Skip to main content

Clause 10—(Repeal Of S 91 Of 10 Edw, 7, C 5)

Volume 22: debated on Thursday 9 March 1911

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Section ninety-one of the principal Act (which provides for the payment of half the proceeds of the duties on land values for the benefit of local authorities) shall cease to have effect, and shall be deemed never to have had effect.

moved that the Clause be postponed.

I think that everybody in the House must admit that this is a Motion which really ought to be accepted by the Government as acceptable at this moment. It has been already pointed out, and I do not desire on this Motion to go into the merits or demerits of the Clause, and it is most undesirable that we should enter at this hour of the morning upon a Clause of this nature. It has far-reaching effects. It is an entire reversal of that which has been held out by the Government again and again during the past two years. The effect it has on local authorities in the present and perhaps future years is an element which must weigh with us very seriously, and must convince the House, if they remember the scenes of a few weeks ago, that it is most undesirable at this hour in the morning to enter upon this Clause. I move this Motion therefore in order that, as the Government insists upon our going on with business we may pass over this Clause and proceed with others which, evidently from the state of the notice paper, are not of the same interest or weight. The Government will attain their object: they will get the progress they desire with the Bill, and at the same time we will reserve this most important Clause for consideration to a more favourable occasion. A good deal has been said about the time being given to this Bill—that if it had been discussed in November last probably no longer time would have been given. It must be remembered that the Finance Bill of November last did not contain this Clause at all, and therefore that has altered the matter very materially. I do not think anyone can deny that even a whole day given to the discussion of an important question like this would be too long. So that if we are to be thrown back upon this somewhat ancient history we must also remember exactly the position of the two Finance Bills together. I would point out that the Government, if they agree to this postponement they are not doing anything that would do them any injury whatever. This repeal, which is really all this Clause contains, is in rather a peculiar position, because it is already repealed in two clauses and a schedule, which gives it certainly a prominence we do not usually expect in the repealing of a Clause in a Bill. What I am asking for at the present time I would earnestly urge the Government to accept, because I think my motion is in the interest of the business of the Government themselves.

I regret that we do not see our way to accede to the request made by the hon. Member in a speech with the moderation of which no one could quarrel. We agree it is an important Clause. It is impossible to deny that the hour is far advanced beyond the usual hour of our sitting. But the hour would not have been so far advanced had we not had so many Motions to report progress, and so many points of Order, and had not two and a half hours been consumed in discussing the first Clause on which no division was actually taken. But it is far from my purpose to enter into recrimination. I only say, if we were to accede to the request of the Motion we should be left not only with this Clause, but with twenty-two pages of new Clauses which raise the whole of the controversy of the great Budget of 1909. It is absolutely certain that unless we persevere upon our course the financial business could never be completed. The atmosphere of the House is now much more genial. I think we are all getting into the swing of an all-night sitting, and I do not doubt that in a very comparatively short space of time we shall have made substantial progress without any repetition of the exciting moments through which we have all passed and in regard to which we are no doubt all sensible of regret. [HON MEMBERS: "No."] I am very glad that hon. Gentlemen opposite have enjoyed themselves. I hope the House will not consume much time upon the Motion to postpone the Clause, but will address themselves to its merits. There is ample time for the consideration of the important points the Clause contains, and my right hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary, is fully prepared to enter into a most careful discussion of any matters which may be raised from the Benches opposite.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that the discussion would have been more profitable this evening if it had not been for the time consumed earlier in the evening in a discussion at the end of which no division was taken. Whatever may be the truth of that, I take note of the remarkable alteration in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to address the House on this last occasion and rejoice at the change. I venture to say if that change had occurred two or three hours ago there would have been a much greater obstacle removed from the progress of business than any offered by the action of my hon. Friends behind me.

But I am more susceptible to the Home Secretary's blandishments than the Home Secretary's followers are. I do not want to discuss that part of his speech further. But I want to express my astonishment that he has not thought it right to accept the Motion of my hon. Friend. I am surprised that nobody below the Gangway on the other side has risen to support this Motion, and for this reason—the section which this Clause proposes to repeal was placed in the original Act very largely at the invitation of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the opposite side. It was from below the Gangway that a motion was made in a great hurry that the Government should restore to the local authorities a portion of that which they were taking from them by their new form of taxation, and it was in that that some of the supporters of the Government found justification for giving support to that part of the Bill. This Clause with which we are asked to discuss at five in the morning proposals to repeal a provision which the Government deliberately inserted to the effect that half of the Land Duties should be restored to the local authorities. I do not want to revert to the arguments which have been used earlier in the evening. I "an only say that having been in this House for more than thirty years, never have I known a Government to adhere so closely to their own interpretation of a promise in face of the fact that the Clause under consideration is the most important in the Bill. This is the Clause which we are asked to Debate at five o'clock, and this is the interpretation which the Government places on the language of the Prime Minister. I venture to say that the local authorities will take note of the fact that in the opinion of the Government five o'clock in the morning is the right time to discuss, for the last time with any chance of Amendment, a matter which vitally concerns their interests and which materially affects the position of the ratepayers. I do not believe that in the whole history of legislation affecting our great municipalities there has ever been so scandalous a case.

The Home Secretary told us that this Bill included concessions in all its Clauses. I desire to point out that no concession can be found in this Clause. It embodies a great fundamental change which alters the whole character of the Budget and the whole question as put before the electors at the last two elections. I represent a Constituency where I suppose this question of Increment is of greater importance almost than in any other Constituency in the country.

I bow, Sir, to your ruling. I was pointing out that this Clause is so important that it is imperative it should be discussed when there is an opportunity for the Press to record the views of hon. Members upon it. The Government, in pursuance of their policy of silencing the democracy, as they always do, are now prepared to silence the voice of the representatives of the people in this House. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman what possible difference it can make to postpone this Clause which undoubtedly at the recent election entirely altered the position taken up by his friends at the previous election. All the candidates at the other side quoted this Clause as an answer to our charge that the communities were being robbed of the increment value.

I was amazed that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) got up at that box and refused to accept a Motion for the postponement of this Clause. I think the right hon. Gentleman had one of those chances which rarely occur to a Leader of this House of extricating the House from an almost painful position. I thought he would recognise that there is not a single municipality which is not affected by this Clause. There is not a single great town which is not anxiously looking to the debate on this question, and I thought he would seize that opportunity. If he had done so I believe he would not have lost time for this Bill, but would rather have gained time, and he would certainly have regained some of that reputation which he has lost so heavily to-night. Instead of trying to make some arrangement with those who are opposed to him, he, with a mocking smile on his face, regardless of the great interests involved, said, "Get on, proceed with the discussion; there is plenty of time yet." I can testify to the fact that many Members of the House who are intimately connected with this particular question went home, having left the House because they heard the Prime Minister say practically that we should not sit up to any late hour. Really after Members specially interested in this question have left the House under the impression that we would not consider this most important clause in the Bill to take it now is a flagrant breach of faith. I have had the honour of a seat in this House for twenty-one years and I never knew such a flagrant breach of faith by a leader.

We cannot have a debate again upon that point, on the Motion to report Progress.

I think I have given substantial reasons why you should postpone this Clause. Again and again I have heard the argument in this House that a Clause ought to be postponed because Gentlemen who took a leading part in the discussion of the particular subject and had particular knowledge of the matters embodied in the Clause, had left the House on the understanding that the matter was not to be taken. Here we are at five o'clock. Look at the Reporters' Gallery. It is almost empty. Every single large town is looking for a report of this debate, and the matter, whether settled one way or the other, is one of supreme importance to them and must affect every local exchequer. When one comes to think that the Government have changed their minds upon it three times already, I think they ought to have at least treated us to their reasons in a first-class debate at some hour when that debate could be reported and when there would be something like a full House to listen to our proceedings. I am certain the Government will not gain by their proceedings to-night. They will have lost caste not only in this House but in every great town and with every big municipality.

