    10,674,264

    1923

    …

    …

    125,258

    —

    8,773,726

    113

    8,899,097

    1924

    …

    …

    138,511

    492,040

    9,045,588

    —

    9,676,139

    1925

    …

    …

    137,000

    1,066,090

    8,877,824

    18,999,997

    29,080,911

    1926

    …

    …

    172,480

    3,225,859

    9,448,253

    4,199,088

    17,045,680

    1927

    …

    …

    226,400

    4,309,260

    10,780,050

    28,772

    15,344,482

    1928

    …

    …

    230,600

    2,854,239

    12,067,927

    —

    15,152,766

    1929

    …

    …

    341,700

    4,229,730

    12,727,320

    —

    17,298,750

    1930

    …

    …

    388,800

    6,022,972

    13,668,333

    —

    20,080,105

    1931

    …

    …

    394,900

    2,135,192

    14,520,831

    —

    17,050,923

    1932

    …

    …

    398,300

    2,356,207

    15,214,726

    —

    17,969,233

    1933 (approx.)

    400,000

    3,332,910

    15,299,916

    —

    19,032,826

    Total

    …

    3,211,326

    30,024,499

    153,923,527

    30,276,600

    217,436,002

    he will issue a return, under various headings, of the amount of credits, grants, or cost to the State for trade facilities, export credits, unemployment grants, and any other forms of State expenditure designed to assist the unemployment problem, including the cost of unemployment insurance to the State, to employers and employed, together with the cost of transitional benefit paid for each year from 1920 to the latest available date?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member will find full information about the services to which he refers specifically in Parliamentary Papers such as Appropriation Accounts, Trading Accounts and Special Returns; and I do not think the expense of compiling a separate return in the form desired by the hon. Member would be justified.

    SUBSIDIES.
    Mr. G. HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will submit a return to the House, under various headings, of the subsidies granted from State funds for civil aviation, sugar-beet, housing, and the coal industry for each year from 1920 to the latest available date?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:

    TRUSTEE SECURITIES.
    Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the desirability of legislation for amending the Trustee Act, 1925, to provide for some statutory authority with power to make suitable additions from time to time to the list of securities available for investment by trustees?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir; I do not think that such a proposal is necessary in the public interest, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the report of the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Lawrence (Command Paper No. 3107 of 1928).
    Mr. LEWIS: Will my hon. Friend ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider what other methods there may be of keeping the Trustee Act, 1925, up to date?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend anything.

  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will introduce an Amendment to the Industrial and Provident Assurance Societies' Acts providing that 75 per cent. of the premiums paid on lapsed policies should be returned to the policy holders in all eases of lapse after one year?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The subject of lapses and surrender values of policies was dealt with fully by the Industrial Assurance Committee, whose recommendations are now under consideration by the Government.
  Mr. JOHN WILMOT: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the urgent necessity of amending these Acts in view of the growth of undesirable practices which would be illegal under the Companies Acts?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think my answer covers that when I say that the report is under consideration.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRAVEL VOUCHERS).
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will take steps to make the travel vouchers
  890
  issued to Scottish Members of Parliament for travelling between the House of Commons and their constituencies available for air services, in view of the amount of time that could thus be saved on the long journey to and from Scotland?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: For various reasons I am not in a position to adopt the hon. Member's proposal.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Gentleman says that there are various reasons; can he give the House one of them?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There are, as I have said, many reasons, but I will give the hon. Gentleman one. He asks for a special privilege for Scotland, and that, of course, cannot be conceded without raising the question of its extension elsewhere.
  Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Can my hon. Friend say why that extension should not be given elsewhere provided there is no additional charge upon public funds?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Scotland is not asking for any concession; it only asks for this extension because of the distance.

  PARLIAMENTARY AND NON-PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the minutes of evidence presented to the Parmoor Committee on Industrial Assurance in 1920 were laid before Parliament and published at a cost of 3s. for 278 pages, whereas the evidence laid before the Departmental Committee which reported last year was not laid before Parliament and costs £2 19s. 6d. for 1,249 pages of the same size; and whether he can give reasons for the differential treatment of these cases?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Prior to 1921, the cost of setting up the type was taken into account in fixing the price of non-Parliamentary papers, but not of Parliamentary papers. In that year, in the interests of economy, it was decided that for the future Parliamentary and non-Parliamentary papers should be treated alike in this respect and that various papers, including minutes of evidence of

  891
  commissions and committees, hitherto published as Parliamentary papers, should be issued as non-Parliamentary papers.
  Sir A. WILSON: Can my hon. Friend state what authority decides whether the evidence submitted to a Departmental Committee is presented to Parliament in an accessible form or is published by the Stationery Office in a relatively inaccessible form?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would like notice of that question.

  DARTMOOR PRISON (EX-OFFICERS' GRANT).
  Mr. McENTEEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury having regard to the fact that the £50 special grant made to Mrs. Lewis, whose husband, ex-prison-officer G. H. Lewis, was badly injured in the Dartmoor mutiny, is nearly absorbed, whether he will consider making another similar grant to assist Mrs. Lewis in her expenses in respect of the maintenance of her husband in the mental home?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. Member.
  Mr. McENTEE: As there is no improvement in the condition of the man to whom the question refers, will the hon. Gentleman consider favourably a further grant?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I am making inquiries, and will communicate the result to him.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can state, approximately, the amount inuring to the credit of the Estimates on the old age pensions accounts by reason of the stoppage of such pensions when the pensioners are inmates of infirmaries, or similar institutions, during the past five years; and the number of such pensioners suffering such stoppage?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available.

  SOUTH AFRICA STATUS BILL.
  Mr. LEWISasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the contents of the South African Status Bill were communicated to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom before this measure was introduced in the Union Assembly; if any amendments in the drafting of the Bill were suggested by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom; and if the Bill, as introduced, incorporated any or all of such amendments?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa consulted His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom with regard to a special point affecting trustee stocks and arising in connection with the proposed repeal of Section 65 of the South Africa Act. Consultation was limited to this point, on which full agreement was reached between the two Governments.

  AFFORESTATION.
  Sir P. HARRISasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the total amount of money paid by the Forestry Commission since the War to landowners to assist them in planting conifers and hardwoods, respectively?
  Colonel Sir GEORGE GOURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): Since the War planting grants have been made to local authorities and private individuals in respect of conifers amounting to £200,000 approximately and hardwoods £42,000 approximately.
  Sir P. HARRIS: Cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the figures separately of grants to local authorities and to private landowners?
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: No, Sir.

  POST OFFICE.

    FEMALE TELEPHONISTS (NIGHT WORK).
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Postmaster-General what grounds have been advanced by female telephonists for declining to work until 11 p.m., in view of the recent Whitley Council agreed pronouncement in favour of equality of opportunity for both sexes in the service?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): Apprehensions have been expressed on various grounds which I am endeavouring to expel as quickly as possible by explaining that the operators are not required to perform late duty more frequently than one week in four, that the great majority of late duties will terminate not later than 10.30 p.m., and that no male operator whose principal earnings are secured from his telephone work will be affected. The new system is already in operation in six exchanges in London, and other exchanges will be similarly provided as soon as suitable arrangements can be made.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is the Government aware that it is because the women organised with the men that the men are using them?
    Sir K. WOOD: No. The reason for the new system is the superiority of the women telephone operators.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I quite agree, but does not that show that, when the women are superior to the men, the men get the women to organise with them and then use the women?

    TELEPHONE CHARGES.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Postmaster-General whether the Post Office is prepared to give a rebate to a telephone subscriber whose telephone is out of order for one day or more when the interruption is due to admitted carelessness or inefficiency on the part of the Post Office engineering department?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. Such cases are extremely rare, and if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any case which he has in mind, I shall be happy to inquire into it.

  TRANSPORT.

    CYCLES (RED REFLECTORS).
    Major THOMASasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions took place during the year 1933 in the case of cyclists carrying inefficient red reflectors; and what steps are taken by his Department to test the efficiency or otherwise of red reflectors fitted to cycles?
    The Secretary of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I regret that the information
    894
    asked for in the first part of the question is not available, as the returns do not show such cases separately from others connected with the lighting of vehicles. The testing of reflectors is not undertaken by my Department. Certain standards of efficiency have been prescribed by regulations made under the Road Transport Lighting Act of 1927. Cyclists whose reflectors do not conform to those standards may be liable to proceedings, and the Road Traffic Bill which has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport provides penalties for the sale of reflectors which do not comply with the prescribed conditions.
    Major THOMAS: Are we to understand that no tests of these reflectors are carried out?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have tried to explain that this has nothing to do with my Department.

    SPEED LIMIT, OXFORD (FINES).
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASSasked the Home Secretary into what fund the money collected by fines from motorists for exceeding the local speed limit recently imposed in and around Oxford city is paid; and whether the money is retained locally and used in relief of rates or to pay for extra police in the area, or paid into the Treasury to the credit of the Road Fund?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The fines are applied in the same manner as other fines imposed under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, that is, they are payable to the Exchequer and an equivalent sum is placed to the credit of the Road Fund.

    ACCIDENTS, HIGHGATE.
    Sir PERCY HURDasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the increasing frequency of accidents involving life and limb at the five-road centre at the Archway Tavern, Highgate; and whether he will confer with the London County Council and the borough councils of Islington and St. Pancras, with a view to the provision of a passenger subway at this point?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): My hon. Friend is aware that traffic conditions at the Archway Tavern, Highgate, are unsatisfactory. The possibility of effecting

    895
    an improvement was considered a few years ago with the London County Council and the borough councils concerned, but owing to difficulties which arose, the matter was dropped. He is, however, quite prepared to consider any suitable scheme which the local authorities may wish to promote; and in the meantime he is in negotiation with the Islington Borough Council regarding the provision of traffic control signals at this junction, with a view to bringing about some improvement.
    Sir P. HURD: May I ask whether consideration will be given to a passenger subway at that point?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am sure that consideration will be given to all means of safety.

  CHEMICAL WARFARE (DEFENCE MEASURES).
  Captain FULLERasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the declaration of M. Litvinoff that gas will be employed in a future war, and of the growing organisation of defensive measures in many countries for the protection of the civil population against gas, he will take steps, in view of the negligible cost and non-provocative nature of such measures, to safeguard the public against the aerial use of gas by the dissemination of information, the training of personnel, the provision of gas services, and the speeding up generally of the organisation of civilian anti-gas measures?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that I cannot add anything to the statement made by the Prime Minister in the course of the Debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on the 21st March last.

  HOUSING.

    BUILDING MATERIALS (BATHS).
    Mr. SELLEYasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the first two months of 1934, 1,303 tons of baths were imported into this country, as compared with 610 tons in the corresponding period of 1933; and whether he will take steps to ensure that in all schemes under the control of his Department only baths of British manufacture shall be used?
    The Minister of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I am aware of the figures referred to. I have already suggested to local authorities the desirability of making use to the utmost extent practicable of goods and materials of home production, and I am sending to my hon. Friend a copy of a circular on this matter. I have no reason to suppose that local authorities generally are not acting upon the advice contained in this circular.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not the case that there has recently been a rise of 30 per cent. in the price of English baths?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I should like notice of that question.
    Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Is it not also necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to be aware of the fact that frequently it has been essential, in order to keep down the expenses of building materials, to be able to have recourse to foreign importations?

    RATING ASSESSMENTS, SHEFFIELD.
    Mr. PIKEasked the Minister of Health (1) if he is aware that in the valuation list which became effective on 1st April, 1934, the assessments of many houses owned by the Sheffield Corporation were shown to be increased, and that, although accepted, the new assessments were so adjusted as to leave the amount payable weekly by corporation tenants unaltered; if he is aware that many members of the estates committee and Sheffield City Council are tenants of corporation houses; and what steps it is proposed to take to protect tenants of privately-owned property against the increased rent and rates which fall upon them;
    (2) whether he is aware that council houses owned by the Sheffield Corporation are assessed inaccurately by comparison one with the other on a lower basis than is in operation in comparative areas and on a lower basis than privately-owned houses within the city boundaries; and whether he is satisfied that, following a recent decision of that authority, houses owned by the. Sheffield Corporation are now assessed at figures comparable, as required by law, to their true letting value?
    Sip H. YOUNG: The assessments of certain houses owned by the corporation have been recently increased as a result of the quinquennial revaluation and the council propose to reduce the rents of some of the houses concurrently with the increase in the amounts payable for rates on reassessment. I have no jurisdiction in regard to the assessment of property to rates which is a matter for determination by the assessment committee subject to the right of any person aggrieved to appeal to the courts; the various Housing Acts and regulations contain certain conditions for subsidy purposes as regards rents, but the general management and control of municipal houses is vested in the local authority who may make such reasonable changes for individual tenancies as they may determine.
    Mr. PIKE: In view of the circumstances in Sheffield by which members of the Sheffield Council have voted to themselves rent reductions and rate reductions while they have imposed additional charges upon tenants of slum property already condemned under slum clearance orders, will the right hon. Gentleman institute at his earliest possible convenience an inquiry into the whole position obtaining in that city?
    Sir H. YOUNG: That really is the original question in another form. If the hon. Member will consider my answer, he will see that it bears upon the matter.
    Mr. THORNE: Another dig at a Labour council.

    SLUM CLEARANCE SCHEMES.
    Sir P. HARRISasked the Minister of Health in how many slum clearance schemes has the work of clearance been actually commenced for the year ended 31st March, 1934, or the nearest available date; and how many persons therefrom have been actually rehoused?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The number of clearance schemes, that is, confirmed orders or purchases by agreement in the course of the year ended 31st March last was 631, involving the demolition of 16,375 houses and the building of replacement houses for 73,718 persons, but I am not able to state the extent to which the work of clearance and rehousing had gone by the end of the year.
    Captain FULLERasked the Minister of Health if a slum clearance order for the West Gorton area of Manchester has yet been submitted; when the public inquiry will take place; and if it is the intention of the local authority to rehouse on the spot?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have received one clearance and three compulsory purchase orders made under the Housing Act, 1930, and relating to property in the West Gorton area of Manchester. The orders provide for a large measure of rehousing adjoining two of the areas to be cleared. The public inquiry has been fixed for 30th May.

  LONDON REFUSE (DISPOSAL).
  Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Health whether the advisory committee on London refuse have finished their work and reported; and, if so, will he state the nature of their report?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I understand that the committee have completed their inspection of places where refuse is handled in the county, or disposed of outside the county, and also their inquiry into the collection and disposal of house refuse and the cleansing of streets and gullies in all but one of the City and Metropolitan borough councils; and that the committee hope shortly to be able to submit a report in the first place with regard to the disposal of London refuse.

  MANIFOLD VALLEY (TRACK).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, in connection with the preservation of the Manifold Valley, there is a widely-expressed desire that no road should be made through the valley and that the existing track of the London Midland and Scottish Railway, recently abandoned for that purpose, should be kept for pedestrians; and whether he intends to take any action to secure the above objects?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I have made inquiry into the matters referred to in the question. I understand there has not been any suggestion on the part of the responsible highway authority that the abandoned railway track along the Manifold Valley should be converted into a carriage road or that a road should be made.
  Mr. MANDER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this track is the only means at certain spots of walking through this very beautiful valley, and will he inquire from the railway company whether they cannot see their way to leave it more or less in its present form, as it is more suitable for walking purposes?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I think, if the hon. Member will consider the answer, he will see that his further question does not arise.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Health if he can state, owing to continued unemployment, at the end of December, 1933, the numbers of persons that have been denied medical benefit from their various approved societies?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The returns which have now been received from approved societies indicate that the number of members who after a period of prolonged unemployment were continued in insurance during 1933 by virtue of Section 1 (5) of the National Health and Contributory Pensions Act, 1932, but ceased to be entitled to medical benefit on 31st December last (though continuing to be insured for pensions purposes) is approximately 125,000. This number will, however, be substantially reduced by reinstatements to medical benefit, notifications of which are now being received from societies at the rate of several hundreds a week.
  Mr. LOGAN: In view of the large numbers referred to, do the Government propose to bring into operation again the Prolongation Act?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.']

FINANCIAL STATEMENT (1934–35).
Copy ordered,
"of Statement of Revenue and Expenditure as laid before the House by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when opening the Budget."—(Mr. Hore-Belisha.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Barclay-Harvey and Mr. Chorlton; and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Crookshank and Mr. Lovat-Fraser.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Road Traffic Bill): Sir Isidore Salmon; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Turton.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Mr. Geoffrey Peto; and had appointed in substitution: The Solicitor General for Scotland.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Water Supplies (Exceptional Shortage Orders) Bill): Mr. Greenwood; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Rhys Davies.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

COUNTY COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS].
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  3.44 p.m.
  The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): On the two previous occasions on which it has been my duty to present a financial statement to the Committee, I have been very conscious that a good deal of anxiety was mingled with the hopes that are traditionally associated with Budget Day. In 1932 many dark clouds still hung round the horizon. In 1933, although the outlook was distinctly brighter, there was no settled feeling that we were about to enjoy a spell of fine weather. To-day the atmosphere is distinctly brighter. The events of the last 12 months have shown gratifying evidence that the efforts of His Majesty's Government are bearing fruit. There is a small but distinct rise in wholesale prices; the rate of short-term interest has achieved new low records; the position of long-term loans has also improved to an extent which I think is perhaps not entirely realised. I wonder, for example, how many people recognise that stocks such as the old 2½per cent. Consols actually stand higher to-day than they did before the War. The volume of our industrial production has very much gone up and equilibrium has practically been restored in the balance of payments. If you look to what I might call the telltale statistics, the unemployment figures and statistics of such things as retail trade, consumption of electricity, transport, iron and steel production and house building, in every case you see a definite revival of activity. All this, combined with the fulfilment of the anticipation which I expressed at Halifax last December that I should wind up the year with a substantial surplus, has had its effect upon men's minds and it has established a new spirit of hope and confidence. If I might borrow an illustration from the titles of two well-known works of fiction, I would say that we have now finished the story of "Bleak House" and that we are sitting down this afternoon to
  906
  enjoy the first chapter of "Great Expectations."
  Readers of Dickens do not need to be reminded that expectations, if carried to extravagant lengths, are apt to be disappointing. Do not let us allow ourselves to be tempted into forgetfulness of certain unpleasant facts which still have to be reckoned with before we can feel that our troubles are at an end. The improvement in the condition of the country is due almost entirely to the expansion of the home market and to the greater part of that market which has been secured by our own people. On the other hand, our export trade, although it is better than it was, is still far behind the figure at which it stood only a few years ago, not because we are being beaten out of the field by our competitors, for, on the contrary, as the Committee are aware, we have now regained our place as the first exporting country, but because of the disastrous shrinkage in international trade itself. The channels through which that trade formerly flowed so freely are still blocked, and indeed the passage seems to become more difficult as the spirit of economic nationalism continues to spread. We see new obstacles to international trade continually raised. We find ourselves in presence of new and formidable competitors who are scrambling for what little trade is left. Although the result of the past year has everywhere been rightly acclaimed as a remarkable achievement, yet there are certain features about the surplus of last year which cannot be expected to recur. Therefore, while I feel that the confidence in the future which is so widely prevalent has much to justify it, I feel bound to point out to the Committee that there are certain limitations and qualifications which cannot be ignored, and which must be borne in mind before we can feel that we have returned to normal conditions.

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

    REVIEW OF PAST YEAR.
    Twelve months ago I had to report to the Committee that the outturn of the year resulted in a deficit of £32,000,000. This year I am in the happy position of being able to present almost exactly the opposite case, for I find myself at the end of the year in possession of a surplus of £31,148,000, being the difference between the revenue of £724,567,000 and

    907
    the expenditure of £693,419,000. But this surplus of £31,000,000 does not really represent the true figure. Last year, £224,000,000 was provided for the service of the Debt, and, in accordance with the law, the whole of that sum was issued from the Exchequer; but the actual cost of interest and management of the Debt was just under £213,000,000, and, after meeting the payments to the United States Government of £3,300,000, I was still left with sufficient funds to defray out of the Exchequer the statutory Sinking Funds, which amounted to £7,700,000.
    It was therefore unnecessary for me to use the power which I had been given by Parliament to borrow for the purpose of meeting the contractual Sinking Funds; they were paid, instead, out of income, and the real surplus may be put at about £39,000,000. As I shall explain at a later stage, we cannot expect that this abnormal cheapness of interest rates on the National Debt will continue indefinitely, but in the meantime I think it may fairly be counted among the gains which have resulted from the earlier measures taken by the Government to restore the national credit.
    I will now give the Committee a brief account of the accounts for 1933–34. Beginning with the expenditure side, the Consolidated Fund Services other than Debt amounted to £10,719,000, and Supply Services to £458,700,000; and these two figures, together with the Fixed Debt Charge of £224,000,000, built up the total expenditure of £693,419,000. There was a saving on the Supply Services of £4,500,000, which was more than sufficient to cover the Supplementary Estimates of £3,400,000 which were found to be necessary. There was no exceptional saving upon any of the Votes, but I may mention that the decrease in unemployment which was such a feature of the year, and especially of the latter part of the year, was reflected in the fact that the expenditure on transitional payments was down by £3,300,000, and it was also found to be unnecessary to issue to the Unemployment Fund the deficiency grant of £1,300,000 for which I had provided.
    On the revenue side, the receipts showed an excess over the Estimates of £25,800,000, towards which Customs and Excise provided a surplus of £17,000,000, including £7,000,000 from the duties under
    908
    the Import Duties Act, the Ottawa Agreements Act, and the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act. I do not think it is to be wondered at that our estimates of the yield of these duties were not very accurate. We had an extremely short experience of the working of all these Acts, and what experience we had had been somewhat disappointing; but, in the event, the expansion of trade and the rise in the price level produced their effect, and we got a surplus of nearly £4,000,000 from the Import Duties Act, over £2,000,000 from the Ottawa Agreements Act, and £1,000,000 from the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act.
    The next largest increase in Customs and Excise revenue came from beer. It yielded nearly £5,000,000 more than I had expected. The Committee will remember that last year I lowered and remodelled the Beer Duty, in the hope of arresting that downward trend in the revenue which had been going on since 1929, and which had shown a precipitate fall after the emergency Budget of 1931. For that purpose I so rearranged the duty as to make it possible both to reduce the price and also to improve the quality of the beer, in the hope that, if I could not increase the consumption, I should at any rate stop the decline. I am glad to say that my anticipation has been more than fulfilled. The price of beer has been reduced by 1d. a pint, and the gravity of all beers has risen by 1½degrees on the average, a figure which, I may say, masks an even higher rise in the case of particular beers, because there has been, as was rather to be expected, a certain shift in taste during the past year from the heavier to the lighter beers. Consumption was reinforced by the expansion of trade and by the climatic conditions of last year; which resulted in its being increased by about one-sixth. I need only add that I understand that the brewers generally, in accordance with the promise which was made to me by the Brewers' Society at the time of the last Budget, have purchased substantially more British barley, or malt made from British barley, in the last year than in the previous year.
    The Oil Duty produced a surplus of £2,700,000, and towards that the new duty of 1d. a gallon on heavy oil produced a surplus of about £750,000. There was also a surplus on spirits, wines,

    909
    tobacco, silk, and liquor licence duties. On the other hand there was a deficit on tea and sugar. In the case of tea, the shortage, which amounted to about £350,000, is no doubt due to the restrictions on exports from India, Ceylon, and the Dutch East Indies, which have resulted in a considerable rise in the price of common tea. In the case of sugar, where the deficit amounted to nearly £1,000,000, that is to be ascribed mainly to the fact that a greater quantity of sugar came from the different parts of the Empire, carrying with it of course a preference, and therefore produced less income to me than if it had come from foreign sources.
    Inland Revenue at £392,000,000 gives me £14,200,000 more than I had anticipated. I must point out, however, that that increase was not derived from Income Tax and Surtax. Of those two staple sources of revenue, Income Tax produced £229,000,000 and Surtax £52,500,000, and the produce of the two together was within seven-tenths of 1 per cent. of the figure at which I put the estimate. The fact is that in the case of these two taxes we are dealing with past profits and income, and therefore we can be sure that we can estimate beforehand with very considerable accuracy what the revenue is going to be. In the present case we knew that we had to take into account a fall in profits and income. We knew also that we should receive a smaller instalment in the January payment. Our anticipations have in fact been completely fulfilled by the actual outturn of the year. I would like to say that Income Tax payers have again shown a most commendable readiness to meet their obligation to the community, and there has been a definite improvement in the rate of collection which I hope now is going to be a permanent feature of the system.
    It is the Death Duties which have provided the greatest excess in revenue received over revenue estimated. They produced £85,250,000, which was no less than £10,500,000 more than I had expected. But no doubt the Committee are aware that this was due to the fact that during the year we received the largest payment that has ever come from one single estate in the whole history of the Death Duties. We cannot expect a repetition of that occurrence another year. Stamp Duties reflected the increased Stock Exchange
    910
    activities and gave me £22,700,000 against the £20,400,000 which I had expected. I do not think I need make any comment upon any of the other items which constitute Inland Revenue, except perhaps to remark, that, in the case of Excess Profits Duty and Corporation Profits Tax, which have both been repealed, we are now only collecting arrears and those arrears must naturally be a continually dwindling asset.
    The net receipt from the Post Office under the vigorous administration of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, was £13,100,000, showing a net increase over the estimate of £1,400,000. I would like to say that in every month of the year the postal receipts were higher than in the year before. The Motor Vehicles Duties did better, which is another encouraging sign. Crown Lands fulfilled expectations, but Sundry Loans and Miscellaneous Receipts showed a shortage of £7,000,000. This however was mainly due to the fact that certain items of miscellaneous revenue for which I had estimated in the Budget did not actually fall into the year's receipts.
    That completes my review of the income and expenditure for the year. As I have already stated, the result was a surplus of £31,000,000, which according to the law must be devoted to the redemption of debt, and will very nearly make good the £32,000,000 which I had to borrow in the year before in order to meet the deficit of that year.

    NATIONAL DEBT.
    Before I pass to other matters the Committee may like to have a brief statement from me on the subject of the National Debt. I ought to draw particular attention again to the extraordinary cheapness of the rate of interest on Treasury Bills. The average over the whole year was only 12s. 6d. per cent., which was even lower than the exceptionally low level which we reached a year before and compares with an average over the whole pos-War period of £3 6s. 10d. per cent. The whole amount of Treasury Bills and Savings Certificates together at their lowest point in the year was over £1,200,000,000, but interest amounted to a little more than £15,000,000, only one and a quarter per cent. on that whole vast total.
    During the year £40,000,000 of 4½per cent. Treasury Bonds and £24,000,000 of

    911
    5½per cent. United Kingdom Dollar Bonds were converted into 2½per cent. Conversion Loan or Conversion Bonds. By that operation we saved £615,000 in interest last year, and in a full year that saving will amount to £1,300,000. The net reduction in the nominal total of the dead weight debt was £21,600,000. Hon. Members will see in the White Paper that there is an apparent increase in the debt of £178,500,000, but if they add those two figures together they will see that the difference is accounted for by the issue from the Exchequer to the Exchange Equalisation Account of £200,000,000. This sum is of course covered by assets, and I may say that the 'account continues to show a profit.

    EXPENDITURE, 1934–35.
    Now I think the Committee will be ready to accompany me into 'an examination of the prospects for the future. I will begin with the expenditure side. The first point which I would mention is the Fixed Debt Charge. Neither last year nor the year before did I make any provision for War debt payments to America, nor for the receipt of War debts or reparations by ourselves. In the absence of any fresh development I propose to follow precisely the same procedure this year. But a more difficult problem perhaps arises when one comes to consider what is the proper sum to be allocated to the Fixed Debt Charge. How little fixed the Fixed Debt Charge really is may be illustrated by the fact that whereas last year we provided £224,000,000 for that purpose, until quite recently the figure stood at £355,000,000, a difference of £131,000,000. Of course, it is quite easy to see how that difference arises. That £224,000,000 was only considered sufficient because it made no provision for any Sinking Fund, because of the abnormal cheapness of the rates at which we could borrow on Treasury Bills, and because of the modest encashment of Savings Certificates. We cannot go on like that indefinitely. We cannot consider that we have arrived at a normal figure for the Fixed Debt Charge until it contains a provision for the interest on Treasury Bills and Savings Certificates which would cover an average over a period of years, and until it makes provision for a Sinking Fund, proportionate no doubt to what we can afford, but,
    912
    subject to that qualification, appropriate to the circumstances 'and conditions of the National Debt.
    The question I had to ask myself was, has the time now arrived when we ought to begin the scaling up of the Fixed Debt Charge to a normal figure? It is a nice point. But on the whole, bearing in mind that there must always be a lag before the improvement in the condition of the country translates itself fully into an increase in the revenue, I came to the conclusion that it would not be unreasonable to proceed on the old lines for one more year, and once more to arm myself with the power which Parliament gave me last year to borrow for the purpose of meeting the contractual Sinking Funds, if that should be necessary. So the Fixed Debt Charge will stand at £224,000,000, and I hope that the Committee will note my warning that assuredly a larger provision will have to be made in future financial periods.
    I now proceed to other items of expenditure. I put the Northern Ireland services at £6,500,000 and miscellaneous Consolidated Fund services at £3,700,000. I have also to make provision for the first payment to the Post Office Fund which was set up by the Finance Act of last year. Under the formula laid down in that Act there has to be paid to the fund on every 1st November a sum which is calculated by reference to the out-turn of the preceding year. Calculated on that basis I estimate that I shall have to make a payment of £2,000,000 on 1st November next. That brings the total of all the Consolidated Fund Services to £236,200,000.
    The figures of the Supply Services have already been published. Although the provision for defence is up by £4,765,000 the total for Supply Services is only £461,924,000 against the original estimate of last year of £463,186,000, so that there is a net saving comparing the one estimate with the other of £1,200,000. Taking the Civil Estimates alone they amount to £335,603,000. That is £6,168,000 less than the original estimate of last year and £9,540,000 less than the total Estimates of last year including supplementaries. The principal cause of this decrease is of course the decrease in the Ministry of Labour Vote amounting to £10,688,000 which arises from the continued decline in unemployment. Against

    913
    that I have to set the fact that automatic increases in expenditure—that is increases which are not susceptible of control without legislation or without interference with existing commitments—exceed automatic decreases like the decrease in war pensions by a substantial amount. I also have had to make some provision for measures adopted by the Government with the approval of Parliament for such matters as the slum clearance campaign, the better marketing operations for agriculture and the provision of rural water supplies.
    Turning to self-balancing expenditure, I estimate the expenditure of the Post Office at £60,463,000, an increase of £1,024,000 to meet the growth of business which is to be expected with the revival of trade. The item allotted to the Road Fund which is, of course, the produce of the Licence Duties less the Exchequer share of those duties is increased to £26,300,000 in order to allow for the expansion in the licences which we expect. Omitting self-balancing expenditure

    the Supply Services amount to

    £461,924,000

    and the Consolidated Fund Services to

    £236,200,000

    making a total of ordinary expenditure of

    £698,124,000

    ESTIMATED REVENUE.
    Now we turn to my Estimate of revenue on the existing basis of taxation. It is in the nature of things that the earliest items to reflect any change of activity in the country are the Customs and Excise Duties. Taking as I do a reasonably optimistic view of the future course of trade, I think I am justified in expecting a larger yield from nearly all the important items in Customs and Excise. First of all, however, there are one or two items which I must mention in which for special reasons I think there will be a decrease. In the case of sugar I must allow for a fall of £500,000 on account of increased supplies from home and Empire sources of production. I must also allow for a decrease in the case of duties under the Ottawa Agreements and Irish Free State Duties Acts. As everyone knows the purpose of the Ottawa Agreements Act was to increase inter-Imperial trade and in proportion as inter-Imperial trade takes the place of foreign trade so, of course, one must ex-
    914
    pect a smaller revenue from the duties that are imposed under that Act. In the case of the Irish Free State the reduction is due to the imposition of quotas in this country and to the fact that in several cases the Irish Free State Government has reduced the bounties upon its exports. However, these are exceptional cases and they do not amount to very much. In the case of import duties under the Import Duties Act, I obtained last year £22,800,000, which shows a substantial increase over the sum which I had estimated. This year I expect a further increase, and I put the yield at £24,000,000. Beer last year, after deducting about £2,250,000 which must be ascribed to the fact that a higher rate of duty was in operation before the 26th April, 1933, produced £56,600,000. I am advised that I must discount this figure in my calculations this year because we must not expect to have such thirsty weather as we had last year. All the same, I am sanguine enough to anticipate that we shall see increased consumption again this year. I put my estimate up on the existing basis of taxation to £58,400,000. Owing to the continued expansion of trade, we ought also to get a further increase in the produce of the oil duty and I have allowed for an extra £2,000,000 bringing the figure up to £42,700,000. I am also allowing for increases on tobacco, wine, tea, cocoa, dried fruit, matches, entertainments, liquor licence duties and import duties. Hon. Members will find full details in the White Paper. The total revenue which I expect to get from Customs and Excise adds up to £290,000,000.
    When I come to the rest of the revenue I have to base my calculations upon an analysis of past facts and figures. Anyone can see that items like Crown lands, Sundry Loans and Miscellaneous Receipts are not greatly affected by an increase in the prosperity of the country. Even Estate Duties are not likely to be materially affected by a change in those conditions except in so far as there may be a variation in the value of stocks and shares. But very few people seem to realise that in the case of Income Tax and Surtax the revenue to be received this year does not depend upon any prediction of what the course of trade will be this year. It depends upon the profits and income of past years. There is indeed one special feature of this year

    915
    which forms an exception to the general rule. We know that this year we shall receive a full year's receipt from tax-papers with earned incomes from whom the Exchequer received only three-fourths of a year's produce last year on account of the smaller instalment of tax that was payable on 1st January. I estimated the cost of that concession last year at £12,000,000 and therefore I can count upon a gain of that £12,000,000 this year. But the main bulk of the revenue from Income Tax is that which is payable on 1st January on the assessment for the current year.
    The assessment for the year 1934 will be based upon the profits of the year 1933. The Board of Inland Revenue, with the assistance of traders—I should like once more to express my obligations to them—are in a position to say with considerable precision what were the profits of 1933 upon which my revenue this year must depend. The great fall in profits which has been going on since the world depression set in ceased in 1933, but it did not cease early enough to affect the whole of the assessments for this year. Hon. Members are no doubt aware that different businesses make up their accounts to different dates. Some make up their accounts to the end of June or the end of September and assessments on them for this year will depend on the profits made during a year which ended as long ago as June or September, 1933. Similarly others make up their accounts to the end of December or to the end of March, and in these cases the year of profits would be the year which ended on the 31st December, 1933, or the 31st March, 1934. A careful examination of all these different accounting periods shows that during the first half of 1933 profits were still actually falling. It was only during the second half of that year that there was a recovery which counterbalanced the fall in the earlier half of the year and which enables me to budget for the first time since 1929 for no fall in the assessment under Schedule "D." I wish I could budget for a rise, but although the omens for the future are favourable, the ascertained facts for the year 1933–34—facts upon which my receipts for this year depend—preclude me from taking that course. I estimate my revenue from Income Tax at £240,000,000
    916
    as against £229,000,000 which I received last year.
    I now come to Surtax. Surtax, of course, lags a year behind the Income Tax. The Surtax for the year 1934 is based upon the Income Tax income of 1933, but the Income Tax assessment for 1933 is based upon the profits and incomes of 1932. Therefore the yield of Surtax this year depends upon what happened in 1932 when profits were still falling, and I must allow for a further fall in the yield of Surtax. I cannot put it at more than £50,000,000. When, I come to Death Duties, I have already pointed out to the Committee that the very high figure of last year was abnormal and was due to one single very large payment. I cannot expect that again, and I put my estimate of the yield from Death Duties at £76,000,000. Stamp Duties, I think, should show further growth during the year, and I estimate that they will yield £25,000,000. The yield of Land Tax and Mineral Bights Duty is fairly stable at £800,000, and I do not put the yield from Excess Profits Duty and Corporation Profits Tax at more than £1,200,000.
    My total Inland Revenue then, adds up to £393,000,000, made up of £240,000,000 from Income Tax, £50,000,000 from Surtax, £76,000,000 from Death Duties, £25,000,000 from Stamp Duties, and £2,000,000 for the rest.
    Other heads of Revenue will give me £44,200,000. I put the Exchequer share of Motor Vehicle Duty at £5,200,000, which is the same as was received last-year. The Post Office Exchequer receipts, that is to say, the gross revenue less gross expenditure, I put at £14,000,000, which is an increase of £2,300,000 over the 1933 estimate, and £900,000 more than the actual receipt. If I deduct the payment of £2,000,000 to the Post Office Fund which I have already mentioned that gives me a net Budget receipt of £12,000,000 from the Post Office. Crown Lands Revenue I put at £1,220,000, and Sundry Loans at £3,800,000. My estimate for Miscellaneous Receipts is £20,000,000. This is £10,000,000 below my estimate of last year, but it will be remembered that last year's receipt was swollen by a special item of £10,000,000 from the 5 per cent. War Loan Depreciation Fund.

    917

    SURPLUS.

    Adding up all these items the total estimated revenue for 1934–5 on the existing basis of taxation amounts to

    £727,200,000

    The estimated ordinary expenditure I have already given at

    £698,100,000

    and I am therefore left with a surplus of

    £29,100,000

    If there are any hon. Members who have allowed themselves to dwell too hopefully upon some of the rather wild guessing which has been going on, I am afraid that that figure may have been somewhat disappointing, but I think, when they have had time to adjust their ideas a little and make a careful examination of the particulars I have submitted to the Committee, they will see that there never was any foundation for the expectation of a phenomenal surplus this year. In making my calculations, I have allowed for substantial increases in all those items which can be expected to reflect quickly the increase of prosperity, such as Customs and Excise and Stamp Duties, but for the bulk of the revenue I have to bear in mind that it cannot be very materially affected this year by the better conditions of the country. The improvement will come in later, when, as I foresee, I shall be very glad of it in order to meet inevitable additions to our expenditure. After all, I do not think there is any reason why anybody should be disappointed. The sum of £29,000,000, if not dazzling, is at any rate a very substantial surplus. It is the largest for 10 years, and it is sufficient to enable me to begin the long awaited process of relief from the burdens and sacrifices of the last few years.

    MINOR CHANGES.
    Before I enter upon a discussion of that subject, I will ask the Committee to bear with me for a few minutes while I mention one or two minor changes which will require amending legislation in the Finance Bill. A recent judicial decision has revealed a flaw in the statutory machinery for the collection of tax upon mineral rents and royalties. I shall therefore have to submit to the Committee proposals for putting this matter upon a proper footing and also for maintaining the validity of the deductions of tax made in accordance with the then prevailing
    918
    practice, from past payments of rents and royalties.
    I have also to deal with a technical point which has arisen on Estate Duty. This relates to the extent of the charge of that duty in a limited class of case where a claim arises under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Finance Act, 1894, in respect of the beneficial interest accruing or arising at death in certain annuities or other interests. A Resolution will be required and the necessary Clause will be embodied in the Finance Bill. Neither of these two changes which I have mentioned will add anything to the revenue; they are merely designed to safeguard it.
    I have to mention a matter connected with the preference upon the imports of Colonial sugar. As was announced in the Press on the 29th of March last, it has been found necessary to make a change in the form of that preference to correct a preferential bias in the duty which, especially since the depreciation of the Canadian dollar, has had the effect of diverting increasing quantities of West Indian sugar from Canada to the United Kingdom, to the great embarrassment of all concerned. In agreement with my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, I propose to replace the scheme of preference which was described in my Budget speech in 1932 by a new scheme which will give benefits to the Colonies of about the same value as those which they had been receiving, but which will permit the traffic in sugar to flow freely either to Canada or to this country in accordance with the normal demands of trade. We expect to accomplish that purpose by reducing the general preference on all Colonial sugar to the old rate of 3s. 9d. per cwt., and we propose to replace the quota preference of 1s. per cwt. which now is given upon a limited, but variable, quantity of sugar by a new quota preference of 3s. per cwt. on a fixed quantity of 360,000 tons per annum. The duration of this scheme will be three years, and, like the old scheme, will be subject to variations in price. The value to the Colonies of the old scheme as it was applied to their export of sugar to all destinations was £1,055,000. The corresponding figure under the new scheme is £1,080,000, so that the Colonies should be slightly better off on the whole. On the other hand, the Exchequer will be slightly out of pocket, but we have reason

    919
    to suppose that the small loss that will fall upon the Exchequer will be a great deal less than the loss to the revenue that would have been involved if no alteration had been made and if the whole of the Colonial output of sugar had been diverted to this country. My right hon. Friend and I are agreed that this is a fair arrangement and one which it would be to the advantage of all concerned to adopt.
    I shall have a Resolution on two small points connected with the Hydro-Carbon Oil Duty, and there will be Resolutions authorising increased duties on are lamp carbons and patent leather. Also, there will be a Resolution covering some Amendments in the Import Duties Act, which have been found necessary.
    There is one other small matter for which I shall have to provide in the Finance Bill. Under various Statutes His Majesty's Government have in the past given guarantees on loans raised by certain foreign Governments, by companies and by public utility undertakings. In some of these cases the prospectus of the loan named a definite date of redemption and also gave the borrower the right to redeem at an earlier date. It would now be very much to the advantage of the borrower to exercise that right if he could borrow the money at a reduced rate of interest. There are a few cases in which the borrower could do that on his own unaided credit, but if the guarantee of the Treasury could be extended to the new loans, that is the loans which would be raised for the purpose of converting the old fund, a very considerable saving of interest would ensue. This arrangement is definitely to the (advantage of the Treasury. In the first place, it means that there is a smaller amount of interest to find and, therefore, a diminution in the risk which is covered by the Treasury guarantee and, indirectly, it also helps because every such conversion consolidates the forces that are making for cheap money, which is very much to our interest. Therefore, I propose in a Clause of the Finance Bill to take power to guarantee new loans raised for the purpose of converting existing guaranteed loans. I need say no more to the Committee than that when they see the Clause they will see that it is very strictly drawn and confines the amount that can be so guaranteed to the outstanding amount of the principal of the existing loan.