Yes, I am sorry that any leader should permit such an open breach of faith. Even now there is yet time for the right hon. Gentleman. He may see how earnestly we intend to discuss this position at a time when the Debate can be fairly fully reported, and when the Members interested can give expression to their views and effect to them in the Lobby.

I fear that any appeals on behalf of London to the Government will fall on stoney ground, but London is specially damnified by the financial arrangement which the Government proposes, and will lose a considerable sum of money to which it is entitled. If the position is not fully discussed London will suffer particularly in the Reversion Duty. London is more interested in that than any other part of the country. In other matters it is very hard because the poorer parts, which are very heavily rated, will be hit. I think it is very unfair that we should have no chance of discussing the proposal of the Government and obtaining such amendments as we can in favour of London. We want to have a fair discussion and proper time, because the figures and facts are complicated, and it is difficult for those who wish to put them before the House to do properly at this hour. Representing one of the poorest parts, one of the poorest constituencies in the country, I would wish to point out how much we lose as the proposal stands now. I ask you to consider the case of London, and there are others who represent other districts in London which are poor, and yet you will not allow us to discuss it at a time when the House will be ready to listen. We ask you not to make injustice more unjust by refusing us the opportunity we seek.

I wish to support the Motion for reasons which will be understood by at least five supporters of the Government. The last speaker referred to the case of London. I am going to refer to the case of another great city. Five of my colleagues in the representation of Glasgow are Liberals, one of them being the late Leader of the Labour party, who is not in his place just now, but we were all pleased to see him return in fully restored health I hope. It will be known to these five Members that when the first announcement was made that the Government intended to take the action covered by this clause the Glasgow Corporation, consisting of representatives of all parties, and if we take the representatives of the city, mainly supporting the Government, unanimously passed a resolution of protest against that action which is now proposed. I say it is little short of flouting one of your chief local authorities to bring a matter of this importance up at this hour of the morning, and to ask us to consider it under conditions when no proper report can appear which will enable the representatives of the corporation to know what has taken place. I do not in the least complain of this House overruling any opinion expressed by a corporation, but when one of the largest corporations in the three kingdoms, consisting of men of all parties, unanimously expresses an opinion on a matter concerning its finances, it is little short of a scandal that we should have to consider it at this hour.

I think there is a case for postponing this clause which would not apply to any other clause in the Bill. In the case of other clauses it would be possible to discuss them afterwards upon Report. But if I am right it will be impossible to propose the elision of this clause upon Report because leaving it out would throw a burden upon the Exchequer. If it goes through now it is the last we stall hear of it, and we shall have no further opportunity of discussing so important a question as whether we shall give back to the local authorities the financial help they were confidently led to expect since the Debates of the year before last. Perhaps I may ask the Chairman whether we can discuss the matter further after to night.

The hon. Member is quite right in saying that nothing could be proposed which would bring a further charge upon the Exchequer, but still it might be discussed at a further stage.

From the Chairman's reply it is quite clear that this is the only practical opportunity we shall have of discussing the subject.

5.0 A.M.

The right hon. Gentleman must have known perfectly well that this Clause could not be discussed at a reasonable hour. He must have known that this Clause is really what we all want to discuss. He must have known that every local authority in the country is up in arms against it. In my own case the local authority, including a large number of those in political agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, strongly objects to this Clause. He must have known that there were points of substance in the beginning of the Bill—points of such substance that the Secretary for the Treasury has expressed willingness to consider Amendments at a later stage. In addition to that I think it most unreasonable to take a point of this kind when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is away. I am sure all of us regret very much the ill-health of the right hon. Gentleman, which prevents him being present, but in his absence it is most inadvisable that a matter of this kind should be dealt with. Obviously the Secretary for the Treasury is not in a position to come to a decision on large matters of policy. It is a matter which should be discussed in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Discussing it in his absence is nothing short of a farce. We know what happens. The Secretary for the Treasury is not in a position to accept Amendments. He has to take the instructions of the Cabinet; he is

Division No. 57.]


[5.5 a.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)Bowerman, Charles W.Clynes, John R.
Acland, Francis DykeBrace, WilliamCollins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)
Adamson, WilliamBrady, Patrick JosephCondon, Thomas Joseph
Addison, Dr. ChristopherBrocklehurst, William B.Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)Brunner, John F. L.Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Armitage, RobertBurke, E. Haviland.Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)
Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnCrawshay-Williams, Eliot
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)Carr-Gomm, H. W.Crumley, Patrick
Barton, WilliamCawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Beale, William PhipsonChancellor, Henry GeorgeDavies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)Chapple, Dr. William AllenDawes, James Arthur
Bentham, George J.Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Delany, William
Black, Arthur W.Clancy, John JosephDillon, John
Booth, Frederick HandelClough, WilliamDoris, William

not strong enough to say without consulting the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a large matter of this kind can be modified.

The discussion, therefore, is merely academic. We want to discuss it in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was entirely owing to his conciliatory attitude towards local authorities that he was able to get these Land Taxes through in the form which they took. If he had not been able to put forward a definite promise in the way he did, to remit this taxation in favour of local authorities, and give half of it back to them, it is perfectly certain that his task would have been enormously increased. In view of the fact that we cannot discuss this matter again on Report stage, and that it cannot be discussed in another place, where Finance Bill Amendments are, of course, out of order, I think; there is an exceptionally strong case for I postponing this Clause and going on to; other matters if the Government are not content with the progress made. We know the Home Secretary has thrown over the Prime Minister before now. I do not think it pays him, and I do not think it will pay the Government. They may use their kangaroo closure with the Amendments, but they cannot use their new-fangled form of gag for discussing the new Clauses. If the Opposition are not given fair play in their perfectly legitimate demands for opportunities of discussing a really important point of the Bill, right hon. Gentlemen may feel certain that they will have ample opportunity of getting their own back when they come to the new Clauses.

rose in his place, and claimed to Move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 148.

Duffy, William J.Kilbride, DenisPrice, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)King, Joseph (Somerset, North)Priestley, Sir W. E. B.(Bradford, E.)
Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)Raffan, Peter Wilson
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master ofLaw, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry
Elverston, HaroldLawson, Sir W.(Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)Leach, CharlesRedmond, John E. (Waterford)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)Levy, Sir MauriceRedmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Essex, Richard Waite.Lewis, John HerbertRendall, Atheistan
Falconer, JamesLundon, ThomasRichards, Thomas
Farrell, James PatrickLynch, Arthur AlfredRichardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Fenwick, CharlesMacdonald, J. R. (Leicester)Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Ferens, Thomas RobinsonMacGhee, RichardRoberts, George (Norwich)
Ffrench, PeterMacnamara, Dr. Thomas J.Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Field, WilliamMacNeill, John Gordon SwiftRobinson, Sidney
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace EdwardMacVeagh, JeremiahRoch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)
Fitzgibbon, JohnM'Curdy, Charles AlbertRowlands, James
Flavin, Michael JosephM'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)St. Maur, Harold
Furness, StephenM'Micking, Major GilbertSamuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Gelder, Sir William AlfredMarshall, Arthur HaroldSamuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Glanville, Harold JamesMason, David M. (Coventry)Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Goddard, Sir Daniel FordMasterman, C. F. G.Scanlan, Thomas
Goldstone, FrankMathias, RichardScott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Greig, Colonel James WilliamMeagher, MichaelSeely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)Sherwell, Arthur James
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E)Mond, Sir AlfredSimon, Sir John Allsebrook
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)Money, L. G. ChiozzaSmith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)
Hackett, JohnMontagu, Hon. E. S.Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)Mooney, John J.Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)Morgan, George HayStrauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)Worrell, PhilipSummers, James Woolley
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)Munro, RobertSutton, John E.
Havelock-Allan, Sir HenryMurray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Haworth, Arthur A.Needham, Christopher T.Tennant, Harold John
Hayden, John PatrickNeilson, FrancisThorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Hayward, EvanNolan, JosephToulmin, George
Helme, Norval WatsonNorman, Sir HenryTrevelyan, Charles Philips
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Henry, Sir CharlesO'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)Verney, Sir H.
Higham, John SharpO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Walters, John Tudor
Hinds, JohnO'Dowd, JohnWard, John (Stoke-upon Trent)
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.O'Grady, JamesWard, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Holt, Richard DurningO'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)Wardle, G. J.
Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)O'Malley, WilliamWebb, H.
Hudson, WalterO'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Hughes, Spencer LeighO'Shaughnessy, P. J.White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Illingworth, Percy H.O'Sullivan, TimothyWhyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Isaacs, Sir Rufus DanielPalmer, Godfrey MarkWilliams, John (Glamorgan)
John, Edward ThomasParker, James (Halifax)Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Johnson, WilliamPearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)Pirie, Duncan V.Young, William (Perth, East)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)Pointer, Joseph
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)Pollard, Sir George H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Gulland and Mr. Soares.

Keating, MatthewPonsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Kellaway, Frederick GeorgePower, Patrick Joseph


Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)Butcher, John George (York)Foster, Philip Staveley
Archer-Shee, Major MartinCarlile, Edward HildredGastrell, Major W. Houghton
Ashley, W. W.Cassel, FelixGibbs, George Abraham
Astor, WaldorfCastlereagh, ViscountGilmour, Captain John
Baird, J. L.Cator, JohnGoldsmith, Frank
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)Cave, GeorgeGordon, John
Balcarres, LordChaloner, Col. R. G. W.Grant, James Augustus
Baldwin, StanleyClay, Captain H. H. SpenderGreene, Walter Raymond
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy VictorClive, Percy ArcherGretton, John
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)Clyde, James AvonGuinness, Hon. Walter Edward
Barnston, H.Cooper, Richard AshmoleHall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)Courthope, George LoydHambro, Angus Vaidemar
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh HicksCraig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)Harris, Henry Percy
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)Craik, Sir HenryHelmsley, Viscount
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)Crichton-Stuart, Lord NinianHenderson, Major H. (Berkshire)
Bennett-Goldney, FrancisCroft, Henry PageHillier, Dr. Alfred Peter
Bigland, AlfredDairymple, ViscountHill-Wood, Samuel
Bird, AlfredDoughty, Sir GeorgeHohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Boyton, JamesDouglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Brassey, H. Leonard CampbellEyres-Monsell, Bolton M.Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)
Bridgeman, William CliveFell, ArthurHunt, Rowland
Bull, Sir William JamesFisher, William HayesHunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)
Burgoyne, Alan HughesFleming, ValentineJardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)
Burn, Colonel C. R.Forster, Henry WilliamKebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Kerr-Smiley, Peter KerrPeel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)Swift, Rigby
Kerry, Earl ofPerkins, Walter FrankTalbot, Lord Edmund
Knight, Captain Eric AyshfordPeto, Basil EdwardTerrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)Pole-Carew, Sir R.Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Lewisham,. ViscountPollock, Ernest MurrayTouche, George Alexander
Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)Pretyman, Ernest GeorgeTullibardine, Marquess of
Lockwood, Rt Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.Walker, Col. William Hall
Long, Rt. Hon. WalterQuilter, William Eley C.Weigall, Capt. A. G.
Mackinder, Halford J.Rawsen, Col. Richard H.Wheler, Granville C. H.
Malcolm, IanRemnant, James FarquharsonWhite, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Mills, Hon. Charles ThomasRice, Hon. Walter Fitz-UryanWilliams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Moore, WilliamRolleston, Sir JohnWilloughby, Major Hn. Claude
Morpeth, ViscountRonaldshay, Earl ofWilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)Rothschild, Lionel deWinterton, Earl
Mount, William ArthurRoyds, EdmundWolmer, Viscount
Neville, Reginald J. N.Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Newman, John R. P.Salter, Arthur ClavellWood, John Stalybridge
Newton, Harry KottinghamSanders, Robert ArthurWorthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Nicholson, William G. (Potersfield)Sanderson, LancelotWortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart.
Nield, HerbertScott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton)
Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)Smith, Harold (Warrington)Younger, George
O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)Spear, John Ward
Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.Stanier, Beville

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Colonel Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. Steel.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. WilliamStanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staffordshire)Maitland.
Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)Stewart, Gershom

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be postponed."

Division No. 58.]


[5.15 a.m.

Archer-Shee, Major MartinFoster, Philip StaveleyPerkins, Walter Frank
Ashley, Wilfrid W.Gastrell, Major W. HoughtonPeto, Basil Edward
Astor, WaldorfGibbs, George AbrahamPole-Carew, Sir R.
Baird, John LawrenceGilmour, Captain JohnPretyman, Ernest George
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)Goldsmith, FrankPryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Balcarres, LordGordon, JohnQuilter, William Eley C.
Baldwin, StanleyGrant, J. A.Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Banbury, Sir Frederick GeorgeGreene, Walter RaymondRemnant, James Farquharson
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy VictorGretton, JohnRice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)Guinness, Hon. Walter EdwardRolleston, Sir John
Barnston, HarryHall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)Ronaldshay, Earl of
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)Hambro, Angus VaidemarRothschild, Lionel de
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. C.)Harris, Henry PercyRoyds, Edmund
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh HickeHelmsley, ViscountRutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)Salter, Arthur Clavell
Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)Hillier, Dr. Alfred PeterSanders, Robert Arthur
Bennett-Goldney, FrancisHill-Wood, SamuelSanderson, Lancelot
Bigland, AlfredHohler, Gerald FitzroyScott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bird, AlfredHope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)Spear, John Ward
Boyton, JamesHunt, RowlandStanier, Beville
Brassey, H. Leonard CampbellHunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Bridgeman, William CliveJardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Bull, Sir William JamesKebty-Fletcher, J. RSteel-Maitland, A. D.
Burgoyne, Alan HughesKerr-Smiley, Peter KerrStewart, Gershom
Burn, Colonel C. R.Kerry, Earl ofSwift, Rigby
Butcher, John George (York)Knight, Capt. E. A.Talbot, Lord Edmund
Carlile, Edward HildredLawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Cassel, FelixLewisham, ViscountThomson, W. Mitchell. (Down, N.)
Castlereagh, ViscountLocker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)Touche, George Alexander
Cator, JohnLockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.Tullibardine, Marquess of
Cave, GeorgeLong, Rt. Hon. WalterWalker, Col. William Hall
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.Mackinder, Halford J.Weigall, Capt. A. G.
Clay, Captain H. H. SpenderMalcolm, IanWheler, Granville C. H.
Clive, Percy ArcherMills, Hon. Charles ThomasWhite, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Clyde, James Avor.Moore, WilliamWilliams, Col, R. (Dorset, W.)
Cooper, Richard AshmoleMorpeth, ViscountWilloughby, Major Hon. Claude
Courthope, George LoydMorrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)Mount, William ArthurWinterton, Earl
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)Neville, Reginald J. N.Wolmer, Viscount
Craik, Sir HenryNewman, John R. P.Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Crichton-Stuart. Lord NinianNewton, Harry KottinghamWood, John (Stalybridge)
Croft, Henry PageNicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Dairymple, ViscountNield, HerbertWortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart.
Doughty, Sir GeorgeNorton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)Younger, George
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton MOrde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Fell, ArthurOrmsby-Gore, Hon. William
Fisher, William MayesPease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Laurence Hardy and Mr. Pollock

Fleming, ValentinePeel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Forster, Henry WilliamPeel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 208.