    MOTOR VEHICLE DUTIES.
    I have a concession to announce which I can provide without trespassing for any practical purpose upon my Budget surplus. It has always been the policy of His Majesty's Government to try and provide conditions under which industry can expand and give rise to further employment, wherever that is possible. Among the industries that have shown a capacity for expansion there is none more conspicuous than the motor car industry. The increase in production in recent years has really been phenomenal, but it has been represented to me that the export trade in private cars is not quite maintaining its earlier resiliency. In particular, our manufacturers are finding some difficulty in meeting the overseas competition of foreign cars whose horsepower in relation to their size and weight is greater than our own. I do not want to suggest that our low-powered cars are unsuitable for export or that their export shall not be increased in every possible way, but I am informed that the trade has been to some extent hampered by the heavy horse-power tax which is levied in the United Kingdom, and that if any reduction could be made in the rate of that tax it would be likely to lead to an expansion in production in all kinds of private ears in this country, which in turn would react favourably upon the export trade. I have been impressed by the weight of that argument, and I am anxious to do something to meet it.
    I am, therefore, proposing that, as from the 1st January next, the present tax of £l per horse-power shall be reduced by 25 per cent. to 15s. There will be a corresponding reduction in the duty upon motor cycles. The details of the proposal will be found in the White Paper. The cost I estimate to be £2,200,000 this year and £4,000,000 in a full year. That cost under the existing law would fall to be borne as to two-thirds by the Road Fund and one-third by the Exchequer, but in the present circumstances and with the many claims which are being made upon my surplus, I did not feel that I can undertake this year to provide any considerable sum for this purpose. I, therefore, consulted with my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and we have agreed upon the following arrangement: The Exchequer's share of the produce of the Motor Vehicle Duties in present cir-

    921
    cumstances is to be subject to a minimum of £5,000,000, rather less than the sum that I should expect to get if no alteration had been made at all. By that arrangement, therefore, the cost of the concession that I have described will fall mainly upon the Road Fund. There is another concession, a small one, affecting all classes of cars, which I have to announce, and that is that I propose to abolish the fee of 10s., or 5s., as the case may be, which is now charged upon the surrender of licences, which has been so charged since 1924, and which I am told has given rise to a considerable amount of irritation. This change will come into force upon the passing of the Finance Bill.

    SALARY CUTS: PARTIAL RESTORATION:
    I come now to the momentous question: What am I to do with our surplus. I have given a great deal of anxious thought to the question of the distribution of the surplus, and I have formed the impression that a good many other people have been devoting their attention to the same subject. Quite a large proportion of them have been good enough to give me their advice, frequently coloured, as one would expect, by their own experience or their own interests. I hope that I have allowed my mind to consider freely all the suggestions that have been made to me, but in the end I came to the conclusion that I must found myself upon two general principles. The first of these principles I do not think I could put in better words than were used last December in an article written by my predecessor, Lord Snowden:
    "A surplus now must in justice be devoted, as far as it will allow, to relieving those classes who suffered when the crisis was acute."
    The fact is, that the cuts in the rates of unemployment payments and in salaries and the additional taxation which was imposed at that time were considered by the Government of the day as a temporary expedient to meet a temporary emergency. They were accepted by the people of this country in that spirit. I do not myself interpret that understanding so literally as to feel compelled to put everything back exactly where it was before 1931. That would be to fetter the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a way which would go far be-
    922
    yond what is reasonable. Broadly speaking, however, I have considered myself precluded from considering other claims for relief, however well founded they may be, until something like the equivalent of restoration has taken place.
    Hon. Members will have realised that the resources at my disposal this year are not sufficient to enable me to effect complete restoration, and that is where the second principle comes in. The measures to which I have alluded may be divided into two categories. On the one side there were the increases of taxation, and on the other side there were the various cuts in the rates of unemployment payments and in emoluments. My second principle is that, since I have not enough to effect complete restoration, what I have should be distributed as fairly as possible between these two categories in proportion to the contribution that each of them made.
    I take first the question of the cuts. I propose to introduce legislation and Supplementary Estimates to provide for the restoration of one-half of those cuts as from the 1st July next. Leaving out the unemployed for the moment, the cost to the Treasury of this concession will be £5,500,000 in a full year and £4,000,000 this year—£4,000,000 being therefore the amount of the Supplementary Estimate.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT CUT: FULL RESTORATION.
    The Committee must recognise that these figures do not and cannot cover the cost of any alteration in the benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Scheme. I remember that, in the course of the discussions on the Unemployment Bill, a good deal of concern was manifested by hon. Members in different parts of the House lest the position of the unemployed insured persons under the scheme should be prejudiced in relation to the restoration of cuts by the provisions of the Bill. It was pointed out that it was not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Statutory Committee from whom the initiative must come for any restoration of cuts, and that there was no certainty that the Statutory Committee would use that initiative in such a way as to make the restoration of cuts in benefits coincident in amount and in time with any restoration of cuts which might be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for those who Were outside

    923
    the scheme. At the time it was extremely difficult for me to give a full explanation to the Committee. I could not have done that without disclosing, or appearing to disclose, budgetary intentions, which, in fact, had not at that time been decided upon. I therefore had to confine myself to a rather dogmatic assertion that there was nothing in the Bill which would justify any statement that it would be impossible to restore the cuts in benefit at the same time as the cuts in the emoluments of other classes.
    As a matter of fact, my view has always been that there was one exception to the general rule that if we were going to set up a Statutory Committee to give us advice as to the best way, in the interests of the insured, of distributing any surplus there might be in the Unemployment Fund, we should not anticipate the work we were going to entrust to them by making inroads upon that surplus in advance. The one exception concerned the restoration of the cuts in the unemployment benefit. Those cuts were part and parcel of the whole plan of 1931. To have made any distinction which would have been unfavourable to those who were inside the insurance scheme merely because the scheme had been altered, would have been to commit a very gross injustice. Therefore, now that we are proposing to make some partial restoration of cuts outside the scheme, the Government, in my opinion, could not do less than ensure, by legislation, for an equal restoration to those inside the scheme as to those outside it. But I think the Committee will see that even that course would not have completely solved the difficulty. It would still leave to the discretion of the Statutory Committee the restoration of the second half of the cut. There would still be no certainty that the Statutory Committee would choose to restore the second half of the cut at any time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer found it possible to complete the full restoration to the classes outside the scheme, but I am sure everybody here will agree that there must be no uncertainty in this matter. I am sure that everybody will want, if there is to be any inequality in this process of restoration, that the unemployed should come first. Whatever may be the sufferings and hardships of those who may have had their income reduced, their position
    924
    must still be preferable to that of the unemployed with no income at all.
    Therefore, I propose to introduce a new Clause into the Unemployment Bill which will provide for the full restoration of unemployment benefit as from 1st July. That is on the assumption, which I may almost take as a certainty, that the Bill becomes law by 30th June. The Committee is aware that the maximum rates of transitional payments are regulated by Statute according to the benefits under the unemployment insurance scheme. Therefore, this full restoration of unemployment benefit of which I have just spoken naturally carries with it a corresponding alteration in the maximum rates of transitional payments. It is rather difficult, owing to the needs basis of payment, to estimate exactly what that is likely to cost. I am proposing that there should be a Supplementary Estimate in respect of it of £3,600,000, which I estimate will be the cost to the Exchequer of the change during the present year. That comes out of the Budget surplus.
    Although in the Budget, I am not strictly concerned with the cost of unemployment insurance benefit, I think hon. Members will probably want to know whether there is any likelihood that this restoration of the unemployment benefit cut will produce any seriously prejudicial effect upon the finances of the Insurance Fund. Fortunately, there is no need for any anxiety upon that score. Under the Unemployment Bill, after making the provisions embodied in the Bill, the fund becomes self-supporting on the basis of a level of 2,500,000 on the live register of unemployed. The last published figure of unemployment was about 2,200,000, and we expect to have further falls during the year. But by every 100,000 that the figures of unemployment fall the surplus in the fund rises by something over £3,000,000. Therefore, if at the end of the year the average level turns out to be 2,300,000, we might expect a surplus of £6,500,000 or thereabouts, and if, as I must say seems more likely, the level should turn out to be 2,200,000 then there would be a surplus approximately of £10,000,000 in the fund. The cost of the restoration of the cut is £4,800,000 in a full year. Therefore, I think the Committee will agree with me that not only can the fund easily bear this new charge upon it, but, after providing for the Debt service as embodied in the Bill there

    925
    will still be every probability of a very substantial surplus for the consideration of the Statutory Committee to which, I have no doubt, they will give very prompt attention.

    INCOME TAX REDUCTION.
    I turn to the question of the remission of taxation. The concessions which I have announced have now reduced my surplus to £21,300,000, so that the possibilities are strictly limited. As far as indirect taxation is concerned, I was driven last year to remove the extra tax upon beer in order to safeguard the revenue. Much as I should have liked to have modified the Entertainments Duty, I am afraid it is impossible for me to contemplate this year any further remission of indirect taxation.
    Now I come to Income Tax. I should like to quote again from that article written by my predecessor in December last:
    "The Income Taxpayers, large and small, made by far the largest contribution to meeting the national emergency in 1931."
    In fact, out of £81,500,000 of extra taxation which was imposed at that time, the Income Tax payers found no less than £57,500,000, or 70 per cent. of the extra taxation. Although their burdens were already heavy, they shouldered an extra 6d. on the standard rate; there were general reductions in the Income Tax allowances; and there was an addition of 10 per cent. to the Surtax charge upon the larger incomes. Moreover, all these increases of taxation took effect from April, whereas the cut only became operative in the autumn. I think, too, one must not forget that since 1931 many of these Income Tax payers have also suffered a further serious reduction in their incomes owing to the operation of the Conversion Loan. Therefore, the case for some remission is overwhelming, and the only question is what form it should take. In deciding upon the form, I thought I ought to consider the effect of any remission not merely upon the individual taxpayer, but upon the country as a whole. Looking at it from that point of view, I had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the relief which would confer most direct benefit upon the country, which would have the greatest psychological effect, and which would impart the most immediate and vigorous stimulus to the expansion of
    926
    trade and employment, would be a reduction in the standard rate of Income Tax. Accordingly, I propose to remove the 6d. imposed in 1931, at a cost of £20,500,000 this year and £24,000,000 in a full year.

    FINAL BALANCE-SHEET.
    It is now possible for a final balance to be struck.

    The estimated revenue for the year is

    £706,500,000

    and the estimated expenditure

    £705,700,000

    leaving me a prospective margin of

    £800,000.

    I have but very few more words to address to the Committee. It would be quite unreasonable on my part to expect universal agreement with the financial policy I have pursued since I have held my office. Differences of temperament, differences of political tradition and differences of judgment in weighing up opposing considerings naturally lead to different conclusions, and it is very possible that others if they had been in my place would have adopted other methods. We can only speculate now-upon what the results of such other methods might have been, but, if we want to estimate the wisdom of the course we have actually pursued, we might perhaps usefully cast a glance at what is happening elsewhere. I am quite certain that any comparison we may make will show that we have nothing to regret.
    Where else outside the British Empire, where else in the world can you find a country which has been able to show a substantial surplus upon its Budget in two successive years? While in other countries cuts in pay and reductions in social services are still having to be faced, while elsewhere the taxpayer is still searching in vain for any relief from his burdens, while he is on the contrary forced to contemplate still further sacrifices and still further contributions to the State, here at any rate we can feel that we have passed the worst and can venture to remove a substantial portion of the load we have been carrying without fearing that presently we shall have to put it back.
    The British people no doubt have their faults. They are slow to realise the danger and slower still to change their habits or their methods even when the necessity for a change stares them in the face. But they have one supreme virtue

    927
    which you will find in every class of the community. Let them once be convinced that the country is in danger, and there is no sacrifice whether of comfort, money, health, or even life itself which they will not make. When the need arose in 1931, the sacrifices which were demanded then from our people were accepted by them cheerfully, and they have since been borne with unexampled courage and patience. Their truest reward is that they saved their country. I rejoice to think that at last it has been possible to afford them some relief from their burdens, and, believing as I do that this relief will itself hasten the process of recovery, I look forward with confidence to further progress in the same direction in the new financial year.

  CUSTOMS.

    COLONIAL SUGAR, MOLASSES, ETC.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That—(a) as from the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, the customs duties in respect of sugar, molasses, glucose and saccharin consigned from and grown, produced or manufactured in a colony or other country to which section two of the Finance Act, 1932, applies, shall be at the rates specified in the following two sub-paragraphs instead of at the rates theretofore chargeable—
    (i) in the case of sugar accompanied by a quota certificate issued on or after the said eighteenth day of April, the duties shall be at the rates set out in the following table:

    Article.

    Rate of duty.

    s.

    d.

    Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 99 degrees the cwt.

    2

    4·7

    Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 98 degrees but not exceeding 99 degrees the cwt.

    1

    6·3

    Sugar of a polarisation not exceeding 76 degrees the cwt.

    0

    9·6

    Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 76 degrees and not exceeding 98 degrees

    Intermediate rates varying between 9·6d. and 1s. 6·3d. per cwt.

    (ii) in the case of sugar not accompanied by such a certificate and in the case of molasses, glucose and saccharin,
    928
    the duties shall be at the preferential rates, respectively, chargeable under Section eight of the Finance Act, 1925, and Section four of the Finance Act, 1928, on sugar, molasses, glucose and saccharin being Empire products:
    (b) the quantity of sugar in respect of which quota certificates are issued shall not in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteeen hundred and thirty-five, and subsequent financial years exceed three hundred and sixty thousand tons:
    (c) in the case of sugar and molasses produced in the United Kingdom from material on which there has been paid a Customs duty at a rate chargeable by virtue of this Resolution, drawback shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Section four of, and the Second Schedule to, the Finance Act, 1928, except that in the application of the said Schedule to sugar and molasses produced as aforesaid from sugar on which there has been paid a duty at a rate chargeable by virtue of sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of this Resolution, the scales set out in the following tables shall be substituted for the scales set out in Part II of the said Schedule:

    TABLE I.

    Scale applicable in case of sugar.

    Degree of polarisation.

    Rate or amount of drawback.

    Of a polarisation exceeding 99 degrees.

    Where the rate of duty paid was 2s. 4·7d. the cwt., a drawback at the same rate.

    Where a rate of duty less than 2s. 4·7d. the cwt. was paid, a drawback at the rate of 1s. 7·4d. the cwt.

    Of a polarisation not exceeding 99 degrees.

    A drawback equal to the duty chargeable under sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of this Resolution on sugar of the like polarisation.

    TABLE II.

    Scale applicable in case of molasses.

    Nature of molasses.

    Amount of drawback.

    s.

    d.

    If containing not more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter and weighing not less than 14 pounds to the gallon …the cwt.

    0

    4½

    If containing more than 50 percent. but not more than 60 per cent. of sweetening matter the cwt.

    0

    7

    If containing more than 60 per cent. but not more than70 per cent. of sweetening matter the cwt.

    0

    9

    If containing more than 70 per cent. but not more than 80 percent. of sweetening matter the cwt.

    1

    0½

    If containing more than 80 per cent. of sweetening matter the cwt.

    1

    2½

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    5.23 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: It is not customary on these occasions to have a long Debate but to exchange a few courtesies and remarks and leave the main Debate to be opened to-morrow. I do not intend to do other than follow the usual custom to-day. I should like to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the brevity and businesslike manner of his statement. It was a statement with few flourishes. There were a few high lights, and, until the end, low lights, and he got through his Budget statement in the shortest time that I can remember. I should like to congratulate him on the matter of his statement but I regret that I am entirely unable to do so. I think it is quite the meanest Budget on record. The right hon. Gentleman has been wonderfully generous at other people's expense. There were some hon. Members who thought that we should have cheered wildly when we heard some of the announcements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we were rather too wary to be caught like that. We know our Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    The short point I want to make is that for all the sufferings of the unemployed he is getting off by a cheap contribution of something like £3,500,000, not much more than the concession he is giving to the motorists. The poorer members of the community even among Income Tax payers are being put aside for the claims of the rentier class. It is a shifting of taxation from the direct taxpayer to the indirect taxpayer. The proportions are being altered against the indirect taxpayer, against the consumer, year after year, and even when dealing with Income Tax the right hon. Gentleman continues to inflict the greatest burden on the poorest. After all, the surplus which the right hon. Gentleman has is derived from the sufferings of the poorest in the community.
    I would only draw attention to one, other curious feature of the statement. We have heard extraordinary little of the fact that we are not paying the interest on the American Debt. I do not in the least object to our not paying the interest, and I hope to see a time when the world
    930
    will throw off the burden of the moneylenders to a greater extent. I welcome the attitude on the other side of the House that although we owe this money we are not going to pay it. I hope that a token payment will be introduced more widely. I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman's statement will be as welcome in America as it is in this country. Let me draw attention to one interesting page in the statement, page 6, in reference to the melancholy list of our bad debts. We have had no reference to them at all. I shall not detain the Committee further except to say that we shall oppose this Budget. We regard it as an insult to the unemployed, from whom millions and millions have been taken, that they are being given, in exchange, a few paltry words of thanks, a few words of insolence and £3,500,000 and told that they must rest content.
    5.30 p.m.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: It has been the custom in recent years to abstain from controversial discussions on the first day of the Budget statement and to reserve to the following and succeeding days any general criticism or elaborate comments upon the Chancellor's statement for the year. I, for my part, shall conform to that convention. I was sorry last year that the Leader of the Opposition, whose continued absence we all greatly deplore, departed from that custom and engaged in a somewhat long criticism of all the proposals which had just been laid before the Committee. I am glad that to-day my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has returned to the earlier practice although he could not resist the temptation of making a few comments, some of them, in our view, somewhat exaggerated, with respect to the particular proposals laid before us to-day. My purpose in rising is to express what I feel sure is the universal feeling of this Committee, a feeling of appreciation of the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day has performed his most onerous and responsible task. For the manner of presentation we all can have nothing but praise although, with respect to the substance of the statement, the approval of some of us may be qualified.
    As I have said, I shall resist the temptation to engage in any critical discussion on this occasion, but I cannot

    931
    refrain from expressing in a single sentence the surprise that some of us feel at the fact that the Chancellor, having laid down the general principle that the resources at his disposal would allow him to relieve, to the extent of one half, the burdens imposed by the National Government of 1931, should have, quite rightly in our view, made an exception with regard to the unemployed and restored the whole of the cuts—of that we entirely approve but, on the other hand, has made no restoration of the allowances to the smaller Income Tax payers, while he has removed not one half but the whole of the additional 6d. imposed on the standard rate of Income Tax. That is all I wish to say upon these matters. The Chancellor's statement was comprehensive, clear and admirably simple. We have indeed changed the style of Parliamentary presentation from what it was in the 19th century. There is in the Budget statement nowadays little rhetoric. Modern taste rejects the ornate, whether in Parliamentary oratory or in architecture. We have had to-day a speech of severe simplicity and of the most admirable lucidity. I am sure that the whole Committee congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon his statement and thank him cordially for the manner in which he has presented it.
    5.34 p.m.
    Mr. MAXTON: I rise with the spokesmen of the various other parties—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The cheers from above the Gangway which have greeted that remark appear almost as restrained as the Chancellor's announcement. I rise not to enter into any controversy on the Budget statement but to offer, with the others who have spoken, my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman. I do so fully and without any reservations. The other party spokesmen have made reservations. They presumably expected more from the National Government than I did. Their political associations and philosophies are probably more in harmony with those of the National Government than mine are and I came here to-day expecting nothing either from the National Government or from the capitalist system. I have heard the announcement of the restoration of the cuts to the unemployed and for that
    932
    I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer without reservation. But I do not admit for one moment that he is the only person responsible for that situation having been reached to-day. One of the great principles of democracy, I think, is that a great many forces contribute to a final result. I have been completely open in my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman and, therefore, I hope he will not refuse some share of the credit to the 2,000 unemployed men who came as hunger-marchers to London and stated the view that these cuts ought to be restored. I am sure at this stage of the afternoon after his arduous task the Chancellor would rather have a cup of tea than any more bouquets, and I conclude at this point.
    5.36 p.m.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I have on previous occasions been allowed to say a few sentences following on the Budget statement, as chairman of the Income Tax Payers' Society. On their behalf I wish to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the relief he is affording them from a burden which they have borne so long and so patiently. I entirely associate myself with the restoration of the cuts and I do not wish to be misunderstood in that respect. In the criticisms which have been made on the Chancellor with regard to Income Tax, however, I think hon. Members have forgotten that the burden of Income Tax and Supertax is greater at the present time than it was during the War, and it is a very serious matter for the country to be living under war taxation in time of peace. While we are grateful that something has been done to relieve that burden, I trust that in the forthcoming year steps will be taken, in the interests of the country, even more than in the interests of the Income Tax payer to see that this war rate of taxation is reduced to a proper level.
    Last year when the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the Beer Duty because it was ceasing to be a revenue-producing tax I ventured to 'suggest to him that the same consideration applied to the Income Tax. I am glad that this year he has recognised that fact and I am sure that, from the revenue point of view, that is a most wise recognition. Although the amount of tax received this year exceeded the Budget estimate, it was £22,000,000 less than had been received