Acland, Francis DykeHarvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)O'Malley, William
Adamson, WilliamHarvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Addison, Dr. ChristopherHaslam, Lewis (Monmouth)O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)Havelock-Allan, Sir HenryO'Sullivan, Timothy
Armitage, RobertHaworth, Arthur A.Palmer, Godfrey
Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)Hayden, John PatrickParker, James (Halifax)
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)Hayward, EvanPearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
Barton, WilliamHelme, Norval WatsonPearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.
Beale, William PhipsonHenderson, Arthur (Durham)Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)Henry, Sir CharlesPirie, Duncan V.
Bentham, George J.Higham, John SharpPointer, Joseph
Black, Arthur W.Hinds, JohnPollard, Sir George H.
Booth, Frederick HandelHobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Bowerman, C W.Holt, Richard DurningPower, Patrick Joseph
Brace, WilliamHorne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Brady, P. J.Hudson, WalterPriestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Brocklehurst, William B.Hughes, Spencer LeighPrimrose, Hon. Neil James
Brunner, John F. L.Illingworth, Percy H.Raffan, Peter Wilson
Burke, E. Haviland.Isaacs, Sir Rufus DanielRaphael, Sir Herbert Henry
Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnJohn, Edward ThomasRea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.Johnson, W.Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)Jones, E. R. (Merthyr Tydvil)Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Chancellor, Henry GeorgeJones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)Rendall, Atheistan
Chapple, Dr. William AllenJones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)Richards, Thomas
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Clancy, John JosephJones, W. S. Glyn. (T. H'mts., Stepney)Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Clough, WilliamKeating, MatthewRoberts, George H. (Norwich)
Clynes, John R.Kellaway, Frederick GeorgeRobertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)Kilbride, DenisRobinson, Sidney
Condon, Thomas JosephKing, Joseph (Somerset, North)Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)Rowlands, James
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)St. Maur, Harold
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Law, Hugh A.Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Crawshay-Williams, EllotLeach, CharlesSamuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Crumley, PatrickLevy, Sir MauriceSamuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)Lewis, John HerbertScanlan, Thomas
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)Lundon, T.Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dawes, James ArthurLynch, Arthur AlfredSeely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.
Delany, WilliamMacdonald, J. R. (Leicester)Sherwell, Arthur James
Dillon, JohnMacGhee, RichardSimon, Sir John Allsebrook
Doris, WilliamMacnamara, Dr. Thomas J.Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)
Duffy, William J.MacNeill, John Gordon SwiftSmyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)MacVeagh, JeremiahStanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)M'Curdy, Charles AlbertStrauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)Summers, James Woolley
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master ofM'Micking, Major GilbertSutton, John E.
Elverston, HaroldMarshall, Arthur HaroldTaylor, John W. (Durham)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)Mason, David M. (Coventry)Tennant, Harold John
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)Masterman, C. F. G.Thorne, G. R (Wolverhampton)
Essex, Richard WalkerMathias, RichardToulmin, George
Falconer, JamesMeagher, MichaelTrevelyan, Charles Philips
Farrell, James PatrickMeehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Fenwick, CharlesMond, Sir AlfredVerney, Sir Henry
Ferens, Thomas RobinsonMoney, L. G. ChiozzaWalters, John Tudor
Ffrench, PeterMontagu, Hon. E. S.Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Field, WilliamMooney, John J.Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace EdwardMorgan, George HayWardle, G. J.
Fitzgibbon, JohnMorrell, PhilipWebb, H.
Flavin, Michael JosephMunro, RobertWedgwood, Josiah C.
Furness, StephenMurray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Gelder, Sir William AlfredNeedham, Christopher T.Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Glanville, Harold JamesNeilson, FrancisWilliams, John (Glamorgan)
Goddard, Sir Daniel FordNolan, JosephWilliams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Goldstone, FrankNorman, Sir HenryWilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Greig, Colonel James WilliamO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Guest, Major Hon. C. H. (Pembroke)O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset. E.)O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Young, William (Perth, East)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)O'Dowd, John
Hackett, JohnO'Grady, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Gulland and Mr. Soares.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Various hon. Members propose Amendments for the purpose of giving a temporary operation to this Clause, and they propose to carry out that intention, some by Amendments at the beginning and some at the end of the Clause. I think the matter comes at the end of the Clause. The second Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Berks is in order.

The object of my Amendment is to change the direction of the money to the local taxation authorities instead of giving it to the Exchequer. The Clause will read as follows:—"Sub-section (1) of Section 91 of the principal Act (which provides for the payment of half of the proceeds of the duties on land values for the benefit of local authorities) shall, during the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twelve, cease to have effect, as though the words one half of were omitted therefrom."

I did not know the hon. Member desired to move that Amendment. Of course, there is no objection if he desires to move his Amendments altogether, but that raises the main subject of the Clause. If that is desired by the Committee, I have no objection.

On a point of Order, if that is raised and a decision is come to, will it preclude an Amendment limiting the Clause to a particular date, as proposed by various Amendments?

Then might I suggest that it is of great importance that the Amendment should be moved limiting this Clause to a particular date, and may I therefore appeal to my hon. Friend not to move his Amendment.

That would be most convenient. The Amendment of the hon. Member for South Salford would be a charge on the Exchequer, and that is out of order.

May I direct your attention to the proceedings which took place in this House with you in the Chair on 23rd June, 1909. I will read the extract. The hon. Member for Bolton moved in this instance that half of the duty should go to the local authorities—the proposal in the Bill then being that the whole should go into the Exchequer. The hon. Member for Durham, then Mr. Lambton, rose to a point of Order, and asked whether the Amendment was in accordance with the title of the Bill.

It is not necessary for the hon. Member to go farther. It is quite clear to me that was a case of interception. This is not a case of interception, but a charge on the Consolidated Fund, on which a resolution is required. The hon. Member's Amendment coming later on the Paper is in order.

May I suggest this is merely a question of distribution, and not a question of imposition?

moved to leave out the words "shall cease to have effect, and shall be deemed never to have had effect," and to insert instead thereof the words "not have effect until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirteen." I desire to move the Amendment standing in my name for the purpose of giving the Clause a definite limitation in time which apparently, by the statements of Members of the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is really in their own mind. They have always, whilst they have advocated this alteration, held out some hope that it might not be a permanent limitation of the Grant. This Amendment of mine limiting the Grant to two years raises the question definitely and once and for all. We may allow that at the present moment the Government have reasons for desiring that a temporary bargain should be come to in connection with the finance of the year. They have laid before us their views in connection with this bargain. They have pleaded that in consequence of not making any demand in connection with the cessation of the disqualification of the pauper relief they cannot go further at the present time. If we accept these arguments as a temporary reason, I think it is very desirable that we should distinctly place in this Finance Bill—and this is the first opportunity we have of saying what is the intention of this House our intention of limiting the time. I think that is going a good long way to meeting what the Government desire.

What we do desire to secure is that in this Clause there shall be an acknowledgment on the part of the House that in future these Land Duties shall go to the local authorities. That is the old pledge of the Government, and that is the pledge we desire to keep them to. Originally in the Debate on the Finance Bill we remember how the whole of these Land Duties were for the first time taken for the Imperial Exchequer, instead of—as it was always held out, and as recommended by the Royal Commission—going to the local authorities. I do not suppose there was any stronger speech made in connection with this matter than one made by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) in the discussion on the Finance Bill. He went so far as to say the whole of the Land Duties should go to the local authorities, and he put forward every argument he could possibly adduce to show that it was necessary the recommendations of the Royal Commission should be adhered to. The Government yielded at that time, and they gave half the Land Duties to the municipal authorities. On the next occasion when it came up we find the local authorities were again put off. When a further discussion on finance took place there was a suggestion that the money that was accruing should be given for this purpose, instead of for a diminution of other duties which they had relied on for their local resources. It was not really a fair offer, but still it was an endeavour on the part of the Government to meet the difficulties of the position. That was how we left it in the late autumn, of last year, and then when we came back to the House we had a new proposal in connection with this matter, which is enshrined in this Clause. Therefore, when we see that the Government all through has been extremely reluctant to grant this relief, it is very necessary for us to see if we cannot secure in this Clause some acknowledgment on the part of the Government that these local authorities should be able to look forward to having this relief to their rates. I am not very particular as to the actual date. I have put it at two years, but if the Government thought a year longer was necessary I do not see that a year or two makes much difference. What is really required is a definite statement that these taxes are to go to the local authorities in the end. That is a point that is felt very strongly throughout the country. I expect we shall have the old argument raised again as to the relief the Government are giving to the rates in regard to old age pensions, I can only again repeat the protest so often uttered from this side of the House at all events, namely, that when old age pensions had been acknowledged as an Imperial charge there was no right on the part of the Government to take credit for what might be saved to the rates by the change which had taken place. Even if we were to fall back from that position we could put forward the plea that it has been for a long time maintained that the Poor Law is undoubtedly an Imperial rather than a local charge. We could go further and point to figures which have been given in this House as showing that while increasing burdens have been put on local authorities, no real consideration has been given to their claims. From whatever point of view you look at it there can be no strength in the argument of the Government that they have given great relief to the rates.

I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman desires the House to clearly understand that a limited term is set to the operation of the Clause. I have had handed to me a manuscript Amendment of the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger), and a similar Amendment is down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro-Ferguson), the actual proposal of both these Amendments being not to limit the operation of this Clause to a definite date, but until Parliament otherwise determines. I addressed many arguments to the House when we were discussing this matter on the Second Reading in support of the view of the Government, which they held, and which they now hold, as to the justice of their proposal made by this Clause, and I do not intend at this moment to repeat those arguments, but I made a very definite statement, and it was this—that the Government meant this Clause to be one that would have merely temporary operation until the work of the committee, which we intend to set up at once, shall be completed, and the recommendations that committee makes for the future relations between the local authorities and the central Government can be embodied in a Bill, and I am ready to give a statutory pledge confirming that undertaking, and to accept the words proposed by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs, and the Member for Leith Burghs to insert into the Bill words providing that the operation of this Clause shall be until Parliament otherwise determines. That will be clearly showing what the intention of the Government is. It will give binding force to the declaration I make, and will be an earnest of the good faith and good intentions of the Government in this particular matter.

We recognise fully the conciliatory manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has just made the suggestion that he will accept certain Amendments, but he will forgive me reminding him when he says that his concession is an earnest of the good intentions of the Government that we are very familiar with the fate of good intentions. I admire his anxiety to avoid saying anything of a very controversial character, but we are not in a particular humour to put any great importance upon good intentions. This opens up a very wide question. My hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment has referred to the immediate effect of the proposals of the Government, but in his desire to abbreviate his remarks he has not referred the Government and the Committee to a very important feature of the case which was brought forward with very great force by more than one Member on the opposite side of the House when they were speaking on behalf of the corporations and county councils at a time when they found it easier than they do now to make their convictions and their votes fit each other. It is a feature which brings out one effect of the repeal of this provision, which is most serious to the local authorities. The Government themselves, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when challenged in regard to the Land Taxes with the allegation that their product would be very small and that they were going to make a great outlay of the nation's money to get a very poor return, told us, both in the House and in the country, that it was not so much the present yield of these Land Taxes that they relied upon but the future product—that they would grow, and grow rapidly, until they became a most valuable asset. Now no provision is made in this Clause or in the subsequent one for the restoration to the local authorities of the growth of the land taxes which would have been of great value to them had they received it. The Government based the whole of those taxes upon the theory that the increase in the value of property would have been the creation of the local authorities and municipalities. They are taking away these values from the municipalities and making a wholly inadequate contribution in lieu of them from the present, and they are taking no steps for the future. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury now assures us that he is ready to insert words providing that they shall remain in the hands of the Government only until Parliament otherwise determines. We were told in the Debate on local taxation that it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Commission or a Committee with reference to this question, and the right hon. Gentleman has referred to that to-night. Now the Member for Ashton suggested a limit of two years. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will not adopt that, and he proposes to put in extremely vague words which will say that the further changes are not to operate until the Government has had time for the Commission to report and for the Government then to decide what it will do. I am ready to give the Government every credit in the world for their intentions; but it is offering us a very poor security, and I think it can only be done in the way suggested by my hon. Friend.

Hon. Members opposite are surrendering now the entire policy which they supported by speeches and votes in the original Bill. The only way in which you can treat the local authorities fairly is by admitting the fact frankly that you are taking away from them that which has always been regarded by both sides, until this Bill was brought in, as their property, and making no restitution for what is their property, and, therefore, if they are entering into a bargain with the House of Commons they should not allow it unless restitution has to be made within a limited period. Surely that Amendment is only reasonable. It is more than reasonable, and merely expresses common justice to the local authorities. I do not want to repeat what has been said before, but I do profoundly regret that the rights of the county councils and municipalities and other authorities to this important source of local taxation should be taken away—it is the only source of revenue almost that the local authorities have left open to them. If they are unable to deal with this question now perhaps it is the last time they will have the chance. It is not too much to ask that you should impose a limit on the operations of the Act, and therefore enter into a direct contract with Parliament and the country that whilst you are responsible you will deal with the question, and if you are able to find some other source of taxation you will return this, which really belongs to them, to the local authorities, and will do your best to repair the injustice you are committing by this act.

We fully recognise the conciliatory tone with which the Secretary to the Treasury has spoken, but I think the words of his proposal are not so satisfactory as those of my hon. Friend. What do these words, "Until Parliament otherwise determines," really mean? They mean something of the same kind as the Government meant when they promised the immediate reform of local taxation. The present Government promised it. Last year they gave a definite promise, which they have not kept. They have shown really the way in which they regard the carrying out of a pledge in that matter. They have directly set aside what we were led to believe was the mandate of the people. I have always heard the Government claim that the Budget of 1909 was one which had received the explicit approval of the people of the country, not only in one, but in two, elections. One of the main clauses of that Budget was the allocation of half of these Land Taxes to the local authorities. I think it is a pretty well known fact that if the Government had not given way on that point during the discussion on the Land Taxes they could not have got the Land Taxes through. They only got them through because they conceded that to the expressed wishes of their own supporters as well as to Members on this side of the House and gave half of the proceeds of the Land Taxes to the local authorities. I could quote a great many of these promises from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and various other Gentlemen on these benches directly in favour of the proposal we now make. On the strength of that proposal their Budget was carried, and on the strength of that Clause in the Budget that Budget received the sanction, according to them, of the people. What do they do now? They did not go to the country and announce that they were going to repeal that provision. They waited till they got over what they thought might be an awkward election, and when they got back to the House they said "Now, we are going to repeal it." I do not think that is playing fair with the local authorities, and certainly not with the country. If they had gone to the country and announced what was their intention about this tax they would have come back with a very different majority from that they have. I do very strongly urge the Government to reconsider their decision and to accept the Amendments. The Government tell us that they have given such a sop to the local authorities by the payment of extra old age pensions that they are fully entitled to take away the half proceeds of the Land Taxes. They did not go to the country upon that ground either, because just before the election they took very great care to make provision for the payment of the first quarter of these additional old age pensions by direct grant from the Exchequer. It was then claimed what an extraordinary relief to the rates there would be because of this payment by the Exchequer. It is very well known that the Government would not have dared to go on with their proposals to make the local authorities pay half the cost of these pauper pensions, because every board of guardians in the country was up in arms against such an idea. We heard numerous speeches during the long hours of the passage of that Budget of what were to be the wonderful after-effects of these Land Taxes. In the first year, it was said, they would not produce much, but we were perhaps rash enough to believe that they would in years to come bring in a very substantial revenue. I believe that had a considerable effect on the votes of a good many hon. Gentlemen opposite, for they went to the constituencies and said that half the yield in the future was to go to the local authorities. The least the Government can do, if it really is essential in the interests of the financial arrangements of this year to deprive local authorities of what is their just due, is to accept the Amendment and make it perfectly clear that they are only taking away for one year what the country admits is really the right and the property of the local authorities.