    933
    in the previous year. It has steadily diminished during the last three years and is £59,000,000 less than it was three years ago. It is interesting to recall that 60 years ago when Gladstone introduced his Budget he received the cheers of the House for reducing the Income Tax from 3d. to 2d. in the pound. We are much obliged to the Chancellor for the statesmanlike Budget which he has opened to-day. In spite of the critical remarks made by the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, I am sure it will he received by all classes of the community as an eminently fair one and one which does credit to the Chancellor and the Government.
    5.38 p.m.
    Sir GEORGE GILLETT: It seems almost a presumption to add to the congratulations already offered to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the very clear statement which he has made to the Committee, but I would like personally to thank him and to say how some of us who sit on these benches appreciate his action in making the first return to prosperity the occasion for restoring the cuts. Two years ago, some of us had to take a very difficult decision in asking the unemployed to accept the cuts. It is a special satisfaction to me that the first duty which the Chancellor has undertaken in this Budget has been to restore those cuts. I am sure, to the unemployed, it will matter little from what source the money comes. The chief thing for them will be that they will receive the larger payment in the future. In regard to the Income Tax there is a great deal to be said for the action of the Chancellor in taking off sixpence. Although his action may be open to the criticism already made that Income Tax payers are still at the disadvantage of being deprived of certain benefits which they had two years ago, yet I cannot help thinking that the interest of trade and the general interest of the country will best be served on the lines which the Chancellor has taken.
    5.40 p.m.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I also congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I would add that we must congratulate ourselves on the fact that we had a citizen in this country like the late Sir John Ellerman whose estate contributed so much to the Revenue. That is something for the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) to keep in mind. That the un-
    934
    employed and the community in general should benefit to such an extent from that estate seems to be some justification for what the hon. Member chooses to call the capitalist system. The Dollar Exchange Account and one or two other things have assisted and in this Budget, although we have the vista of prosperity open to us, prosperity has not yet been reached. We are, however, on the road.
    May I mention a typical Highland industry for which the Chancellor has done nothing. I refer to the persecuted industry of distilling. It used to belong to the Highlands. The Highlander made his own whisky and sold a little of it and then he was told by the Government of the day that it must all be kept to the distilleries and private distillation was prohibited. Now the distilling industry has shrunk as much as the beer industry. It is down to less than one-third of what it was before the War. An article which costs a shilling or two to make is taxed to about 20 times its value. It was originally intended as a medicine and is meant to be used for medical purposes, but poor people to-day who are suffering from illness cannot afford that medicine. I wish that fact were more generally recognised and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer by a reduction of the duty on this article would make it possible for the sick poor to get it when it is ordered for them by a medical man. I am satisfied that if he reduced the whisky duty to such an extent as would enable whisky to be sold at 10s. a bottle—so that a man would not have to destroy £1 to the extent of 12s. 6d. in buying a single bottle—about double the quantity would be sold. In that case a man would have two bottles instead of one. There would be no loss to the revenue and it would add a great deal to the comfort, well-being and health of the people.
    It would also help Scotland, because as I have said this is a typical Scottish industry. In my constituency there are a score of distilleries and there are many in other parts of Scotland, numbers of these have been standing idle. America, I am glad to say, has now learned the lesson of prohibition. We all know how unreasonable the Americans have been in this matter. Now they have had their lesson and we have seen there the effects of prohibition. We are enforcing prohibition

    935
    in this particular matter by taxation, and we are only enforcing it on the poor people. We injure the industry and the people, and I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take the earliest opportunity of bringing the duty down to more reasonable proportions. It was all very well in the days when Chancellors had nothing else to tax. They simply clapped it on beer, whisky, and tobacco, but now they have innumerable articles that can be taxed. A lightening of this duty would assist the agriculture of Scotland, for it should be remembered that barley is taxed at the rate of £300 an acre at the least. Apart from that matter, I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but speaking as a man from the Highlands and from a distilling county, I am deeply disappointed that Scotsmen have again to to be subjected to this overwhelming burden.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    HYDROCARBON OILS.
    Resolved,
    "That—(a) where on or after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, any dutiable hydrocarbon oils on which duty has not been paid are used in a refinery otherwise than for the purpose of generating heat, light, or power for consumption in the refinery, the same duty shall be charged and the same rebate shall be allowed in respect thereof as would be chargeable or allowable on the importation of the like oils:
    Provided that—

    (i) oils shall not be deemed to have been used by reason only that they have been subjected to a process of purification or blending;

    (ii) where oils are subjected to any process resulting in the conversion thereof into other oils or solid or semi-solid residues, such quantity thereof as has been so converted, or has been wasted in the course of the process, shall not be deemed to have been used by reason only of its subjection to that process;

    (iii) nothing in this paragraph shall affect the charge of duty or allowance of rebate on oils delivered from a refinery:

    (b) where a refinery is not used primarily for the purpose of subjecting hydrocarbon oils to any such process as aforesaid, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may require that customs duty shall be charged and rebate allowed on the removal of such oils to the refinery instead of on their delivery therefrom, but where rebate has been allowed on the removal of oils to a refinery
    936
    and those oils are converted in the refinery into light oils, an amount equal to the rebate shall be repaid:
    (c) as from the said first day of May, any customs duty payable or rebate or drawback allowable in respect of any artificially heated hydrocarbon oils (not being light oils) having a temperature exceeding sixty degrees Fahrenheit shall be payable or allowable on the number of gallons which the oil would have measured if the temperature thereof had been sixty degrees Fahrenheit.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    ARC-LAMP CARBONS.
    Resolved,
    "That, as from the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, the customs duty chargeable on arc-lamp carbons under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, shall, instead of being at the rate of one shilling per pound, be at the following rates:—

    per lb.

    s.

    d.

    Carbons exceeding14 millimetres in diameter

    5

    0

    Other carbons

    7

    6

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall Save statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    PATENT LEATHER.
    Resolved,
    "That as from the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, any duty of customs chargeable on patent leather not forming part of another article and on goods composed wholly of patent leather shall, instead of being charged under Part I of the Import Duties Act, 1932, be charged under Section one of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, and shall be a duty equal to fifteen per cent. of the value of the goods:
    Provided that—

    (a) this Resolution shall not apply to any goods which fall within some class or description of goods on which an additional duty is for the time being charge-able under Section three of the Import Duties Act, 1932, if the aggregate amount of that additional duty and of the general ad valorem duty exceeds fifteen per cent. of the value of the goods;

    (b) Sub-section (2) of Section one of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, shall not apply in relation to any duty chargeable by virtue of this Resolution.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    IMPORT DUTIES (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS).
    Resolved,
    "That it is expedient to amend the Import Duties Act, 1932, and the enactments amending that Act in the following (among other) particulars—

    (a) the Treasury shall have power, on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee,—

    (i) to order that, as soon as any class or description of goods becomes chargeable with the general ad valorem duty by virtue of an order made under Section seven of the Finance Act, 1932, an additional duty shall be charged in respect thereof under Section three of the Import Duties Act, 1932; and

    (ii) to revoke any scheme for the allowance of drawback made under Section nine of the Finance Act, 1932:

    (b) proviso (a) to Sub-section (5) of Section nineteen of the Import Duties Act, 1932 (which provides that orders made under Section one of that Act may not be varied or revoked) shall cease to have effect."

    INCOME TAX.

      CHARGE OF TAX.
      Resolved,
      "That (a) Income Tax for the year 1934–35 shall be charged at the standard rate of four shillings and sixpence in the pound, and, in the case of an individual whose total income from all sources exceeds two thousand pounds, at such higher rates In respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as Parliament may hereafter determine;
      (b) all such enactments as had effect with respect to the Income Tax charged for the year 1933–34 shall have effect with respect to the Income Tax charged for the year 1934–35.
      And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    HIGHER RATES OF INCOME TAX FOR 1933–34.
    Resolved,
    "That Income Tax for the year 1933–34 shall be charged, in the case of an individual whose total income from all sources exceeded two thousand pounds, at the same higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as were charged for the year 1932–33.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    INCOME TAX ON CERTAIN RENTS, MINING ROYALTIES, ETC.
    Resolved,
    "That (a) any rent payable in respect of any land the property in which is not sep-
    938
    arately assessed and charged under Schedule A, or in respect of any easement, shall, if—

    (i) the land or easement is used, occupied or enjoyed in connection with any of the concerns specified in Rules 1, 2 and 3 of No. III of Schedule A, or

    (ii) the lease or other agreement under which the rent is payable provides for the recoupment of the rent by way of reduction of royalties or payments of a similar nature in the event of the land or easement being used, occupied or enjoyed as aforesaid,

    be charged with tax under Schedule D, and in a case where it is rendered in produce of the concern, shall be charged under Case III of the said Schedule D and as if the profits or income arising therefrom were the value of the produce so rendered, and in any other case shall be treated, for the purpose of such of the provisions of the Income Tax Acts as refer to royalties paid in respect of the user of a patent, as if it were such a royalty:
    (b) subject to the provisions of Section two of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913, any deduction on account of Income Tax made by any person from any payment of rent at any time before the date of the passing of this Resolution, which would have been a legal deduction if the provisions of this Resolution had been in force at that time, shall be deemed for all purposes (including all the purposes of legal proceedings instituted before the said date) to have been a legal deduction to which all the provisions of Rule 19 or Rule 21 of the General Rules, as the case may be, were applicable:
    (c) the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section two hundred and eleven of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall have effect as if the provisions of this Resolution had come into force on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four.
    (d) in this Resolution—

    (i) the expression 'easement' includes any right, privilege or benefit in, over, or derived from land;

    (ii) the expression 'rent' includes a rent service, rent charge, fee farm rent, feu duty or other rent, toll, duty, royalty or annual or periodical payment in the nature of rent, whether payable in money or money's worth or otherwise, but does not include any of the payments enumerated in Rules 1 to 6 of No. II of Schedule A.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    ESTATE DUTY.

      DUTY IN RESPECT OF ANNUITIES AND OTHER INTERESTS.
      Resolved,
      "That for the purposes of paragraph (1) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Finance Act, 1894, where an annuity or

      939
      other interest has been purchased or provided by the deceased, either by himself alone or in concert or by arrangement with any other person, the extent of any beneficial interest therein accruing or arising by survivorship or otherwise on the death of the deceased shall be ascertained and shall be deemed always to have been ascertainable, without regard to any expectant interest the beneficiary may have had therein before the death."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

    AMENDMENT OF LAW.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it is expedient to amend the law relating to National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue (including Excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  PRIVILEGES.
  Ordered,
  "That Mr. Lansbury be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and Mr. Greenwood be added to the Committee."—[Sir Frederick Thomson.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  PRIVILEGES.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes before Six.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (EXAMINERS, PORT OF LONDON).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (EXAMINERS, PORT OF LONDON).
  SMALL-POX, BLACKBURN.
  SMALL-POX, BLACKBURN.
  DOVER PATROL MEMORIAL.
  DOVER PATROL MEMORIAL.
  CONTRIBUTORY OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  CONTRIBUTORY OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  PRISON WARDERS' QUARTERS, PERTH.
  PRISON WARDERS' QUARTERS, PERTH.
  SCHOOL CHILDREN (MILK, PROVISION).
  SCHOOL CHILDREN (MILK, PROVISION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
FIREARMS ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.

TITHE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. When my right honourable friend, the Minister, first brought up this question within the Department, I can assure your Lordships that he realised to the full how very difficult and indeed dangerous a subject he was raising. He realised that he was raising a question which concerns itself with the most bitterly opposing interests. He realised, also, that he was raising a question which concerns itself with the very deepest prejudices that can be felt in the countryside—prejudices that go right back into history for very many centuries. Over this question of tithe, for countless numbers of years, there have been the bitterest conflicts. Therefore, I can assure your Lordships that we had not the slightest delusions, in discussing this subject, that we were going to be able to bring this Bill in with the happy agreement of all parties. On the other hand, we had to realise that here was a subject that must be dealt with; that throughout the countryside there were great numbers of landowners, small owner-occupiers, who were passing through a most grievous period in the history of their industry, and who were
572
finding themselves quite unable to meet their obligations, no matter how legal those obligations might be.
There were then, on the one side, genuine hard cases that needed assistance, and immediate assistance. On the other hand, we found that the law was falling into a state of utter confusion and disrepute, and that in many cases the orders of the courts of law were being deliberately defied. And therefore, from both those sides of the question it was quite evident that no Government, no matter how difficult and how dangerous it might consider the subject to be, could fail to do its duty and make some attempt to face the situation. What degree of fairness and impartiality we have been enabled to achieve is for your Lordships to decide; but if there is one guarantee of impartiality that hitherto I have been able to observe in the Press and from what I have heard from the public platforms, it is that we are being most forcefully abused from both sides, so that we have probably managed to act with some degree of impartiality.
If I venture to deal with this subject at some slight length I hope your Lordships will forgive me. It is a most important subject, raising as it does the most vital and important principles; and it would not be doing justice to the subject, nor indeed to your Lordships' House, if I attempted to deal with it in too short a time. Perhaps your Lordships will first allow me to refer as briefly as possible to the history of this question. I do not think that for the purpose of this debate it is necessary to go back further than the year 1836, when the first great and important change took place in the nature of tithes. Up till then tithe had been collected on the basis of payment in kind, not only on wheat and barley and oats, but on many other crops and much other produce of the land—beans, hay, calves, colts, lambs, milk, eggs, and honey. From 1836 that stopped, and tithe thenceforth become a rentcharge, that is, payable in money, and a standing charge, no longer a share of the produce or the profits of the land. That standing charge was to be assessed on the basis of the prices of wheat, barley and oats over the preceding seven years.
It has been suggested that this change was of great advantage to the Church, and it is certainly true that thence

573
forward the Church did get a certain and sure income from a source that had hitherto been dependent on the fluctuating profits of the land. But, on the other hand, we must not forget that the value of money and the value of the produce of the land have changed and increased immensely since 1836. In 1836 tithe was £4,000,000, representing as it did a tenth of about £40,000,000; it was certainly very near a tenth of the value of the produce of the tithable land at that period. To-day it is £3,000,000, not £4,000,000 because £1,000,000 worth has been redeemed in the interim period. But to-day the value, so far as can be ascertained, of the produce of tithable land is no less than £40,000,000 and one-tenth of the produce of that land would amount to £14,000,000. It certainly does not look at though that settlement, which was perfectly fair and just, was an unfair settlement from the point of view of the tithe-payer.
The next important date to which I would refer is the year 1891, when the second big alteration in tithe law was introduced and carried. That Act contained three major changes. The first, which only concerns us indirectly to-day, was that thenceforth tithe was no longer a charge upon the occupier of the land but it became a charge upon the owner of the land—no longer therefore a tenant's charge, but a landowner's charge; and in so far as we hear of farmers suffering to-day it is the farmers in their capacity of owner-occupiers—as owners, and not as mere occupiers, of the land—who are concerned. The second change was that the tithe-owner was deprived of the right to distrain for himself, and thenceforward the distraint was to be carried out by an officer of the County Court. The third change was that a certain remission in tithe rent-charge was made in favour of the payer. It was laid down that where the tithe, or tithe rentcharge as we should say, exceeded two-thirds of the value of the land for Schedule B, then he should be entitled to a remission, that remission to be obtained by application to the County Court. In that Act of 1891—and your Lordships will realise that this Bill is an amendment of the Act of 1891—there were two precedents, both precedents for this Bill: the first a precedent for remission in certain hard cases, and
574
the second a precedent in the alteration of the law of collection.
Now we come to a yet further date—namely, the Act of 1918. As a result of the Act of 1836, as I have already mentioned, tithe was assessed on the basis of the prices of wheat, barley and oats during the preceding seven years. In 1918, following as it did on the War period when prices were very high, it was found necessary to come to some arrangement so that tithe should not be driven up to an unreasonably high amount as the result of these inflated prices. Accordingly it was stabilised at £109 for the next seven years—that is, until 1926, after which date it was to be based, not on a septennial average, but on a quindecennial average. As the result of that settlement landowners or tithe-payers were actually saved approximately £11,000,000 between the years 1918 and 1926—saved, that is, from liability for that sum, because it has frequently been stated, and possibly with a great deal of truth, that it would have been very difficult to collect if tithe had risen to the heights to which it might have done. Whereas it was stabilised at £109 in 1918, it would have risen to £124in 1919; £140 in 1920; £162 in 1921; £172 in 1922; it would still have been over £133 in 1927; and even up to the end of the year 1931 it would have been slightly over what it is to-day.
The last date with which I shall trouble your Lordships is that of 1925, when a yet further Act was brought into force. In 1924 it had become quite evident that on the fifteen years' average which was due to come into force in two years' time tithe would still be over 30 per cent. above par value. Therefore in 1925 an Act was passed which stabilised the charge at £105. Without that Act tithe rentcharge in 1926 would have been over £131 and even in 1934 it would have been £116—that is, assuming wheat to be at world prices and not at wheat subsidy prices. Whether £105 was exactly the right figure to have fixed at that date or not, whether we in the light of subsequent knowledge would have selected that figure, may be open to question and very serious question with many, but if the 1925 Act, which effected that stabilisation, had not been passed tithe-owners would now, this year, have been paying at the rate of £116. If the 1918 Act had not been passed as well, it is

575
perfectly true to say that during the last three years of low prices the tithe-payer would have been paying less, but up to 1932 he would have been liable for infinitely more, to the tune of over £14,000,000 between 1919 and 1932.
That is a very brief history of the subject to date, and I can well imagine some of your Lordships saying: "If these, in fact, are the true figures, if your feelings are the feelings of His Majesty's Government, which are in truth expressed by the presentation of these figures, then we wonder that you are taking any action at all to assist the tithe-payers." But that is not the attitude of His Majesty's Government. We say that from these figures, from the history of the subject, it is perfectly clear that each settlement which I have mentioned resulted in a decrease in the present or future value of the property in tithe. It is equally clear that tithe as a property remains unquestioned. Tithe is just as much a property as is the ownership of land, the ownership of stocks and shares, mortgage, or any other form of property. But what we do say is that it is something more than mere legal tithe, and I believe that the Church and other tithe-owners besides the Church must be the first to recognise that fact.
We say definitely that there is no case whatsoever for what must amount to a general or partial abolition of tithe, and, in effect, by others, the word "abolition" might be replaced by the word "confiscation." We say that in a great number of cases a general reduction of tithe would mean a gift from a parson of a village, possibly already deeply impoverished, to the landowner of the parish, and I think very few of us who are landowners or tithe-payers would like to feel ourselves in the position of taking property from the parson for our own benefit. But what we do say is that it is an indisputable fact that there are very hard cases at the moment, particularly cases of owner-occupiers, who bought their land at high prices, the value of that land having since dropped disastrously, and we do say that while tithe is a property and an undisputed property, at the same time it is very generally recognised in this country that property has its responsibilities, and sometimes very heavy responsibilities.
In seeking to deal with the question from that point of view, and from the
576
point of view of the assistance of hard cases, we have looked to the Act of 1891 for our precedent, because we believe that in the principle there laid down we find the means of assisting those who most need assistance—namely, those who are living on land, and are responsible for tithes on land, whose value has very much decreased. It is perfectly true that under this system there are certain tithe-payers who will get very large remissions, and many others who will get no remission, but I suggest to your Lordships that if the value of the land has been maintained then there is very little case for a remission of what is, I think, generally agreed to be a perfectly legitimate debt. There are these other cases which are suffering severely at the present moment from the depreciation in the value of their land. I find, having taken out figures at random in twenty-three parishes, divided up between fourteen counties, a case where, if there was a general reduction of tithe, say, to £90, there would be a saving to the tithe-payer of £29, whereas, on the basis on which we are working, there will be a saving to the tithe-payer of over £68. Another case—a much more extreme case—is where, on the basis of a reduction to £90 the saving would be £50, while on the two-fifths basis which we are taking the reduction will be by £227 —over four times as much.
I will not weary your Lordships with the figures. I have simply picked out two as examples in the attempt to show that we are giving remissions where they are most needed, and that in many cases those remissions are going to be by no means negligible in their character. Therefore, under Clause 1, we have made it possible to obtain a remission when tithe rentcharge exceeds two-fifths of the annual value of the land based on Schedule B. We have also made it very much easier to secure that remission by making it obtainable by application to the officer responsible for taxation in the district instead of by application to the County Court.
In Clause 2, as I have already said, we also follow the precedent of 1891. In the Act of 1891 powers of distraint were transferred from the landowner to the officer of the County Court. Those powers were not in any way altered, and, as

577
they have been operating for the last few years, they have turned out to be clumsy, ill-defined and expensive even from the point of view of the tithe-payer himself. I have cases here of tithe-payers who, in addition to being faced with their tithe, are being faced with heavy legal bills as the result of the clumsiness of this particular method of procedure. Furthermore, it has led both to technical evasions and to deliberate obstruction. The change proposed in Clause 2 of the Bill does raise very important and very serious principles. It means that from henceforth, if this Bill is passed into law, tithe will be collected as an ordinary debt at the County Court; in effect, that tithe becomes a personal debt, which hitherto it has never been. But let us remember that while recognising what an important change in law this is, the great bulk of tithe at the present moment in this country, taking it all over the country, is in fact being paid, and this alteration in the law therefore will not make the slightest difference to the man or the woman—ladies I believe have come into this particular controversy—who is responsible for writing out a cheque for tithe. Nor will it affect those who are actually taken to a County Court and are, after all the machinery of investigation has been gone through which we know is gone through in our County Courts in dealing with questions of tithe, prepared to accept the ruling of the Court.
The only person that this change in the law can affect is the individual who is quite deliberately setting himself up to defy the majesty of the law of this country. I am happy to think that there are very few individuals whom this change in the law will actually very deeply or personally affect. I believe that when the law is altered in this manner, evasion, obstruction and defiance will no longer be possible: they cannot be carried through successfully, so that evasion and obstruction will not be attempted. It is possible to criticise the Government for making this great change, but I would put it to your Lordships that when we are up against a deliberate refusal to pay a legal debt—a debt that has been investigated and ordered to be collected by a court of law—when action amounting not only to a deliberate challenge to
578
property but to law and order in this country is taken, then nobody, and certainly no member of your Lordships' House, would say that the situation should be left entirely as it is. If it be possible to proceed by any other means, or if at a later stage of this Bill it appears that we have not chosen the best method, then I would suggest that there are occasions on which we can discuss individual clauses of the Bill.
I come to one further point. A great deal has been made of the demand for an inquiry into the whole situation as regards tithe. Governments in dealing with very difficult subjects find it only too great a temptation to refer a matter to an inquiry. It is a very easy way to get out of the difficulties. But an inquiry is only justifiable when it is likely to put the Government in possession of facts or policies which they are unable to think out for themselves without such inquiry. In dealing with this question of tithe we feel that setting up an inquiry would be merely shirking the issue. We are in full possession of all the ascertainable facts. I use that word "ascertainable" because the vital question of future prices is quite unascertainable. Therefore, we prefer to take action even though that action may not be on such far-reaching lines as some might like.
We saw two perfectly clear tasks before us. One was the relief of a great body of genuinely hard-pressed men on the countryside. The other was to restore the law to a position where its orders might be enforced so that it might be thus saved from falling into contempt. That is a perfectly definite policy and I suggest to your Lordships that it is also a balanced policy. I think it is hardly necessary to say to your Lordships that a balanced policy really means that the two sides of that policy must stand or fall together. The alternative to this Bill I find very hard to imagine. Having considered this matter very fully, the Government are convinced, as I have said, that they are in possession of all the ascertainable facts. Certainly it would be misleading your Lordships if I for a moment suggested that the alternative to the Bill was setting up an inquiry. I rather hesitate in saying this, because know that certain noble Lords are very anxious that there should be an inquiry,

579
and I am particularly anxious not to seem to be threatening them by stating this fact; but the alternative to this Bill, as I see it, must be the existing situation. I only fear that too rigid an, insistence on the rights of certain individuals—fortunately, as I have already said, only a limited body of individuals defy the law—may deprive a great number of really hard-pressed tithe-payers throughout the countryside of relief to which I am quite convinced they are entitled.
Finally, may I say that the real solution to this problem must lie in a general improvement in prices? During this year some slight improvement has taken place, but it is not sufficient. It is not by picking on one debt, whether it is tithe rent-charge or whether it is mortgage interest or bank interest and refusing to pay that, that you are going to assist agriculture. We have to continue the process which we have already begun—the Government and the farmers working in the closest co-operation—of building up a prosperous agriculture that can look all its creditors fully in the face. Meanwhile, His Majesty's Government have put this Bill forward, not under the illusion that it is a complete solution of this very difficult subject, but at least feeling that it is a really useful contribution to what is a very thorny problem. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Earl De La Warr.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill explained very lucidly the meaning of the Bill, but as he said in his last words it is a very thorny problem, and he appeared to spend most of his time in dealing with possible objections from behind him. It rather reminded me of a picture of Mickey Mouse protecting his posterior against the attack of large mosquitoes from behind. It is a difficult problem and I think he has a very difficult task. The people ranged on the two sides of the problem have been very voluble. I myself have had large numbers of documents thrown at me explaining different points of view.
Owner-farmers, for instance, object strongly to the tithe rentcharge being made a personal liability. I do not blame them, because it may mean imprisonment if they cannot pay the tithe, or it may mean bankruptcy. I think they have a
580
right to object to that. They complain that the concession in Clause 1 of the Bill is really no concession at all, because it will only operate when the tithe rentcharge is so heavy as to be largely irrecoverable. It is a fact that many owner-farmers were forced into the purchase of their farms in 1919 and 1920. They were unwilling purchasers after the War, and I think they have very reasonable cause to complain when we consider that for the last twelve years they have been faced with agricultural prices so low that farming has not been remunerative. Farmers are hit more than any other class of the community by falling prices, because the time lag between the purchase of what is necessary for production on the farm and the sale of the produce of the farm is longer than in any other industry in this country. Consequently falling prices mean a greater loss to the farmers than to any other people in industry. I think owner-farmers have a justifiable complaint.
Then we have the case for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty. The most reverend Primate will, no doubt, deal with that, but personally, having read through two pamphlets which have been sent to me, I do not think they have made the best of the case they could put forward. I have here a document entitled "Tithe and the Agricultural Depression," published by Queen Anne's Bounty in July, 1931. The first thing that you come across there is that they complain that money given to the tithe-receivers "provides salaries for work done" and therefore they should have it—a complete fallacy, and an absurd statement to put forward as an argument in favour of continuing the present arrangement. Then they say that the tenant-farmer is not affected; they say that it is only the landowners and owner-farmers who are affected. Of course the tenant-farmer is involved; he has to pay a higher rent for his farm if the owner has to pay tithe. That is a bad argument. The 1891 Act referred to by the noble Earl was, as a matter of fact, not altogether a fair Act in 1891, but Queen Anne's Bounty maintain that if it was fair in 1891 it is equally fair to-day. Of all the ridiculous arguments that have ever been put forward the most ridiculous is included in this pamphlet, that tithe-payers would have had to pay much more if the 1923 Act had not been

581
passed. To say that if a certain Act of Parliament had not been passed a certain group of people would have been better off is a childish argument.
Then we have Canon Rowling's pamphlet, "The Facts About Tithe." He very carefully omits all reference to the Act of 1891; he does not mention it at all. He again brings out what tithe-payers would have paid, and quotes Mr. Baldwin, who stated that they had been saved £14,000,000—the same bad argument. On page 4 of the pamphlet he admits fully that there has been a great deal of depression in agriculture, and says that no fewer than 3,000 cases had already been quietly settled by compromise up to February, 1934. Of course there have been hard cases, agriculture has been in difficulty, and I have no doubt that that is really the argument of the Government for producing this Bill. On page 6 of his pamphlet Canon Rowling says that agriculture has had a great many subsidies in the last few years; he says that there was a derating subsidy of £4,500,000, a share of which he thinks the Ecclesiastical Commissioners ought to have. He uses it as an argument for continuing the full payments. He says that agriculturists have had a wheat subsidy, and that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners ought to have that—
LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It has nothing to do with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
LORD MARLEY: I meant Queen Anne's Bounty: I beg the most reverend Primate's pardon. The pamphlet then says that the sugar beet subsidy should go to Queen Anne's Bounty, and so on. Canon Rowling argues point after point, that because agriculture has had help from the Government, that is an argument for the tithe-receivers maintaining the payments which have been made up to date. Finally, in this case, they rely on the Bible; Canon Rowling falls back on a quotation from Malachi, in which it is stated that the whole nation had robbed the tithe-receivers and so had robbed God, and that the whole nation is "cursed with a curse." It ends up with:
"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out
582
a blessing, that there will not be room enough to receive it"—
that there will be a large harvest, that there will be no pests, and that the harvests shall be normal in future. But that is not proved by the facts. It may be desirable in Malachi, but it is not a reliable argument for one side in discussing an Act of Parliament.
There is one group in this controversy which has been entirely left out, and that is the agricultural labourer. The only time I can see that the agricultural labourer is mentioned is when we are told by those on one side of the controversy that the agricultural labourer is dismissed because the tithe-payer has to pay too heavy a tithe. I came across a letter in The Times in which it was said that the land could not bear both tithe payments and wages. Of course it is a ridiculous argument, but it is clear that if the tithe payment is too high the agricultural labourer may have to be dismissed, or it will be used as an argument to keep down his wages. That is, of course, the argument; and each side equally produces that as an argument in favour of its point of view. The landowners point to the poor farmer-owners who suffer; the clergy—Queen Anne's Bounty—point to the very low-paid clergy who will suffer by the non-payment of tithes; and Queen Anne's Bounty uses the very interesting word "spoils." What is actually happening is that we are having a quarrel over the division of the spoils between the landowners on one side and Queen Anne's Bounty on the other, with the essential factor, the agricultural labourer, entirely left out of the argument.
The original argument is that tithe is a recognised right, acquired in the same way as private ownership of land, and that if private ownership of land is right, tithe is right. I agree; if private ownership of land is right, tithe is right; but if private ownership of land is not right then tithe equally is not right; they are both indefensible and both ought to be abolished. Therefore, for that reason, we on these Benches are opposing this measure and we oppose it because agricultural labourers and tenant-farmers will be worse off as a result of this measure. Some will be faced with imprisonment for debt, which has not been their trouble before; they will be faced with more

583
bankruptcies, and they will be definitely worse off. We are against the measure because it perpetuates the injustice resulting from the private ownership of land, or from tithe payments; we are against it because it includes imprisonment for debt as a new punishment for non-payment of tithe; and we are against it because it gives additional power to the representatives of Queen Anne's Bounty to extract payments from a depressed industry for tithes.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the objects and provisions of this Bill have been most clearly and ably presented by the noble Earl who has introduced the Bill. I think that nothing could be fairer or clearer than the case which be put before your Lordships. I am not going to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down in his discourse about the Old Testament, nor do I propose to discuss whether or not the agricultural labourer has been left out. If he has been left out, it is for the good reason that in this matter he does not come in. I think we all realise that the noble Lord made the best of his case, sitting on the Benches where he does sit; but he let the cat out of the bag when he intimated that he objected to all tithe because it was a form of private property, which we know is anathema to him. There is the case of the tithe-payer, and I have no doubt that later in this debate that will be put before your Lordships clearly. And here let me say—because I would wish this to be kept in mind in regard to anything that I may say in the course of my remarks—that we in this House must all have the greatest possible sympathy with the difficulties to which the oldest, the noblest, and the basic industry in this country—agriculture—is now exposed.
But I think it is necessary to put the case of the tithe-owners. I have both a right and a duty to put that case officially, as President of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, on whom Parliament, in the Act of 1925, laid the charge of collecting and administering the great bulk of the tithe rentcharge in this country. That tithe rentcharge amounts to about £3,000,000, of which something like £2,300,000 are now payable to and administered by the Bounty. The Governors of the Bounty, your Lordships will realise, have thus been placed in the position of trustees for the great
584
multitude of the tithe-owning clergy throughout the country. It is a very heavy responsibility, and we should be untrue to it if we did not do our best to protect those who are committed very specially to our charge.
It is, happily, unnecessary in this House even to allude to the widespread fallacies which, alas! are too widely circulated outside, and which are largely responsible for much of the agitation which has been carried on—fallacies, for example, such as that tithe is a tax imposed on agriculture for the support of the Church and the like. It has been abundantly pointed out already that tithe rentcharge is a form of property like any other. That does not commend itself to the noble Lord opposite, but it is a point which the great bulk of the citizens of this country ought always to remember. It is true that any right of property involves, as the noble Earl has already said, responsibilities in the nature of a trust, and I hope that this form of property, even regarded as a trust, is used by those who possess it almost invariably throughout the country in the service of the people. Tithe rentcharge means this, that a purchaser paid for his land so much less because of the tithe rentcharge with which it was charged. It is in the nature of interest payable on a sum of money which the purchaser was not obliged, and would otherwise have been obliged, to pay. Accordingly, whether or not this payment is to be made to the clergy, or to any other person legally entitled to it, is a wholly irrelevant consideration. I am sure your Lordships agree that the clergy are as much entitled to justice and fair play as any other class of the community.
At the same time I should like most cordially to recognise the very great difficulties of the tithe-payer. I have in mind the owner harassed by the difficulty of collecting his rents and by the heavy Death Duties which he has to meet. I have in mind the owner-occupier harassed by low prices and by the very high interest which he is obliged to pay for purchases made at the time when, after the War, the price of land was very high. I think it is not unnatural that in their stress they should turn to tithe as affording a possible means of relief, but I submit that it is not fair to select tithe and treat it differently from any other legal charge or interest. Indeed I will venture,

585
perhaps rather daringly, to say that the degree and extent of the hardship have been considerably exaggerated. There is the fact, though it is often forgotten, to which the noble Lord alluded, that at the present time over four-fifths of the country tithe is collected without any difficulty whatsoever. The difficult counties are mainly in the East. Suffolk is the worst, and after it come Essex, Norfolk, Berks and East Kent. Elsewhere there is very little difficulty. Let us keep a sense of proportion in this matter.
Again, I think the proportion to outgoings involved in the tithe rentcharge is very often exaggerated. I take the three worst counties in East Anglia; Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex, and I find that the tithe rentcharge only amounts to about 3½ per cent. of the gross charges, such as labour, foodstuffs and the like. In many places it is even much less than that, and I do not think we can dismiss from our minds that the agitation which has been going on has been very largely exploited by those who have some hostility to the Church, or has otherwise been bolstered by the ludicrous fallacies and misstatements as to the whole nature of tithe. Yet I should be the last to suggest that there were no difficulties to be met, and that the tithe-payers' position is one which ought not to command our sympathy. I want to make it clear, however, that nothing can be more untrue than to represent the tithe-owners as holding tightly to their rights and insisting upon their pound of flesh. On the contrary I have to remind your Lordships of the sacrifices that they have already, over a long course of years, made willingly or without protest.
It might even be said, with regard to the settlement of 1836—I think that was also pointed out by the noble Earl—that if the intention of that Act had been followed out the value of tithe would be about £14,000,000, instead of just £3,000,000, and certainly the purchasing power of £100 in 1836 was a totally different thing from what it is now. In the years preceding the War, as your Lordships will very well remember, when prices went down tithe went rapidly down with them. It reached as low a figure as £68 at one time, but no relief was given to the tithe-owner because of that depression, nor, I think, did he actively insist upon it. Then came the boom years
586
which followed the War and, of course, as has been pointed out, prices rose and tithe rose, and threatened to rise to a very high point. Immediately appeals were made to the tithe-owners, particularly to the clerical tithe-owners, that they were the last people who should seem to be profiteers, and they were called upon to make sacrifices. My Lords, they did so. They accepted, and without any protest, the Act of 1918, by which tithe was stabilised for seven years at £109, and it has been calculated that that meant a loss to them of about £4,000,000. It is no good for the noble Lord (Lord Marley)—I see he is not in his place and I therefore will not expend an argument upon him.
Moreover, it was a provision of that Act of 1918 that in the case of tithe payable after January, 1926, the tithe should be estimated not on a seven years' average of prices but on a fifteen years' average. If that had been done in the years between 1926 and 1934, as I think the noble Earl pointed out, tithe would have risen very largely to any sum between about £130 and £116, and tithe in this present year would have been at the rate of £116. Again, there was no difficulty, there were no protests; the tithe-owners accepted the position. They recognised that it was not reasonable that the tithe should rise during these years to so high a level. And therefore they accepted the Act of 1925. As your Lordships are well aware, that Act was intended to be a final and permanent settlement, and stabilised the rate of tithe rentcharge at £105, with £4 10s. in the case of ecclesiastical tithe for a sinking fund to redeem all tithe in eighty-five years. It has been calculated—and I venture to repeat it because, in spite of what the noble Lord said, it is a most relevant consideration—that the effect of these two Acts of 1918 and 1925 has been that the tithe-owners have lost, and the tithe-payers have gained, as much as £14,000,000. I stress these points because you have to balance the difficulties of the landowner and the owner-occupier against the sacrifices which the tithe-owner has already made, and it is a sufficient proof that the tithe-owners have never really been in the position of heedlessly demanding their pound of flesh.
Then in the second place it is only right that I should call your Lordships' attention

587
to the desire of the Governors of the Bounty to be most equitable in their administration. They have always felt it to be their duty to give special care to hard cases. When they find that the tithe-payer, be he landowner or owner-occupier, is unable to pay because of the stress of circumstances, they meet him. Where they do not meet him is in the case, not infrequent, of a tithe-payer who is known to be quite able to pay but refuses to do so. In really hard cases inquiry is made, advisers are sent down, and up to the present year in no fewer than 3,700 cases have settlements been effected, and the Bounty has made voluntary remissions during the last year of £26,000 and since 1932 of as much as £45,481. The Governors believed that, following this system of equitable administration, and relying, as I hope we may, on an improvement in agriculture, we should have been able to tide over this difficult time, and therefore they have not asked for legislation of any kind. But, at the same time, we fully recognise the nature of the pressure that has been brought to bear upon the Government, the force of a good deal that the noble Earl has put before your Lordships' House, and the great difficulties in which many tithe-payers are undoubtedly placed, and therefore we are not surprised that the Government should have brought in this particular Bill.
You have been reminded that the principle of the Act of 1891, which was itself an incursion upon the principles of the Act of 1836, the object of which was to divorce tithe rentcharge from the profits of produce of the land, was to decree that where the tithe was over two-thirds of the rental value, as assessed in accordance with Schedule B of the Income Tax it should not be recoverable. That principle, right or wrong, has been admitted, and this Bill is only making an amendment of the Act of 1891. The vital question is the fraction that is to be selected. The Governors advise me that any smaller fraction than one-half would be really an unwarrantable sacrifice for the tithe-owners to make. That of itself would mean a loss of something like, I think, £60,000. The Bill contains the fraction of two-fifths. It is my duty to point out to your Lordships that that will mean a loss to the tithe-owners of anything between £130,000 and £150,000
588
a year. Let me show your Lordships how it would bear upon individual parishes.
I take a group of twenty parishes—they are selected as representing different parts of the country—and I find that in those twenty parishes where remissions are already in operation under the Act of 1891, tithe rentcharge is £2,230, the remissions under the Act of 1891 are £623, and the remissions under this present Bill would be £1,266. Let us bring it down to individual parishes. I take two out of my own diocese. There is one where the tithe rentcharge is £123, the existing remissions are £16; under this Bill they would be £58. In another parish, where the tithe rent-charge is £105 and the existing remission £37, under this Bill the remission would be £64. You have to translate these figures into the budgets of the individual incumbents. A man who undertook his benefice in the belief that the Act of 1925 was a final settlement has no margin. A few pounds, which look very little when stated in this way in your Lordships' House, mean to the incumbent the difference between his educating his boy or girl or his not educating them. And, therefore, these comparatively small slims mean something that is very large and serious in the budget of the individual incumbent.
It is sometimes said: "There are surely large funds at the disposal of the Church by which these losses can be spread over a wider circle." There are no such funds unless the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are to be depleted, and they are charged by Parliament with the responsibility of increasing the already small endowments of other than tithe-owning clergy and of providing endowments to meet the immensely increasing spread of population throughout the country. Therefore, the loss must fall upon the individual incumbent, and I think it was a very true phrase that was used by the noble Earl when he said that we should not ask men in that position, unless it were actually necessary, to make a gift to the landowner or the owner-occupier in his parish. Therefore, the position is that we believe that one-half is the very utmost that ought to be asked of the tithe owners and that two-fifths will involve very serious hardships. At the same time the Governors do not advise me to take the responsibility of opposing