I have been subjected to a double disappointment tonight. I certainly thought when the Financial Secretary got up early in the Debate that he was going to tell us that the Government would accept this Amendment. I always understood that the attitude of the Government towards this Amendment was this—that "it is quite true," they said, "we are taking away from local authorities some great benefit which we conferred upon them, but we are only taking that away as a temporary measure, and as a consideration for taking it away we are giving them a very great boon and benefit." If that is the attitude of the Government, if they are really perfectly honest in their intention of only taking this great benefit away from the local authorities for a short period whilst they can through this Parliamentary Committee solve this enormous problem of the readjustment of Imperial and local taxation, if they are really in earnest as to that, then why do not they put this limiting clause into the Bill? Why do not they definitely tell the local authorities that in two years' time they will revert to their old intention of giving them half, if they do not give them the whole, of the proceeds of those duties. Why do not they? Instead of that, the Financial Secretary gets up and says: "Oh, as an earnest of our intention we will put into the Bill until Parliament otherwise determines.'" That is not worth the paper it is written on. It is of exactly the same value as the specific pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would deal with the whole of this question this very year, and in a thorough manner. It is of exactly the same value as the promise made by the Leader of the party opposite in the House of Lords when he said that the Government, if returned to power—and they are returned to power—would deal with that question this Session.

What is the excuse for not dealing with it? Only that they have engaged in a quarrel with the House of Lords. And when they put in their Bill "until Parliament otherwise determines," what will happen? Next year will Parliament "otherwise determine"? Oh, dear no; we shall be told, if hon. Gentlemen opposite still guide the destinies of this country, that "We are engaged on a Home Rule Bill for Ireland; we could not possibly think of raising this Question on the floor of the House." And in the following Session, when we ask again, they will say, "Oh, no; we have a great measure for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Wales. We could not possibly think of dealing with this very large question now." It is precisely because we know this pledge is worth absolutely nothing that we treat it with scorn and contempt. My hon. Friend, who moved the Amendment, said to the Government, "If you will not limit the period to two years make some motion of your own to extend it. "He did not even ask them to limit it to two years." But, "say the Government," look at the splendid bargain that we are making with you; look at the magnificent gift that we are giving to the local authorities pending a settlement. And when is it going to settle? I should like to know a little more about this Departmental Committee.

Perhaps the night hon. Gentleman will remember that it is a month ago since he promised me this Departmental Committee. Perhaps he will be able to tell us to-night from what quarter he is going to draw the members of the committee. I see he nods his head and promises to give us some information. We are all anxious to have it. We want to know who are to serve on the committee, and above all we want to know what is to be the reference to the committee. We want to know whether this is going to be another Royal Commission, sitting for five years and taking a mass of evidence. We maintain that all the evidence is at the disposal of the Departmental Committee, and what we want is a small committee of experts, on which local authorities should be adequately represented, and that that committee should not have too wide a reference, but a reference which will enable it to report in a practical way at least within a year. If the committee is of that kind, and its reference is so limited that it can report within the year, why does not the Government put this limiting Amendment into their Clause. Why are they afraid of it. Can they expect us to believe that they are heart and soul with us in wishing to restore to the local authorities that source of revenue they have taken away from them. I can speak for the local authorities because I have been Chairman of the Finance Committee of the largest of them for three years.

We have been taunted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with not broadening our basis of taxation and finding new sources of revenue. What new sources of revenue could we have found except by rating land values of this description. They were the sources of revenue from which a good many municipalities thought they might derive great profit. Now they are to be ear-marked by the Government and taken away entirely from the local authorities. It is a mistake to tell local authorities that they ought to broaden their basis of taxation and seek new sources of revenue, when the one source of revenue of which the Government had promised to give them one half, they are going to take permanently away from them. I cannot help thinking that it is their intention to take it permanently away from them. I should not be at all surprised if they continued to hold that the bargain they have made with the local authorities is a very good one for the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday night made an attack on a certain report and figures issued over my name as Chairman of the Finance Committee of the London County Council. I believe he holds that report in his hand. He called it a very misleading statement. I think I heard him rather resent the charge when it was made against him of making a misleading statement. I equally resent the charge. Now I will compare my statement with his, and I will ask the Committee to judge which of us has made a misleading statement—which of us has misled the House and which of us have misled the ratepayers. I think the Committee will come to the conclusion that it is not I who have misled the ratepayers or the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that taking into account the decreased valuation of licensed premises there is a substantial and distinct benefit conferred on the London ratepayers in connection with this Clause.

I say there is a substantial and a distinct loss conferred upon the London ratepayers in connection with this Clause, and the right hon. Gentleman can check my statement. There is the loss to the London ratepayers from the financial operations of His Majesty's Government under the Finance Act. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said you must not put the whole of the decrease in licence value down to the Finance Act. Well, we can put most of it down to the Finance Act, if not the whole of it. It was on account of the decrease in the value of licensed property caused by the Finance Act that the appeals were made by licence holders to the Assessment Committee, and solely in consequence of the Finance Act that the assessments were lowered, and London loses to-day £157,000 a year. I think that is rather an under-estimate than an over-estimate. Let me tell the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there are 600 appeals pending at the present moment, and every one of these appeals, if successful, would increase the amount of the reductoin in the assessable value and increase the amount of loss to the London ratepayers from that cause. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury actually ignored this portion of the loss to the London ratepayers until certain interjections came from the Member for St. Pancras South (Captain Jessel) and the hon. Member for Mile End (Hon. H. Lawson), then he was content to take some notice of it. I think he might have mentioned it before. There is another source of loss in the moiety of the Land Value Duties, amounting to £100,000.

Because you are going to take them away. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury did put a question that is worth answering. He asked, "How do you arrive at £100,000 as the value of your moiety of these duties?" I will tell him. We arrived at it from figures supplied by himself, when in answer to a question in this House he estimated the yield of these duties for 1910–11 at£1,000,000 in the third year. The Act was postponed from 1910–11 to 1911–12, and you get £500,000 as the moiety of the Land Value Duties due to all local bodies. London is entitled to one-fifth of the total. She contributes one-fifth of the whole of Imperial taxation, and the assessable value of London would give us one-fifth again. So I say that on the figures supplied by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury we can fairly claim that London has lost £100,000 on that account. Adding these two losses together you get a total loss of £257,000 a year to the London ratepayers. On the other side what is London saving? The right hon. Gentleman complained of our figures, and said we had under-estimated them. There was good ground for our Estimates. He said we had under-estimated the savings from the relief to the Poor Law by the removal of the pauper disqualification and putting the paupers on the taxes instead of the rates. We have put it at £105,000. He said we ought to have put it at £117,000. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has one advantage over us; he was able to get figures from the Local Government Board not available to us. We gave the Estimate of £105,000 as the best one we could get from the sources at our disposal. I am willing, for the sake-of argument, to accept his figures, and to say that we shall get not £105,000 but £117,000 from that source. Then he quarrelled with the figure which we put in our Estimate—£47,000—as being the amount that would have to be made up for the shortage in the Spirit Tax. He said it ought to have been £57,000. I do not think he is right. It is a bare estimate, and is something in the nature of a guess, and I believe we are just as likely to be right as he is. We took that figure of £47,000 from figures supplied by himself, given by him on 20th February of this year, when he estimated the total deficiency he would have to make up at from £260,000 to £270,000, and the licence proportion of that would be £47,000, and not £57,000. But I will give him both his figures and the net loss to the London ratepayers works out at £83,000 per annum—London losing £257,000 a year and getting back £174,000. In the face of that the right hon. Gentleman has the temerity to assert in this House that, taking into account the decreased valuation of licensed premises there is a substantial and distinct benefit conferred upon the London ratepayer in connection with this. I say there is a substantial and distinct loss, and that I have amply proved to the House. If anyone has made a misleading statement it is not the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the London County Council, but the Gentleman who occupies the position of Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