589
the Second Reading of this Bill. But I am bound to say that if at a later stage Amendments were moved reducing the fraction, say, to one-third, we should have to resist them most strenuously. If the fraction were one-third it would mean a loss to the owners of £200,000 a year. That is a tenth part of the whole tithe of the country and that, I submit, would be something like confiscation. Therefore, I do not feel disposed—though I do not like it—to be intransigent about the figure of two-fifths, but if the fraction is made lower than that I shall feel obliged—and I am sure I shall have the support of many of your Lordships—to resist any such Amendment.
I come just for a moment, not more, to this much-debated Clause 2, which, provides an alternative method for the recovery of tithe rentcharge by extending the right of recovery from the land to the person of the payer. I want to make it very clear that though this right is represented as a great concession to the tithe-owner it is not pressed by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty. It is perfectly true that there are cases where it would mean preventing obvious injustice being done. I have in mind certain comparatively well-to-do landowners—I dare say some of there are known to some of your Lordships—who are perfectly able to pay their tithe rentcharge but not only decline to do it themselves but foment agitation in the area in which they live, advising all other owners or owner-occupiers to refuse to pay it. It is really intolerable that there should be no way of dealing with that class of person, who is obviously entitled to no kind of consideration. But very often the existing method may prove to be the best. Therefore, the position of the Governors of the Bounty is that so far they welcome this Clause 2, but they are not to be understood as pressing for it.
I suspect—I think I have a right to suspect—that the real reason is much more what was indicated by the noble Earl—namely, that this clause may be necessary in order to prevent the grave disorders that have been occurring in different parts of the country. As your Lordships are aware, an order for distraint issued by the County Court has to be executed by the officers of the Court, and the bailiffs who are charged with this often irksome duty find that it puts them
590
in a position of great difficulty with their neighbours, and invests them with an unpopularity which they greatly dislike. Moreover, it results, when the attempt is made to remove the produce of the land, in those scenes of public disorder of which the Press has been full. Therefore, there is a great deal to be said for this clause as ensuring that the law is not brought into contempt and that public order is not defied.
I have kept your Lordships longer than I had intended. I want to make it clear that I cannot like this Bill. How can I, when I consider that even the difference between one half and two-fifths means so much to the daily life of multitudes of those whose interests I am bound to consider? At the same time it is impossible to put aside the difficulties of many of the tithe-payers. I am most anxious that the stress of this agitation should be mitigated. I am most anxious that we should come to some agreement. I know I am speaking for many incumbents when I say that they would be willing to suffer any equitable loss if it resulted in restoring better relations between themselves and tithe-payers in their parishes, many of whom are personally on the most friendly terms with them. I hope some agreement can be reached, and if I, as representing the multitude of the tithe-owners, am willing with great reluctance to accept this two-fifths, I do venture to hope that those who represent the tithe-payers will not press for a greater loss and sacrifice on the part of the tithe-owners. If some agreement of that kind could be reached then I think we should all be satisfied. I hope I have not overstated the case for the tithe-owners. Indeed, I am disposed to think I have rather understated it, but I think your Lordships will recognise that I should be false to my trust as a Governor of Queen Anne's Bounty, and still more as a Bishop, if I did not do my utmost to protect my brethren from any unfair treatment and do what is possible to oppose any unfair or inequitable increase of anxieties, burdens, and hardships from which already so many of them are suffering.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I desire to intervene only for a few moments in this debate. If I may I wish to compliment the noble Earl for the very lucid and well-balanced statement he made in favour of the Second Reading

591
of the Bill. I have no intention whatever of travelling in the regions into which the most reverend Primate led us just now. He speaks with great authority and also with special knowledge on this subject, and when we consider the sum with which the Queen Anne's Bounty deals we can have some idea of the importance of the observations which he has made.
As I have followed what has been said, this Bill is something in the nature of a compromise or a balance of positions. I think some language of that character was used by the noble Earl who introduced it. My difficulty is to follow how this compromise can be made equitable. I appreciate that there must be a remission as is provided in Clause 1 which proposes to change the fraction of two-thirds in the 1891 Act into two-fifths under this Bill, which remission means that there is a recognition, as I follow it, of the fact that in a number of cases the hardship of the tithe rentcharge at the present moment is so great that the law, as represented by the Government, feels bound to step in and reduce the amount that would have to be paid, so that where a tithe rentcharge is more than two-thirds of the value under Schedule B of the Income Tax there must be a remission of the excess, and that remission is irrevocable. I followed very well what was said by the most reverend Primate in regard to that. He is willing to fall in with that proposal, if it is the view of the Government and of your Lordships' House, but nevertheless he would resent very strongly any attempt to make it more. I do not wish to say anything more regarding that.
There is a great deal of prejudice and a great deal of misrepresentation with regard to the nature of this charge. It must be recognised—certainly I recognise, as a lawyer by profession I am bound to recognise—that there is property in the tithe rentcharge; but it is not the same kind of property as other property. It is a special kind; it is a charge upon the land, at any rate upon the produce of the land as it is now under the Act of 1891. My difficulty is to understand in this compromise whether there is a remission in those cases in which admittedly hardship is so great that the Government must intervene. I have nothing to say with regard to
592
that. I accept that view. That part of the Bill I am prepared to support. I must assume that nothing more can be done. But when I come to the second part of the compromise, I find it much more difficult to accept the Government's view. There is not only a complete change, as regards the tithe-payer who is suffering from the difficulty of having to pay much in excess of what he should pay, and therefore would come under the first part of the Bill, but this alteration in Clause 2 will affect all tithe-payers. It is not limited. It affects every class of tithe-payer. As a result it puts the tithe-payer in a totally different position from that which he has hitherto occupied. As I understood the most reverend Primate—I speak in his presence and therefore subject to correction if I am wrong—this part of the Bill is in no sense the result of pressure or of any demand by the most reverend Primate and those associated with him.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Neither pressure nor opposition.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Therefore it is something for which the Government are alone responsible. Once we know that it cannot be said that the first part of the Bill could not stand without the second part. That to me is an important matter, and the only one on which I want to intervene. I should be very glad if my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack could give us some explanation of why this 'most important change in the law is to be made. Do not let us be under any misapprehension. It is a very great change. You have had an alteration in the law as a result of which the County Court official made the distraint and got rid of difficulties which otherwise occurred between the tithe-owner and the tithe-payer, and now, if this Bill goes through, you have this change, that every tithe-payer will be in a different position. His liability is converted from a very special and limited liability into the ordinary liability. with all its consequences, of a personal debt. That is a very big change indeed. and I think we ought to have some further explanation of it than has hitherto been given.
The result of it, as has been indicated quite clearly, is that now the tithe-payer

593
is in a position to be sued for his tithe and, if there is a judgment against him, all the consequences of the law follow. All the various processes of execution which are open to a creditor who wishes to levy payment of his debt in consequence of his judgment are open to the tithe-owner. If the amount is sufficient and the conditions comply with the law of bankruptcy, the tithe-payer can be made a bankrupt. That is a very serious matter. The tithe-payer now becomes liable to all the consequences of an act of bankruptcy and, equally, as I have indicated, to all other processes of execution. Again, if he is able to pay and if there is sufficient evidence on which a Judge can act, the defaulting tithe-payer can be committed to prison for contempt of court for not paying the debt. These are great changes. I am sure my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack must realise that this is a change in the law as it has existed now for centuries. This tithe charge has always been in a very exceptional position. The only reason for the change that I am able to find for myself is to be gathered from what was said by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill. It is because in some parts of the country, and I think in some parts only, it has become difficult to collect the tithe rentcharge.
Because it has been found difficult in certain places to collect it, the Government are saying: "We will get rid of all those difficulties which follow upon trying to levy an execution or distraint upon stock on the land by making it an ordinary personal debt; thus we shall not have to enforce the law and everything will be made easy." It is going to affect, as I have already indicated, not merely those tithe-payers in a particular district who may have caused difficulties, but all tithe-payers. Because of that, I gather from what has been said, the whole of the law which has existed for centuries is to be changed in a very important respect indeed. The tithe is to become a personal debt. I have failed so far to understand why that should be so. Why should not the Government be able with all the forces in its power, to deal with any difficulties that occur? The Government will never get rid of the objector to payment. There may be some who will object very strongly, and who will prefer to go to prison rather than pay what they regard
594
as an unjust charge. If that is their view you will not get rid, of it by converting the liability into a personal one. You will not get rid of the objection to pay. On the contrary, you are making a difference which will have most serious consequences. It seems to me that, because some persons object to pay and because there are difficulties in limited areas, the whole of this charge is made one of a much more serious character. I should want to hear arguments that I have not yet heard before I could assent to this part of the Bill going through, even if it is put forward as a compromise.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I do not desire to speak generally on this Bill. Although I have no doubt your Lordships are perfectly familiar with the procedure for the collection of tithe, may I state the legal position as clearly and as briefly as possible which at present exists and which will exist should this Bill become an Act of Parliament? It is perfectly true, as the noble Marquess who has just sat down said, that this Bill is a compromise. The tithe-payer gets something out of it; he gets a certain remission. The tithe-owner gets something out of it; he gets an easier, cheaper and more satisfactory method of collecting what at present certainly is a just payment. But there is something far more important in this compromise than what the tithe-payer gets and what the tithe-owner gets. We are not all of us tithe-payers, we are not all of us tithe-owners, but one thing we are all of us concerned in is the, maintenance of law and order in our country. The present machinery for collecting what is at present a just debt will not work. It is not a very good argument, I submit to your Lordships, to say that you are altering the law only that a number of tiresome people may be compelled to pay What is just. Do not misunderstand me. I am dealing with the question from the point of view that at the present moment, admittedly, tithe is a just debt. This alteration of the law would not affect anybody in any part of the country who is ready to pay this just debt of tithe. It will only give a shorter and less expensive remedy in those parts of the country where organised opposition has

595
brought the execution and the administration of the law temporarily into contempt.
May I be permitted, in order that others who are not in this House should understand and appreciate the real position, to state how the law does stand? In English law the man who thinks he has a right may endeavour to enforce it in one of two ways. He may pursue a remedy against a thing or he may pursue a remedy against a person. The most familiar example of a remedy against a thing is contained in the procedure of the Admiralty Court, where it is possible to arrest a ship and hold it until the Court has pronounced upon the rights of the parties. Nowadays, unfortunately, the most familiar remedy against a person is when an injured citizen sues the owner-driver of a motor-car for negligently running over him. With regard to the nonpayment of tithe it is perfectly true that hitherto a person could only enforce a remedy against a thing—namely, against the land out of which the tithe issued. He had no remedy against anybody personally for the recovery of the sum alleged to be due. If the tithe-payer was in possession of the land by himself, the tithe-owner could go to the County Court and obtain permission to levy a distress on the land. If, on the other hand, the tithe-payer was not in possession, but a tenant of his was occupying the land, the tithe-owner could go to the Court and get a receiver of the rents and profits of the land appointed.
The practice on resort to the Court—that is, the old practice—is peculiar, and the application is followed by an elaborate system of notices and cross-notices. I have looked into the matter and I observe that there are no fewer than fifty-eight County Court Rules affecting the proceedings and no less than thirty-five different forms for use in the various steps to be taken in the various contingencies. Both these alternatives are cumbrous and expensive, and, as no doubt your Lordships have seen during the last six or eight months, they have led in the country to very considerable friction, a friction which in the daily Press is magnified by calling it a "tithe war." The disadvantages of this old procedure are many. Permit me, as the matter is so important, to indicate a few of them. The law of a landlord's distress is still
596
governed in parts by some of our most ancient Statutes. The practice has become tolerably clear where a landlord's distraint is upon the goods of a tenant in a house. It is much less clear where he is compelled, as the tithe-distraining officer is, to distrain on agricultural land. The greatest difficulty is that a sheriff's officer who seizes goods under a fi. fa. and a County Court bailiff who seizes goods under the County Courts Act may remove them immediately to a place of safety during the five days which must elapse before a sale. The tithe-distraining officer has no such general power. There, are many things which he cannot remove at all, and there are others which be may not remove more than three miles or outside the parish.
The complications, my Lords, are so great that even during the present agitation distraining officers do not remove the goods at all but keep possession by remaining physically on the land, under police protection if necessary. There are, therefore, under this old system a very large number of difficulties and doubts which lead to friction. Other difficulties are that the law itself bristles with points of doubt. It is not clear, for instance, whether the law governing distress by a landlord is to be applied as it was in 1836 or as it is at the present day. Again, it was not clear until a very recent decision of the High Court whether furniture was distrainable for tithe.
So far I have dealt with cases where the lands are occupied by the owner. The present agitation has also affected cases where the lands are let to a tenant. As I have already pointed out, the remedy under Section 2, subsection (3), of the Act of 1891 is the appointment of a receiver of the rents and profits, but it is possible—I refrain from stating publicly how it is possible—to render this remedy ineffective. It has been done in some parts of the country. Great advantages will accrue if the tithe-owner is given an option of proceeding under the Act of 1891 or by an ordinary action in the High Court or County Court.
What are the advantages of proceeding by action? First of all may I put it on the side of the tithe-owners and the officials of the Courts? The procedure is well-known to practitioners and to the officers of the Courts. It can be applied with as little difficulty to the recovery of

597
tithe rentcharge, as it applies to the recovery of a mortgage debt, and, which is perhaps more important, not at an excessive cost. The new procedure is exceedingly fair. The landowner has ample opportunity of putting up every defence open to him. If he has no defence the tithe-owner obtains an ordinary judgment against him which creates a personal debt enforceable in the ordinary way. It may be enforceable for instance under a fi. fa. from a County Court. There the question of what is distrainable is well known and no mistake can be made with regard to it. If there is organised opposition, as unfortunately takes place in many cases, the bailiff can remove the goods to a place of safety pending sale.
The proposal of the present Bill for the first time gives a remedy for the recovery of tithe against the person alleged to be liable to pay it. That is to say, instead of the remedy being merely against the land, tithe is for the first time treated as an ordinary debt and may be recovered in the County Court. As I have already pointed out, this will not affect at all the thousands of people who pay their tithes without any compulsion, and on the other hand, as far as those who do not pay their tithes are concerned, it is a far cheaper and less expensive process. Unfortunately, during this acute controversy there have been persons taking part whose zeal for the cause renders them somewhat heedless of the accuracy of their arguments. It is, for example, not accurate to say that under this Bill for the first time a person who has to pay tithes may be sent to prison if he refuses to do so. That is one of those dangerous half-truths which sometimes arise in a difficult controversy when feeling runs high. The real position is this: tithe will be placed in just the same position as an ordinary contract debt.
Supposing, for example, judgment is given against a man for £50 for tithe, it will not be true to say that if he does not pay the £50 he will go to prison. The result will be that execution may be issued against the man's goods and chattels for the amount of the judgment, and this will be done under the ordinary process of the Court and in the ordinary form of law, as it is done in tens of thousands of other just judgments for just debts. If, however, it is found that he has no goods and chattels upon
598
which execution may be levied, the judgment creditor may take out a summons against his debtor for the amount of the judgment. The creditor will then have to prove—I emphasise that it is the creditor who must prove it—that the debtor has means, or since the judgment has had means, to pay the sum which has been judicially decided to be due from him and that he has refused or has neglected to pay it. In that event the Court may make an order for the payment of the debt, or for the payment of the debt by instalments, and decree that if the debtor does not pay it, he shall be committed to prison for a certain specified time. The reason for this is that the Court has found the money to be due, has ordered the debtor to pay it, and it has been proved that the debtor has the money to pay but has refused or neglected to do so, and therefore is treating the Court with contempt.
The new Bill does not propose to do away with the present right of proceeding against the land, but simply gives an alternative right to proceed against the person, so both rights will be in existence. It is impossible to prophesy whether there will be the same friction under the new procedure, should this Bill become an Act, as there was under the old procedure; but it may be asserted with confidence that there is much less opportunity of litigation, more certainty of recovery, and certainly less opportunity for friction.
Let me deal, if I may, very briefly—and I shall not detain your Lordships for more than two or three minutes longer—with the clauses themselves. The object of Clause 2 is to give tithe-owners an alternative remedy to that prescribed by the Tithe Act, 1891; and I beg your Lordships to remember this, that apart from any question of the maintenance of law and order, this Clause 2 is a vital part of the compromise represented by the Bill, as it is the only advantage which the tithe-owner gets—namely, the cheaper and more expeditious methods of obtaining his rights, For the concessions, pecuniary and otherwise, which he has to give under Clause 1. The reason why the alternative remedy is an advantage to the tithe-owner is that the violent agitation against the payment of tithe which now prevails in certain parts of the country is bringing the law in those districts into contempt. The older remedy

599
worked tolerably well when tithe-payers behaved in a normal law-abiding fashion, but in the face of organised opposition it has not worked well. Experience has shown that during such violent agitations as we have recently witnessed—and this is a point which, standing here, I do desire to press home to your Lordships —the County Court cannot perform the tasks imposed upon it by the Act of 1891. A precedent for an alternative remedy in the case of tithe is to be found in the Extraordinary Tithe Redemption Act, 1886, Section 4, subsection (5).
It is perfectly true that this clause has been criticised on the ground that hitherto tithe rentcharge has been a charge or the land but not a personal debt of the owner or occupier. But why should it not be made one? Since 1891, the owner of the land has been the person liable to pay the tithe rentcharge. If the tithe-owner can ascertain who is the owner liable in respect of the tithe rentcharge issuing out of a particular piece of land in respect of a particular period, there seems to be no reason or requirement of natural justice why the owner should not be made to pay that debt—which, by the hypothesis upon which we are all discussing this matter, is a just debt—by the same procedure as if it were a mortgage debt or other civil contract or personal debt. The words at the beginning of the clause, "Notwithstanding anything in Section 67 of the Tithe Act, 1836, or Section 2 of the Tithe Act, 1891," are intended to make sure that if the tithe-owner chooses to proceed by action, the tithe rentcharge will become a personal debt. The two sections referred to each contain words which prevent tithe rentcharge becoming a personal debt.
One final thing. Clause 3, which I think has not been mentioned up to now, deals with Court fees. At present the Court fees are limited to a very low figure by the Schedule. Experience shows that with the modern value of money the expense thrown on the County Court far exceeds the fees allowed, and the effect of the clause is to allow the fees to be prescribed under Section 165 of the County Courts Act, 1888, which gives power to the Lord Chancellor from time to time, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to make orders prescribing what fees are to be paid. That is how the position stands legally, and I hope
600
that your Lordships will be satisfied that by this new Bill no injustice is done to anybody, but rather that it enables just debts to be collected in a more expeditious and less expensive way.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, rising as a tithe-payer I would like, if it be thought not presumptuous on my part, to congratulate the noble Earl and His Majesty's Government on having made some effort to attack this thorny subject, because I have a strong feeling that they would very much rather have left it alone than have attacked it. I would also very much like to add my congratulations, if I may, on their having introduced it in your Lordships' House, because it seems to me that here we have far greater representation of both tithe-payers and tithe-owners than there is in another place. I render those congratulations the more readily because I regret to say that they begin there and there they end.
Since the question of tithe became acute, and every few months more acute, this problem had been considered by many bodies, and by none more carefully than by three which I shall name. I happen to belong, like others of your Lordships, to all three, but they are none the less reputable on that account. The first one is the Conservative Agricultural Parliamentary Committee. They no doubt were pressed on by their constituents in the various counties. The second is the National Farmers' Union, many of whose members are, of course, tithe-payers, but who also have as their concern the whole question of agriculture. The third, but by no means the least, is the Central Landowners' Association. I say advisedly that they are by no means the least, because it is sometimes forgotten that the people who pay tithe are the landowners, and I think that ought to be kept will in mind. I regret to say that it has sometimes seemed to me that there is no one who requires more reminding of that fact than His Majesty's Government. Those three bodies, working independently, came to two separate conclusions which were exactly the same. The first and most important conclusion they came to was that it was imperative that there should be an inquiry by an impartial Government Committee into the whole matter. As that Committee would

601
naturally take time they also asked that some relief, through some alteration of Clause 8 of the Act of 1891, should take place, to give relief while that Committee was forming its opinion.
I may be asked why none of these bodies thought it better to have a policy of their own, and the reason was that they thought in the first place that as the crisis was a direct result of Parliamentary action, it was for Parliament to find the best method of putting it right, and, secondly, that none of these three bodies could get the evidence necessary to enable them to frame a remedy without running the great risk of doing a grave injustice. The first attitude of the Government, as I understand it from an answer given in another place, was that primarily this is a matter for negotiation between the two parties, and having seen that answer yet another body, the Central Council of Agriculture, tried to bring the tithe-payers and owners together for discussion, but Queen Anne's Bounty could not agree to such a meeting. At all events they said they could not agree to re-open what is described in some quarter as the 1925 settlement. I must deprecate the use of the word "settlement" in connection with the Act of 1925. I submit that "settlement" means one of two things. In the first place it means that the matter is finished and done with, and not open for rediscussion. The fact that we have this Bill before us now definitely proves that the matter is not settled in that sense. Otherwise, I take it, it means that the two parties have got together and after discussion have settled the matter between themselves. That never happened in 1925. Then there was a settlement between the Government and the tithe-owners, but the tithe-payers, through their representatives, opposed that settlement to the twelfth hour.
I would appeal to the noble Earl and to the Government, once again, that they should set up the Committee for which we have asked. Surely it is abundantly proved that there is need for such an inquiry. You have heard to-day from the most reverend Primate that over 3,700 cases have been settled by a charitable remission. I would say to your Lordships that in my part of the world, although there is gratitude for such charitable remission, the farmers are not in love with charity. They ask for what
602
they think, rightly or wrongly, to be justice rather than charity. I cannot see why the Government do not set up this inquiry. As I have said, there is need for it. Everybody knows that the present state of the law is the result of piecemeal legislation. They know that the last two Acts, under which the law is now administered, were coloured by the false economics which occurred in the War period and directly afterwards, and I suggest that such an inquiry should be of a far-reaching nature. It should include an inquiry into the question of redemption of tithe. It should include the question of ability to pay, with regard to tithe, and I also suggest that it should include an inquiry into an easier method of collection.
I turn to the present Bill. It is, after all, no temporary measure that is asked for, but a measure of a very revolutionary nature. The noble Earl has said that it is a balanced Bill; that is to say, it gives jam and powder to the two parties, in what he judges to be a fair measure to each. The first clause represents the jam to the tithe-payer, and I would like for one moment to interpolate a protest against the drafting of Clause 1. As the noble Earl has said, this clause is to put two-fifths instead of two-thirds, as was the case in the Act of 1891. If your Lordships will turn to the Bill, at the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2 you will see this. "Two-fifths" is never mentioned, but we find these words:
"…. where the sum becoming duo …. exceeds one-fifth of the annual value of those lands for the twelve months ending on the fifth day of April in the year in which the sum becomes due, the excess shall be irrecoverable …."
Is it surprising that nine people out of ten, reading this Bill, have gained the impression that it was one-fifth and not two-fifths, and that even expert lawyers have gained a similar impression?
EARL DE LA WARR: May I explain? Of course tithe is payable twice a year, and we were very anxious to get this measure into operation as soon as possible, and this is the easiest method of doing it.
LORD CRANWORTH: The noble Earl says this is the easiest way. I am not a lawyer, but I am well aware, from experience of this House, that a Bill is considered to be well drafted just as far as

603
it is incomprehensible to laymen. If that is so, then this Bill is well drafted. The object of this Bill has been stated by the noble Earl to be: (1), to do away with cases of the most real hardship; and (2), to prevent the law from being brought into contempt. With regard to Clause 1, I ask myself whether it will have that effect. I ask myself this, and I expect other noble Lords have asked themselves the same question: Why is it that during late years moderate men, reasonable men, who are not agitators or extremists, men who always used to pay their tithe, have now shown this grave reluctance to pay? Has any new factor occurred? I venture to suggest that if there is not a new factor there is a new realisation of a factor, and I believe it is at the bottom of the whole of this trouble. I think the factor is this: that people have now grasped the fact that many men are asked, and legally asked, to pay a charge or tax, whichever you like to call it, whereas they may not have the wherewithal to pay it, and that seems to be unfair.
I will give you two cases, and ask you to consider whether this new Bill is likely to remedy such cases. The first is the case of a landowner, the figures of whose estates have been lately put into my hands. The estate is about 4,000 acres, divided into two parts. The principal house is let, and so is the shooting. The result of ten years' accounts, not taking into account money lost in keeping land in cultivation, and not taking into account the tithe, is an average net loss of £300 per annum over the ten years. There is not a very large tithe on this land, not I think more than £500, but the fact is that the owner is asked to pay that £500 a year, whereas all he gets annually is a debit of £300.
That is a hard case, but there is a very much harder case, although I do not think for a moment that that case is by any means unique: that is the case of the owner-occupier who has been forced to buy his farm, usually much against his will, by the breaking up of an estate through the ruinous result of taxation and Death Duties. He has been forced to farm it and year by year he has lost his money. Probably his sons are working with him and getting no wages. Very likely he is, as are many of the farmers down my way—and the best men and the best farmers, too, among them—a Non-
604
conformist. That may be said to have nothing to do with it, but it has this to do with it, that his conscience tells him that he has also got to subscribe to the upkeep of his own denomination. It is no fault of his that he has lost money, because it is a matter of common knowledge that the better a man has farmed—the more money he has spent, the more labour he has employed, the more crops he has produced—the more money he has lost. And it can be no surprise to your Lordships that such a man—and they exist in scores and hundreds—when asked to pay tithe out of his losses regards that as a gross injustice.
I will take Clause 2 for one moment. That is the revolutionary change—and it is no less than a revolutionary change—which makes tithe a personal liability. I admit, we must all admit, that there are bad cases, and that there is a need that the law should be tidied. But I do not think that as yet it has been made out by anybody that there is need for such a revolutionary change as this. I wish to make three small points in connection with this clause. The first is that, whereas Clause 1 only applies to a limited number of tithe-payers, Clause 2 applies to the whole body of them. And with regard to this clause I would ask the noble Earl whether he would tell me at some time if I am right or not in thinking that Clause 2 is retrospective, whereas Clause 1 is not. Again with regard to this, the old method of recovery was limited to two years. So far as I understand it—and again I hope that later the noble Earl will be able to give me an answer on this—I gather that in regard to Clause 2 there is no such limit. Thirdly, your Lordships are asked under this clause to make it legal that a man who has paid his tithe may in certain cases be put into prison because his neighbour has not. I admit it is unlikely to happen, but it is legally possible to happen, and I do not think we ought to be asked to pass any measure which contains even such a possibility as that.
There is one thing which I think is more serious than these slight criticisms I have made, and it is this—and I say it with all seriousness—that it is my belief that, at all events in my part of the country, the first man who is put into prison over the non-payment of tithe will raise such a storm that it will damage the prestige

605
of my and our Church for a generation. My Lords, with all the power that I have I would appeal to the noble Earl and the Government to change their minds and to set up this impartial inquiry of the best men they can find to go into the whole question. While that inquiry is in progress I would ask them to withdraw Clause 2 of this Bill. I was indeed relieved and pleased to hear the most reverend Primate say that he did not press for Clause 2. It seems to me that, if he does not press it, the Government might well take that course; but if the Government feel that that would unbalance the Bill—which, in my judgment, is unbalanced now—then I seriously trust that they will withdraw it.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, by the introduction of this short measure the Government have expressed their opinion that once again it is necessary for the Legislature to interfere in the incidence of tithe, and in Clause 1 they have laid before your Lordships proposals for a change in this incidence. It is plain that there must be three angles of approach to Clause 1. There are, and there will continue to be, many who will hold that, tithe being what it is, any interference with its incidence is also a gross and uncalled for interference with the rights of property, that no interference is called for, and that such interference ought to be resisted. There are, and there will continue to be, others who will hold that the interference suggested by His Majesty's Government will affect so few that it will only touch the fringe of a great question, that at best it will be wholly inadequate, and that great pressure should be brought to bear for a measure of wider scope. And there will again be others who will hope—perhaps hope is all that they will have in that direction—that a compromise has been found which will satisfy both parties. It occurs to me that so much can he said, and can rightly be said, in favour of at any rate two of these angles of approach, that if this Bill were to get into Committee debates should—and will of course—be devoted to them.
But of do not propose, although of course I have my own views on the subject, to detain your Lordships even for a moment in discussing Clause 1 of the Bill. What I should like to do is to devote such time as I have at my disposal to a discussion of Clause 2, and
606
to supplement, if in any way I can, what fell from the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, when he expressed such grave doubts as to the possible operation of that clause. We all know of the unfortunate incidents that have occurred arising out of distraints which have had to be levied on certain reluctant tithe-payers in certain parts of England. It has brought the Bounty into some disrepute just as it has brought the parties who have taken an active part in resisting distraint into disrepute. But the remedy which is proposed is revolutionary in the highest degree. In 1836 there was passed into law by the wisdom of Parliament an Act which transferred the tithe from the occupier to the owner. Previous to that date, as we all know, tithe was collected in kind and since that date, as we also all know, tithe has been collected in cash. That was a revolutionary change, but at least tithe still remained firmly linked to the land. Because in a few parts of England a few people have resisted the collection of their goods in lieu of tithes we are asked to agree to a fundamental change in the whole law of tithe.
May I remind your Lordships that hitherto, tithe being attached to the ownership of land and not to the individual, it mattered nothing whether that individual was a God-fearing Christian or whether he worshipped a ju-ju. His liability to tithe arose out of his ownership of the land, and although I am not going so far as to say that persons have never made religious objections to the payment of tithe, they at any rate have not come prominently to public notice, because the individual has felt that no such objection could be sustained. It is the land which has paid the tithe and not the individual. With this proposed change in the law, conceive what would happen. The individual would become liable in his own person for the payment of what has been described as a just debt. The word "just" is an extremely important word, and I propose a little later to refer to it. He will be called upon to pay what the law says is a just debt, but he will not necessarily feel that the debt is just, and if he happens to be a person holding strong religious beliefs contrary to those of the Church of England he will unquestionably feel that the debt is not just. So long as tithe was attached to his land he had no locus standi, but the instant it is attached to himself then his personality

607
and his individual beliefs rightly have free play.
Do we in these days of religious tolerance desire to stir up the class of religious strife which is contained in essence in Clause 2 of this Bill? With the greatest respect to whoever may have first thought of this clause—and happily I do not know —I would say that no man has ever suggested a greater disservice to the Church of England. There are parts of England —I happen to live not very far from them myself—which are notorious (or shall we say famous?) in history for always having held an independent view. There was once a ship called the "Mayflower." There may be once again another. Is it to be supposed that the Churches strongly represented in those parts of England are going to accept as just a personal liability to support the Church of England? It is a very grave risk, so grave a risk that I venture to advise this House that we cannot afford to take it. My noble friend Lord Cranworth did say that the first man thrown into prison for failing to pay his tithes would do more damage to the Church of England than any other thing done for a century. It will do more than that: it will intensify the very thing that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack desires to see improved. It will be more conducive to the upsetting of law and order in this country than a hundred times the number of distraints to which the noble Viscount so reasonably objects. Do we want to stir up the class of religious strife which existed in the time of the Gordon Riots? It is not impossible. There is not one amongst us who would wish religious feeling to be dead in ourselves. It is good that people should hold strong religious beliefs, but you do not wish to bring them to the surface if you have any regard for law and order. This Bill will do that. On those grounds I hold that Clause 2 of this Bill is catastrophically dangerous.
I shall not stress that point further; but there is another point. There are in this House a majority who desire to see a National Government returned to power again when the time comes for it to face the suffrages of the democracy. Is it necessary that we should commit political suicide? Is it not reasonable that the Government should bear in mind that in such circumstances others will suffer besides themselves? Is it desirable
608
to raise up against the National Government a host of enemies among those who are now its natural friends? If anyone has any doubt as to the view which rural constituencies take of Clause 2 of this Bill, I should advise him to take a journey and he will come back disillusioned. Therefore on two grounds—the lesser ground of political expediency, the far greater ground of continued religious tolerance and the avoidance of disorder — I suggest to your Lordships that this Bill cannot be permitted to pass into law with Clause 2 attached to it. I hold that view so strongly that unless the Government are able to say from that Bench that they do not propose to press Clause 2, or that they prefer rather to withdraw the Bill altogether, then if I can get another Teller I shall resist the passage of this Bill through its Second Reading.
What is the alternative of this Bill? I submit that it is an inquiry. It is perfectly reasonable for every man to be fearful of an inquiry and to hope that the Act of 1925 may in time be regarded as a final settlement. I would hope so myself. But those who cherish that hope forget that in the last decade the land of England has passed into a myriad hands, and that a vast number of these owners of the land of England have asked for an inquiry. Whether this inquiry resulted in measures which went against them or not, it is an inquiry which they mean to have, and no amount of temporising legislation will in any way deter them from pressing for that inquiry. Are there no grounds for an inquiry other than those which spring immediately to the eye? I would like to mention two or three not in the least degree the subject of controversy which should terrify no one in granting an inquiry.
The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and I think other noble Lords, mentioned the fact that the tithe rentcharge is now based upon the Commutation Act of 1836. I mentioned just now that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and others referred to "just" debts. If the settlement of 1836 is just to-day, the debt is just. If the settlement of 1836 has ceased to be just, the debt itself can no longer be justified. No matter what succeeding legislation there has been, it is the Act of 1836 which purported to fix for all time the basis upon which the calculation is made on which tithe is paid.

609
Eighteen hundred and thirty-six is nearly one hundred years ago. Is it to be said that the value of the produce of a certain acre of land in 1836 is any criterion of the value of the product of the same acre of land in 1934? Obviously it is not so. I have not the remotest idea as to whether the Church would benefit or the Church would lose by any Commutation Act; I might hope the Church would largely gain; but the very fact that tithe is now assessed and paid on a valuation of one hundred years ago is in itself sufficient to fortify any who desire an inquiry as to whether tithe is now a just debt. In 1836 the value of produce was dependent, as it is to-day, upon the costs of production. In 1836 the costs of production were nominal. In 1936 the costs of production are overwhelming; in 1836 it was hardly necessary to consider them. To-day they are an essential factor in the whole matter.
Another point as to why art inquiry is at least desirable. As your Lordships know the impropriate tithe—that is tithe payable to laymen and to corporations—was fixed under the 1925 Act at £105 per centum, but no compulsory redemption is attached to that. That £105 per centum, payable in impropriate tithe, was fixed for ever. Is it possible to hold that £105 per centum should always and for ever be paid to the corporations which own tithe, without any relation whatever to the movement of world prices in agricultural produce? It does not touch the Church, but it affects at least one quarter of the tithe. It is true, as has been pointed out in this House, that tithe-owners suffered many restrictions during the period of and following the War, but the tithe has been fixed at £105 for ever, and for ever is a long, long time to set against the five or six years in which the payment of tithe was restricted. Can it be contended that this is not at least a subject fur inquiry?
One more point. The alteration in the interest value of money must clearly make a fundamental difference in the accumulation of funds being set aside by the Bounty for the purpose of paying to the Church in eighty-five years from 1925 the same sum in tithe as it was receiving in 1925. The fluctuations in the value of money must have an immense bearing upon the accumulations in that Fund. Would not the Bounty itself be well advised to have an inquiry in which they
610
may be able perhaps to adjust their own financial arrangements to suit not themselves but the generations of clergy which are to come? Is it necessarily right that the incumbent in 1934 should be receiving too much in order that the incumbent of 2010 should receive too little? That is very likely to happen. That, again, is clearly a subject for inquiry. I have detained your Lordships too long, and I do not propose to say any more on this subject, but I did wish to point out, if I was able, to the Government that the call for an inquiry has solid foundation. There is real occasion for an inquiry, and I should deeply regret that the destruction, the withdrawal, the emasculation of this measure should in any way interfere with the Government pressing on in due course with an inquiry that is overdue.
But, meantime, we are confronted with this Bill. I refer only for a moment to what I have already said, and that is that so strongly do I feel the extreme danger of the future effects of Clause 2, both in respect of law and order and upon the Church of England, and so greatly do I fear its effects upon the political adhesions of the people who have hitherto supported the National Government, that, though defeat or withdrawal may be a comfortless alternative for the Government to consider, I would regard it as an infinitely more attractive alternative than the dreadful consequences which will ensue from passing this measure into law in the form in which it now stands.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, we have just listened to two very powerful appeals for an inquiry in order that the country and the Government should be in a position to deal with certain injustices which have been referred to. I should like to support that appeal, and for the reason that there is another set of injustices to which no reference has been made. If this Bill were to come to Committee I should propose to try and rectify those injustices by moving Amendments. I think it would be only courteous to your Lordships and the Government to indicate broadly the grievance which I think has not been dealt with in the Bill. I accept the fact mentioned by the right reverend Primate that there is property in tithe. I accept also the statement by the noble Earl in introducing

611
the Bill that its object is to rectify injustices. I hope, accordingly, that when I move my Amendment I shall receive his support.
I wish to refer to the injustice to the man who is compelled to pay tithe and yet who finds himself, or may find himself, in the position of being prevented by law from making the best use of his land in order to earn money to pay that tithe. I am not dealing with an imaginary or hypothetical case, as I shall indicate presently by quoting an illustration. When a man buys property he takes certain facts into consideration. He estimates, on the one hand, the fixed charges which he may have to meet, the rates which he may have to pay, the tithe which he may have to pay, and any other charges that may attach to the land; and, on the other side, he looks into the use which may be made of that land, the use which is being made of it at the moment, the use which has been made of it in the past, and the use which he may make of it in the future. Then, after balancing those things, he arrives at what he considers to be a fair price for that land.
An entirely new principle is now hung over our heads, and it is this. It is possible for certain orders and schemes under two Acts recently passed—Marketing Acts—to have the force of law, which will prevent men using their land for growing specific crops or for agricultural purposes. Certain owners of land, or certain cultivators, will be allowed to go in for particular branches of agriculture and make profits thereby. Other owners or cultivators of land will be prevented from doing so; it will be illegal for them to use their land for the same branch of agriculture; and yet, unless we deal with that in this Bill, they will get no remission of tithe. I suggest to your Lordships that if by Act of Parliament we take away part of the value of a man's land it will be a monstrous injustice if we do not at the same time take steps to reduce the fixed charges which he is compelled to pay.
Let me quote quite briefly only one illustration to show that I am not dealing with wild, imaginary, hypothetical cases. I have in mind the case of a man who bought two farms. On the one he has to pay tithe at the rate of 10s. an acre. On the other, he has to pay tithe at the rate of 20s. an acre. That tithe is based on the value of the land when
612
it was used for growing hops. It is based also on the profits which might be earned by growing hops in the future. At the present moment the owner of that farm has decided not to exercise the right of growing hops on that land. He has decided to do that for a short period of years. He finds himself in the position of being compelled to pay this tithe, and yet he is likely to be prohibited from growing the crop on the growth of which tithe was fixed and for which the land is eminently suited. It seems to me that if we allow legislation of this sort to deprive a man of property, to reduce the value of his property, to make it illegal for him to grow the kind of crop which he used to grow in the past but which he ceased to grow merely for a short time, we must provide for reducing the fixed charge which he has to pay on the land. The noble Earl in introducing this Bill said the object of the Government was to remedy hard cases. I hope very much that the Government will find it possible to support an Amendment which I will introduce in Committee, if the Bill goes to Committee, to try to remedy this manifest injustice. I have only referred to one particular crop, but exactly the same prohibitive powers could be used in other branches of agriculture.
There is another type of injustice to. which I shall not refer in any detail and that is the case of a man who can be fined for cultivating land for a particular purpose. There again it seems to me that there is a case for remission of tithe. I notice that in a letter to The Times a few days ago Mr. Middleton, who is Chairman of the Tithe Committee of Queen Anne's Bounty, referred to the fact that certain Statutes recently passed —the Marketing Acts and the Sugar Beet Subsidy Act and others—were going to make it possible for certain farmers or landowners to make more profit and that they would thereby be put in a position to pay tithe. But that argument cuts both ways. If some Statutes make it more difficult for owners of land to earn profit in order to pay tithe it seems to me that we have got to meet those hard cases somehow or other. It would be sheer injustice to forbid a man to make the best use of his land in order to earn profit with which to pay tithe and, at the same time, to compel him to pay the full

613
tithe which he has paid in the past when he was able to make free use of his land.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH: My Lords, I will not detain the House very long at this time of the evening, but I should like to say a few words in reference to two or three speeches which have been made. The general case from the point of view of the Bishops with respect to this Bill has been put by the most reverend Primate so ably and so fully that there is very little of a general nature to be said in addition. One or two criticisms made against the Bill may, I think, be answered. There is, for example, the question whether or no hindrance to an inquiry was put forward by Queen Anne's Bounty, and I think that ought to be a little more carefully considered by your Lordships. Queen Anne's Bounty have not said that they would stand out against an inquiry, but they did not themselves see any reason for holding one. One reason is that they think that all the relevant facts are known and that it is extremely doubtful whether an inquiry would bring out facts Of a relevant character. Moreover, it is perfectly certain that an inquiry would hold up the settlement of the present difficult position for a considerable time. They cannot shut their eyes to the difficulty of which they have been conscious for the last two or three years. It is obviously important that that difficulty, if it can be settled, should be settled. But if there were air inquiry it might last two or three years, because Governmental inquiries as a rule are not very speedy, and there would be great encouragement to those who find that their present methods have had some effect on the Government to continue those methods and to exercise what pressure they could in the hope that the inquiry would end by giving them the kind of answer they would like.
A number of instances of hardship were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth. Our view is most certainly that we ought—and we have done our best in every case—to meet them. Then it was said that what is wanted is not charitable treatment but justice. It may be on that ground that the Government felt that they ought to bring in a Bill of this sort. But one effect of the Bill will be not only that those persons who are in a position of great difficulty would benefit by it, but
614
that persons who may possibly be quite well able to pay their obligations will get some benefit, and the feeling that we have is that it is really not necessary to do that. However, no doubt the Government have thought out that matter. There are certain figures which do not seem to show that farming is in any such desperate straits all over as has been suggested. The Actual produce from the land during last year was stated as being of the value of £200,000,000. The actual profits made by farming were £24,000,000. When you remember that £3,000,000 is the whole of the tithe burden —ecclesiastical tithe and other tithe—it does not seem that the state of agriculture is so distressed that it really cannot hold its head above water unless it gets relief from that £3,000,000, or half of that sum, or a part of it. The actual relief given would, I suppose, even in the minds of those most sanguine who ask for it, not be more than 50 per cent.
What is the effect going to be when spread over the whole agricultural industry of remitting £1,500,000 on produce of £200,000,000 and on a total income, on which Income Tax is paid, of £24,000,000? It does not seem that the case is really so hard that you must say that unless you give this relief farming is ready to come to an end. The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, said that there must be some new factor which resulted in this tithe agitation. I think there is a new factor. It is stabilisation. Tithe has no relation to profit in the ordinary sense of profit and has not had since 1836, if not before then. It is a charge upon production. The tithe-owner was entitled to his tenth whether any profits were made or not. Nor is it at the present time related to production, because when tithe was commuted in 1836 it was definitely on the understanding that it should be divorced from the prosperity of agriculture. It was attached to wheat, oats and barley, and not for the benefit of the tithe-payer. It was done in the supposed interest of the tithe-owner, because it was thought that money was the fluctuating thing and that wheat, oats and barley would be stable whatever happened, and therefore that if you gave to the tithe-owner the equivalent of so much wheat and oats and barley, you would secure to him a permanent income in the future, whereas if you gave him gold you very