As senior representative of one of the five greatest municipalities in England, I cannot remain silent on this occasion. The small distance which the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary has advanced in the direction of concession is a marked contrast in Parliamentary insight to that lamentable deficiency of Parliamentary insight shown by his Leader to-night. I rise to say that I am convinced that but for the special and exceptional conditions under which we are discussing this question, a very different result would be shown. We have that state of Parliamentary doggedness that blocks the position when an all-night sitting is going on. We have in the blue twilight now entering the windows of this Chamber evidence of the same conditions which beget the indifference with which the merits of this question are being regarded upon the other side of the House, but which I hope will be visited hereafter upon those who now disregard those municipal authorities for which, on other occasions they profess so much lip service and affection.

I have some right to speak on this subject, because in the Parliament of 1900, or even of 1895, I was in a fiduciary capacity the owner of the largest landed estate, and I voted for a measure which would have given to the municipalities some of this increment in land. I did so because I have always felt that if there is one essential improveable and local asset which belongs by right to local authorities, it is this increment value on land. What was expected by the country when they gave their sanction, in such fashion as they did give it, to the passing of the Budget of 1909–10. My hon. Friends will bear me out that some of us drew attention to the proposed distribution of this new value which is taken by the State. We said this giving back of half this—which was then promised—was not a real giving back. We said you will not get what you expect. We said it is impossible to devise a rational or equitable system of distribution. We pointed to the advocacy of the Scottish crofter and the Irish peasant in competition with municipal claims. But our representations were not listened to, and this very point to which attention was drawn was rejected. So far as the Budget of that time was supported it was supported in the belief that the municipalities were to receive half the amount and now in direct defiance of that popular verdict we have now come to this position. The right hon. Gentleman offered us some kind of a solatium and met us a bit in our demands. But there is this profound difference between what he offers and what my hon. Friend is asking for. What my hon. Friend is asking for will secure that which the right hon. Gentleman's proposal will not give us, and that is the certainty of a Parliamentary opportunity of discussing this question at an early time. The words the right hon. Gentleman offers us—"until Parliament shall otherwise order"—whether printed or not, are already in every Act of Parliament this House has passed. The right hon. Gentleman's offer is not worthy of our acceptance.

I desire, in supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend, to point out in regard to this important Amendment that the state of this House can hardly be called alert or bright when hon. Members are not only sleeping right and left, but are even lying down on the back benches.

The right hon. Gentleman told us this was a temporary measure, but I venture to think that anybody who has studied the history of this question must realise that the local authorities have no hope in the future of getting this money regranted to them. I venture to think that, considering the pledges given at the election by hon. Members opposite on the question of increment that the whole proceeding of altering their attitude afterwards is almost as immoral as continuing this Debate into the early hours of the morning. It is absolutely impossible to prove that this Increment Duty is a moral duty. The whole justification given for it on the platforms of hon. Members opposite was that as it was the community that built up this increment it would be returned to them—would be returned to those who, by their energies, had created it. Now we find these duties are to be taken from these communities and sent to places like Ireland where there are no energies of the community. The money which is raised in the great English cities will go to far-distant parts of the country. In the town of Bournemouth there are now 80,000 inhabitants where a hundred years ago there were only half that number, and therefore you will understand how this question of increment affects that great community. The hon. Member for East Dorset (Captain Guest) will agree with me that all the increment which has accrued in those parts is not in any way due to the work of landlords. According to his doctrines it is the community which has built it up. At the recent election it was stated from a thousand platforms, and especially in that part of the country, that there would be no injustice to these great growing communities because that money, or at least half of it, would return to the people who had built up those communities. I understood that was the argument which first appealed to those Scotchmen who hatched this plan and got it adopted by the Government. How they can, with any consistency, go back to their constituencies now and tell the people that this money is not to be returned I cannot possibly see. There can only be one reason why the Government is taking this course in the early hours of the morning without any possibility of the public knowing what is going on, and that is that they are afraid the public should see their complete change of policy and breaking of pledges, and understand the full extent of their infamy. I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent urban areas to remember when they go into the lobby on this occasion the pledges they gave on a thousand platforms.

I think it is quite obvious to all of us why this Bill is still being continued under discussion, and why we have to discuss this Clause at this hour of the morning. It is because the Government dare not face the light of day on this question. The point before the Committee is the repeal of the Clause in the Finance Bill by which municipalities were given one half of these Land Duties, and the point, to my mind, is whether that repeal should be permanent or temporary. I have given a large amount of study to this subject for a considerable number of years. I seconded a Bill here in 1904, proposed by one of the present Members of the Government and supported by a great many Members on both sides of the House, and, I believe, Mr. Emmott, supported by yourself, and it was founded upon the principle that those who benefited by public works should pay the cost of them, and also upon the principle, which was equally true and equally important that the authorities which conferred a benefit should be the people who got the taxes. The taxes which were proposed on that occasion and several times before that were not exactly the same as the Land Taxes that were included in the last Budget. What was simply proposed in both cases was simply to alter the basis for local taxation. Both these differed from the principle of the taxes we are now considering, but the basis of both sets of taxes was the same. The allegation was that the site was improved in value by the efforts of somebody outside the actual owner of the site, and it was claimed that in consequence of the construction of roads, gas, water, parks, sewers, access, and other municipal amenities, the site value was improved, and that was the basis upon which it was contended that the owners of property should pay this tax. It was exactly upon that basis that it was contended that the municipalities and boroughs had done the work, and that they should be entitled to receive these taxes.

I took a considerable part in the discussion of the different clauses of the Finance Bill, and I listened very carefully to the whole of the discussions in which I did not take part, and if there was one thing more than another which impressed itself upon my mind it was that the point which was distrusted in the Government proposals was that the Government was seeking to take over the whole of the Land Taxes and that was disapproved on both sides of the House. A large number of Liberal Members took that view strongly, and said, "You are doing the municipalities out of a source of revenue, and making it impossible for them in future years to alter the rating so as to get proper contributions from the people who ought to pay for these municipal amenities." What happened? A representation was made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he came and told us during the Debates what was taking place, and other Members told us of the Debates that were going on, and the representations that were made, and eventually a compromise was arranged, but not without many days of Debate and discussion, and not until there was a most formidable opposition to the Government from their own side of the House. That compromise was, "We will give you half. You shall have in the clauses of the Bill that the municipalities shall have half of these taxes." I believe that compromise was accepted in good faith by a large number of Members, particularly on the Government side of the House, who believed in the assurance which the Government gave, and they proceeded to vote for the Bill. I charge the Government now with deliberately breaking their promise, breaking their pledge, and breaking their word. The local authorities are the people who really ought to receive the whole of the taxes. I feel that the mere promise that has been made to us to-night that some words will be inserted in the Bill, that the repeal of this Clause will be made when Parliament shall so determine, is not worth much. Everything can be altered when Parliament so determines. It seems to me idle—I do not know whether the word I am going to use is Parliamentary or not—I would say it is most impudent to make this proposal to the House. Is it intended to make a mockery of us by offering something which means nothing at all? First of all we are asked to accept some alternative donation.