615
likely would not. The position of gold at the present moment is a little unsettled, but we should probably agree to-day that, although money has fallen in value, we should not wish to substitute for it wheat and oats and barley. But that was the idea—to give the tithe-owner something the value of which would be stable.
Then of course it was attached to price; it went up and down as the price of those things went up and down. When stabilisation came that ceased; but surely this deserves consideration, that the effect of stabilisation is to fix a price which in hard times may press very severely upon the tithe-payer, but also to fix a price which in better times will be to his advantage; and at all times the tithe-owner ought to be able to rely upon the price. If you are not going to give him the benefit of a rise in price when things are going well, you ought to secure him against a fall in price when things are going badly; and I cannot see the force of the argument that because tithe sometimes has to be paid out of capital, therefore it ought not to be payable. What is capital but profits which have been made in previous years which the owner puts into his lands? And he has made those profits because the tithe is stabilised at a figure which enables him to make them. That stabilised figure, therefore, surely ought to be reliable whatever the future may be.
I should like to say just one word about Clause 2 which has been referred to, as to the method of recovery. The most reverend Primate himself said that we were not pressing for this, but if we are to accept with as good a grace as we can the lower tithe, the effect of which will certainly be very serious in many cases, there ought to be some better guarantee than we have at present that the tithe which is due can be collected. It is very easy to say, as people are sometimes disposed to say, that Christian men ought to look at this matter in a charitable and Christian spirit, but I am not aware that the possession of a Christian spirit should compel a trustee, who is a trustee for somebody else, easily to let go his income, and not do his best to enforce the collection of it. Undoubtedly a great deal of prejudice is brought in. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, spoke about
616
cases in which religious prejudice might be imported. Surely the prejudice exists at present, and exists very much to the detriment of the tithe-owner. A case was brought to my notice not very long ago in which a farm was sold a few years ago on this footing: £13,000 tithe free, or £10,000 with the tithe obligation; and there was a tithe of £150 a year upon it. The purchaser was a Nonconformist. He said that he would pay the £10,000 and pay the tithe. He has been very vigorous in his protest against being required to pay tithe to support a Church to which he does not belong. He does not realise that he has put into his own pocket £3,000 which belongs to somebody else if he does not pay the £150 a year.
That is really the position; and much as we deplore these differences between us, I cannot see that we need hesitate to go forward on what we feel to be a just and right course, because we are afraid of a certain amount of religious prejudice which may be excited against us. I do not think that it is likely ever to be carried far if it is evident that in our action we are endeavouring to be just, and certainly sympathetic as far as we can with those who suffer. I am perfectly confident of this, that Queen Anne's Bounty has never taken a step to extort money from a man when it is satisfied that he cannot pay, or to extort money unless it has evidence that the man is in a position to pay. The inquiries which are made by the representatives of the Bounty are of the most searching and careful character, and I am quite prepared to say on behalf of the Bounty that they have never themselves pressed for payment of any tithe unless they had some evidence that the tithe-payer was in a position to pay
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the eloquent and powerful speeches which have been made against the acceptance of this Bill, but I should have been more deeply moved had a constructive alternative proposal been submitted to the House. It is suggested that no action be taken, that an inquiry should be held. I think we are all aware where that would lead us: it would mean that the intention of this Bill would be defeated. The intention of this Bill is to deal, and to deal promptly, with cases of hardship, and if the course which has been suggested, and

617
that course alone, were pursued, it would mean that those hardships—and there are undoubted cases of hardship—would continue. The need of this Bill is due directly and solely, in my humble judgment, to the depression which has overtaken agriculture. That has led in its turn to an agitation against the payment of tithe, and it has led to organised obstruction to the administration of the law and to the recovery of tithe rentcharge. I venture to suggest that there would have been no agitation had it been possible to place agriculture on a prosperous basis.
When considering the Bill I think we must bear in mind that there are those—and perhaps a considerable number—who frankly challenge the right of the tithe-owner to receive tithe, and who do not try in any way to conceal the fact that in their judgment tithe should be abolished. Really they are in fact ready to challenge, and are only too anxious to challenge, the rights of property. In fact, we heard a speech this afternoon from the Benches opposite to that effect; the opinion of the noble Lord who spoke was that there was no right of property in land and there was no right in tithe. It was argued that tithe is not properly payable and that it might well be expropriated. I venture to suggest that the title of the tithe owner is as absolute and as good a title as the title of the land-owner. I also suggest that when land has been sold at all recently, full information has been available and probably has been given to the prospective purchaser before be bought the land, and that he bought the land, which he knew was subject perhaps to a drainage tax and tithe and other charges of that nature, feeling that it would be a good investment for him to make. Therefore I venture to suggest that it is unfair for him to contend or to argue that tithe is not properly payable now that agricultural prices have fallen.
Those who criticise the collection of tithe might equally well criticise the collection of mortgage interest or ground rent or any other charge upon property. There would be no greater justice in repudiating those payments than there is in repudiating the payment of tithe. At the same time I suggest that there are cases for relief where tithe is charged at a high rent per acre as compared with the annual value of the land at the present time; but I feel that this Bill makes provision to
618
meet those cases. On the other hand, it seems to me rather hard on the tithe-owner that he should be requested, and repeatedly requested at short intervals of time, to make sacrifice after sacrifice. In 1918 he forgave some of his rights; in 1925, more of his rights; and this year he is asked to make a still further sacrifice. The proposal in the Bill goes a long way towards meeting the suggestions which were put forward by the National Farmers' Union and in another place by the Conservative Agricultural Committee, who suggested that an Amendment should be made in the Tithe Acts on the lines incorporated in this Bill. It is true that both those bodies also asked for an inquiry into the 1918 and 1925 legislation. Nevertheless, I can quite see the reluctance of the Government of the day to open the tithe question by means of an inquiry, when we consider for a moment the political and religious issues which are involved and the very small assistance which such an inquiry could really give to the agriculturists.
Reference was made to the possibility of a farmer, an owner-occupier, being incarcerated because his neighbour had not paid his tithe. It is true that as the Bill stands, where tithe has not been apportioned that could take place, but so far as I am aware the remedy is to seek apportionment at once, and then that situation could not possibly occur. Moreover, there is the safeguard that the County Court Judge would not take action in such a case. If we assume that the tithe-owner's title is good, that it is a charge which is properly payable by the landowner, and if we assume that reasonable remission is given in hard cases, then I do not see why the tithe-owner should be prevented from recovering his debts and why they should not be recovered by a modern procedure applicable to other debts, that is, without expense and without delay. I believe that by moderate and unprejudiced people this Bill will be welcomed. It will be welcomed because it gives relief in hard cases and provides modern machinery for recovery, and what is still more important it helps to check future attempts at confiscation of property and rights in tithe. As to the measure of relief contained in the Bill that is clearly a controversial matter which no doubt can be settled upstairs in Committee. I venture to support the Bill and trust that

619
it will receive the support of your Lordships.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, the Government have acknowledged quite clearly that this Bill is a compromise measure and, being a compromise, as is to be expected under such circumstances it naturally does not find very warm support. The most reverend Primate has said that Queen Anne's Bounty would suffer severely from the substitution of two-fifths for two-thirds, and although he said he was prepared to agree with it he made it clear that it will entail a very great sacrifice on many incumbents of parishes who are already in great financial difficulties. On the other side we have had two most powerful speeches from my noble friends Lord Hastings and Lord Cranworth. Indeed they criticised severely both parts of the Bill. Lord Hastings suggested, as did also Lord Cranworth, that an inquiry was essential. I have listened very carefully to what both those noble Lords have said and their reasons for pressing for such an inquiry. It is the view of the Government that all the facts in regard to tithe are in the possession of the Government and they consider that nothing could be made clear by an inquiry which is not already known to the Government at the present time.
Lord Hastings suggested that if the Act of 1836 was unfair then everything which occurred subsequently in regard to tithe was unfair also, or might be unfair. He then went on to say that of course the cost of production in 1836 was very different from what it is to-day. I agree with him that this Bill has nothing to do with the tithe question of 1836. He wants to alter the whole incidence of tithe since 1836. He referred to the cost of production, but that has never had anything to do with tithe. Tithe prior to 1836, as I understand it, was one-tenth of the total production of the land, whether corn, meat, poultry or other products.
LORD HASTINGS: I am sorry to interrupt, but I should be very sorry that it should go down that I had in any way criticised Clause 1 of the Bill. I left that entirely open and endeavoured to concentrate everything I said upon Clause 2 and then suggested one or two reasons why I thought an inquiry was desirable. I have an entirely open mind with regard to
620
Clause 1. I do not wish either to criticise or condemn or praise it.
EARL STANHOPE: I understood that the noble Lord did not criticise Clause 1 but I understood him to press for an inquiry. Now, my Lords, passing on, from 1836, as Lord De La Warr has pointed out, tithe ceased to be related to the actual production of the land. It was merely fixed as a definite charge upon the land. In regard to that I would point out that of course tithe has been stabilised a very long time now. My noble friend said it would be impossible to get any figure which could be agreed on in perpetuity, but tithe rentcharge put upon the land in 1836 was based in perpetuity, but varied according to the value of corn. What he proposed, as I understand it, is that the whole question should be re-opened and tithe assessed on something entirely different, not connected with the production of the land as it was prior to 1836. I venture to suggest that 1836 is practically a century ago, that all land has changed hands either by inheritance or purchase since that date, and that in every case the charge upon the land which was laid in 1836 by a tithe rentcharge is a charge which every person holding the land has had to meet from the time that the land came into his possession. I suggest that to change that now is either to increase the burden on that land or to give the owner a gift by reducing the charge on the land. I think your Lordships will agree that, either way, that would be unfair and that we must stand by the Act of 1836.
In 1891 the Government of the day felt that the charges on land were such that it was hardly fair to ask the tithe-payer to find as much as he was then being asked. The year 1891 came after the hungry 'eighties and for that reason the tithe rentcharge was reduced at that date. Again at the present time all our sympathies are with those who have to pay this tithe. But we have to be fair in this matter, and that is what the Government are endeavouring to be. Supposing there were an inquiry, what change would this make? None of us can foresee the course of prices. The Government hope, and I think have reason to hope, that prices will rise. Supposing that prices remain as they are to-day. Suppose we take the price of wheat at its guaranteed price of 45s. a quarter and

621
the prices that have been in operation during the past seven years in regard to wheat, barley and oats—which, as your Lordships know, is the basis on which tithe is settled. If you take those seven-year corn averages, your Lordships will find that the producer, with the help of the wheat subsidy, would be paying at par value this year £90.
Supposing that the Committee of Inquiry say: "Let the tithe be assessed at the annual value of the corn prices," and it should come down to £90 instead of£1O5. What effect will that have on farming? Let me give your Lordships a case. Take the case of a farmer owning 300 acres of land. The tithe rentcharge is 3s. 6d. an acre—and that is the average charge throughout England and Wales for land liable to tithe—the amount that the farmer would be required to pay would be £7 10s. per annum less than he pays at present. If any of us could say that the difference between success and failure is £7 10s. on a 300-acre farm we should be much more satisfied than We are at present. Therefore, do not let us get an exaggerated idea of what this tithe question means.
Several noble Lords have referred to the reason for the recent agitation, and the right reverend Prelate who spoke has suggested that the new factor which was the cause of these troubles was stabilisation. I would put it in a different way. I do not think it is stabilisation of tithe which is responsible for the difficulties, but the great variation in prices. It is the enormous fall in prices over a very short period of years that has caused the owner-occupier to say: "This is no longer fair." Our memories are short and we forget that if it had not been for the Acts of 1918 and 1925 every tithe-payer would have been paying a very much larger sum than he has done in recent years, and all that we are thinking about is the actual effect of the fall in prices in regard to tithe at this moment. Surely, we cannot take just one year or even the present moment and have an inquiry in regard to that, and alter the whole incidence of tithe.
Let me remind your Lordships that in 1925 when the Government took a great deal of evidence on this matter and consulted every kind of authority, Mr. J. M. Keynes, whose name, after all, is by no
622
means unknown to us, suggested that the right basis of tithe was not £105 but £127. What chance should we have of getting a better opinion in these days than we had in 1925? Everybody will agree that at this moment the question of prices is one of great difficulty. Therefore all we have been able to do is to suggest that, where tithe is high in comparison with the annual value of land, that tithe should be reduced until it comes out at two-fifths of the annual value, instead of two-thirds. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, made a point in regard to the alteration of crops. That is a matter which we can deal with much more easily in Committee, but it is obvious that if, say, a hop crop comes to an end, presumably the value of that land goes down, and that is shown by the Schedule B assessment and the tithe will fall with it.
As regards the other side of the question, in which my noble friend Lord Hastings was particularly concerned, if he lived in what I consider to be the best county in England, Kent, he would find that there is another kind of tithe which has for a very long time been a personal liability on the tithe-payer—extraordinary tithe. Now, extraordinary tithe was a rentcharge which was commuted by the Act of 1886 to a fixed and permanent charge, and was not made liable to any variation of any kind. The total amount payable in England and Wales still is £18,500. That tithe rentcharge is recoverable in the High Court and the County Courts, and I do not think my noble friend ever heard of a single case where anybody has made objection that that charge is a personal charge and not only a charge upon the land. So smoothly has the matter gone that I do not think my noble friend had any knowledge of extraordinary tithe.
But the Government have a strong reason for proposing Clause 2 of this Bill. We, in this country, are perhaps the most law-abiding people in the world, but here we have quite a number of cases where the law has been brought into disrepute and, indeed, into contempt. Can we really allow legislation to remain on the Statute Book which allows an increasing number of these people—because they are increasing each year and, indeed, each month—to go on defying the law and leave the law as it stands?

623
All that is really being proposed is this, that in view of the fact that the tithe-payer is getting considerable advantage out of Clause 1, the tithe-owner should receive some consideration under Clause 2 by having a modern method of collecting a debt instead of a very antiquated one. After all, whom is this going to affect? My noble friend thinks people will go to the stake because they are asked to pay tithe. All that they have to do is to get rid of their land. That, I think, he will probably tell me, is not a very easy matter in these days, but at any rate I dare say it can be given away by my noble friend if his feelings on tithe rentcharge are as strong as that.
My noble friend Lord Cranworth took one case as a typical case, that of an owner-occupier who had lost a great deal of money in farming, as many of us have, and then found himself faced with this tithe rentcharge, and he was put in an extremely difficult position. But supposing there had been no tithe rentcharge on that land, supposing it had been redeemed. Obviously when he bought that farm he would have had to pay the capitalised value of that tithe rentcharge in his purchase price. My noble friend would say that he would not have had the money to do it, but he would have had to raise it by a mortgage. Instead of paying tithe rentcharge annually he would have been paying interest on his mortgage. Therefore there is no difference either in one case or the other, except that, in the case of the mortgage, he would probably be paying a higher rate of interest on his capital than in fact he does in the tithe rentcharge leviable on the land.
I think the most reverend Primate, and certainly the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ipswich referred to the way in which Queen Anne's Bounty deals with hard cases. There was a question asked in another place yesterday as to the number of cases of tithe hardship which had been settled by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty in the last year and how many cases are still before the Governors awaiting settlement. This is the reply that was given. I think your Lordships will realise how extremely wide-minded and generous the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty are in dealing with these hard cases:
"During the year ended 31st March, 1934, a sum of £37,426 was remitted by the
624
Bounty to 3,142 individual tithe-payers, the total tithe rentcharge involved in those cases being £195,849. The number of similar cases which are now being considered by the Governors is 1,365, the amount of the tithe rentcharge involved being approximately £80,000. In the great majority of these cases the Governors have already offered a concession."
I submit that, the Governors acting as they do, nobody is going to be brought before the County Court when the Governors are satisfied he is making a reasonable attempt to pay this charge which is levied on the land in his possession. Action will only be taken in those cases where people refuse to pay because, perhaps, they are opposed to the Church of England, because, perhaps, they think this charge represents the difference between profit and loss on their farms. There are people who in some cases are in a position to pay, and the reason why many straightforward, honest people, as my noble friend Lord Cranworth described them, are now refusing is that they had been misled in some cases by agitation.
LORD CRANWORTH: The people I said were honest, decent people are people who do not pay because they have not any money.
EARL STANHOPE: Then I imagine they will be dealt with as the Governors do deal with them, by considering such cases with the utmost sympathy and consideration. They are not the people who will appear before the County Court. I submit that in this extremely difficult case the Government are trying to hold the balance fairly between tithe-owners and tithe-payers. We feel it is essential to assist tithe-payers who are in great difficulties, and we have attempted to be fair between them and the tithe-owners. We are endeavouring to modernise the law in regard to the method of recovery, and to see that it is obeyed as the law in England normally is obeyed. Therefore I submit we have been justified in bringing this Bill before your Lordships' House, and I venture to hope your Lordships will now support its Second Reading.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Elibank, V.

Hindlip, L.

Hailsham, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Halifax, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Knutsford, V.

Luke, L.

Bath, M.

Ullswater, V.

Marks, L.

Bristol, M.

Merrivale, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, L. Bp.

Moyne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Dudley, E.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Rankeillour, L.

Feversham, E.

Remnant, L.

Lucan, E.[Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Rennell, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Bingley, L.

Rochester, L.

Plymouth, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Rockley, L.

Selborne, E.

Daryngton, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Stanhope, E.

Eltisley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Vane, E.(M. Londonderry.)

Ernle, L.

Gage, L. (V.Gage.) [Teller.]

Templemore, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Harris, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Reading, M.

Conway of Allington, L.

Melechett, L.

Cranworth, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Balfour, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Hastilngs, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Stanmore, L.

Carrington, L.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Strabolgi, L.

Marley, L.

Trent, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Bill read 2a accordingly.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I need not detain your Lordships long because there are in it this year only two amendments of importance, and the details of the amendments have been set out in the Memorandum accompanying the Bill. The first one (Clause 4) simplifies the details of administration regarding Courts-Martial when necessary on troopships. The point emerged as the result of a case which occurred when a troopship was on its way from Southampton to Malaya, and a Court-Martial was required to deal at once with a soldier who embarked when the ship called at Ceylon.
The present procedure is as follows: At a port of embarkation the officer who is to be in command of troops on board during the voyage receives a warrant authorising him to convene and confirm a district Court-Martial for the trial of any offence committed by persons under his command on board the ship. This warrant, however, only covers the troops
626
who embark at the original port of departure, and if other troops join at an intermediate port an additional warrant in respect of them must be issued to the officer commanding troops on board by the officer in command at that port. Thus a vessel taking troops from England to the East may pick up details at several intermediate ports, and the issuing of warrants in identical words at all of them and the ultimate returning of each warrant to the issuer entails a lot of unnecessary clerical work. Under the present procedure there is a possibility that the necessity for the issue of a warrant at an intermediate port may be overlooked, with the consequence that a man might be tried by a Court improperly convened and the proceedings might have to be quashed subsequently. Accordingly, the amendment proposed will enable a warrant to be issued to the commanding officer which will cover all troops who may be under his command during the voyage whether they embark with him or join at some port of call.
The second amendment (Clause 7) makes provision for regulating the relations between members of the new Indian Air Force, created last year, and members of the military forces in India when doing duty at the same station, or otherwise serving together. The proposed new clause deals with this point on lines similar to those of Section 184A of the Army Act which governs the relations

627
between military, naval and air forces when acting together. The Air Force Act was amended last year to make provision for the relations between the Royal Air Force and the Indian Air Force. Now this clause provides that when a unit of the Indian Air Force is serving side by side with an Army unit on the same station the officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers of the two Forces may, if desirable, be given mutual powers of command but not mutual powers of punishment. The actual powers to be given in any particular case will be laid down in Regulations to be settled between the Government of India and the Army Council, and will be limited to the practical needs of the case. The Regulations at present proposed to be made under this clause are designed solely to
628
enable station duties to be satisfactorily performed, and they will only operate if officers are expressly ordered by the officer commanding the station to carry out such duties. In other respects the Bill follows the normal course annually prescribed and presented to your Lordships, and does not therefore call for any special comment. In those circumstances I trust your Lordships will now give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 23, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.

Preamble
CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Church House (Westminster),

South Metropolitan Gas (No. 2),

London County Council (General Powers).

Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Accrington),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Watford).

Also the Certificates that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petitions for the following Bills:

Dartmouth Corporation,

Ramsgate Corporation.

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

BRIGHTON ELECTRICITY (EXTEN- SION) ORDER, 1934.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Cuckfield in the Administrative County of East Sussex:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.