We are told the Poor Law authorities are to be relieved from some claim that was going to be made upon them that they should contribute to old age pensions. What has that got to do with the municipalities? I have been a Member for many years now of one of the largest municipalities in the Kingdom, and I have taken an active part in its administration. We have nothing to do with the boards of guardians. The whole Poor Law system really ought to be a national affair. But we are seeking in this case for our own. I have only one further observation to make, and that is that the very simplest illustration will show anybody who is prepared to think about it that the way in which I am endeavouring to put it is right. You take a piece of barren land in the middle of Derbyshire or Argyllshire. It is valueless to-day, and was valueless fifty years ago, and will be valueless fifty years hence. Why? The State has done nothing for that piece of land; has done no more for it than for any other piece of land. What has been done, or may be done, to increase the value of the land? It is the neighbourhood. It is the amenities. It is the local energies, the local conditions, that have increased the value of the land. If it was the State that did it every piece of land would have equally increased in value. It is for the very reason that the value has to be ascribed to local effort, local conditions and local expenditure, that the local authorities are really entitled to the whole benefit of these taxes. It is a most important matter, and I am very sorry I am unable at this hour of the morning to adequately express what I feel about it, and I apologise to you and to the House for detaining you so long.

Whether the Committee quite realises it or not this Clause pledges the whole future of local taxation in this country, and the Amendment involves the whole principle of the Clause. Well, the Mover of the Amendment has made his appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary to the Treasury has made his answer. I do not know whether the Home Secretary knows of that answer. I do not know whether he endorses it. He has promised the words, the futility of which has been demonstrated, "until Parliament otherwise determines." We know, of course, that Parliament will always determine that the arrangement shall stand. But there is the second part of the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman. He pledges that there shall be a Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the allocation of this money as between local authorities. There is no subject upon which there have been so many inquiries as local taxation. Since 1834 there have been dozens of Committees and Royal Commissions, and hardly one of their recommendations has ever been carried out. In the history of taxation there is no more discreditable chapter than that which deals with the question of local taxation. Grants have been made, not upon any principle, but merely to suit the party expediency of the moment.

What I want to ask the Home Secretary is, "Is this Committee to be definitely instructed to arrange for a fair apportionment of the grants, the assigned revenues, under the new arrangement as between the local authorities of the country. "The difficulty is, really, to discuss this at this time. I do not want to labour the point, when, as we can see, Members are thoroughly weary and unable to—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Dozens of them have been asleep on the benches. I cannot forget the evidence of my own eyes. After all, there are great issues involved. My hon. Friend the Member in front of me brought forward the case of London. In London we pay one-fifth of the rates of the whole country. It has long been the whipping boy of local taxation; we have always suffered; London has always suffered. She is struck at now by the Government worse than ever before. Instead of getting relief we are incurring a great loss, and those parts which suffer most are the poorest parts. I should like to appeal to those below the Gangway, who speak for the working class, and ask them what they say of the new burdens that are going to be placed on the greatest working-class city in the world. I want to point out one or two of the reasons why London suffers. Of course, this disqualification of paupers for old age pensions has been removed, and the local authorities are to reap the benefit. But London gains much less than any other part of the country in that respect. According to the last report of the President of the Local Government Board, in London we have two in-door paupers to every one in receipt of out-door relief.

In the country there is only one Indoor pauper for every two in receipt of out-door relief. It is the aged poor who have been in receipt of out-door relief who will take these pensions. That is one serious fact. There is another just as serious. I do not know why there should be scoffing below the Gangway at the poor of London, for whom I can speak. I represent the poorest part of the East End. London suffers most in the withdrawal of the Land Taxes. London, after all, is the place where there have been most arrears of local government to be made up. I have always been in favour of the taxation of land values for local purposes. I sat twenty years ago on a Committee which recommended it to this House. It is in London that we should gain most money from the duty on reversions, because in London the reversionary system has full play. The short leasehold system is the rule in London; it is even called the London system, as opposed to the feu system of Scotland and the chief rents of the North of England. We are sacrificing the whole of our future gains from the duty on reversions. It means more than the Secretary to the Treasury will allow. He knows very well, but will not disclose it. The Treasury is making a very good bargain. London is making a worse bargain at this time than it has ever made before. London has been the city of woe with respect to local taxation. We have had the worst of every arrangement made by the Imperial Exchequer. I hope I have not wearied the House in pointing this out. I have tried to discuss the matter without any party acrimony. I wanted to make a practical, not a polemical, speech. I ask for a pledge from the Home Secretary that the Departmental Committee shall have definite instructions to apportion the revenue fairly as between the local authorities, and especially to do justice to the special claims of the County of London. All local exchequers are hit but London hardest of all.

I feel very strongly on this matter, because I represent a borough where the rates are particularly high through no misfortune of the present local legislators. These rates have been raised to the extent of something like a penny owing to the diminution in the value of the licensed premises brought about by the People's Budget of 1909. And we now find that the borough is to be deprived of that sum of money which it was definitely promised by the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer out of the proceeds of the Land Taxes. Under these circumstances I do feel that one is justified even at this hour in pressing the claims not only on behalf of the borough I represent, but on behalf of every urban authority in this country. I am not going to ask you to cast your minds back 100 years, but I am going to ask the House to cast their minds back to July, 1910, when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer met a deputation of the Association of Municipal Corporations. He there gave us, if I may say so, a fair example of those pledges which the Government know so well how to give before an election and how to break after the election. At the meeting of the deputation the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the fact that the corporations of England would receive from the Treasury a sum of £600,000 per annum for improvements in roads. This is not perhaps the time to inquire whether the municipal authorities have received that sum; we shall have an opportunity of discussing that later. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say that that year—1909–10—he would be able to hand over to the municipal authorities £250,000 in respect of half the Land Taxes which were due under that Budget. He thus pledged himself to hand over a quarter of a million of money in respect of the past year, and he distinctly told the deputation that the next year—1910–11—he estimated the yield of the Land Taxes would be at least double—that is £500,000 per annum. In spite of the definite pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are now asked to vote for a measure which will deprive the local authorities of every penny of the £500,000 the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised them only a few months ago. I would also remind the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer told this deputation that this sum would far more than compensate them for any possible reduction in the revenue of local authorities which might result from depression in the rateable value of licensed premises. I can only say that if this proposal is passed it is one of the grossest breaches of public pledges ever given by a public representative to any public authority. [Interruption.] Hon. Members below the Gangway by their impertinent interruptions—

I entirely deprecate these noises coming from below the Gangway. The language used by the hon. Member is quite unparliamentary.

Are hon. Members below the Gangway, whatever their feelings may be, entitled to copy animals?

I will withdraw the word, but the Committee will agree that I had great provocation, and I do suggest to hon. Members below the Gangway that in attempting to imitate any speaker in this House they are bringing discredit to their party and to this House. What I was going to say when I was interrupted was that it is a matter of great regret that we have not present the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has given these promises broadcast during the last few years, and I say, without meaning any offence to the Secretary to the Treasury that he must perforce take his orders on these things, and whatever Amendment we propose, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is no chance of getting them adopted. In view of the history of the question, in view of the fact that no less than three times have the Government brought in different proposals and in view of the fact that they are endeavouring to rush these important proposals through the House at this hour of the day, I say that the charge levelled against them the other day by the Leader of the Opposition is more than ever confirmed, namely, that they are embarking upon a campaign of fraud in the country and of coercion in this House.

Surely after the denunciations we have heard the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will withdraw the ridiculous Amendment, which he cannot seriously have supposed would give any satisfaction to hon. Members on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman declared that it was the intention of the Government not to withdraw these taxes permanently from the local authorities. On Tuesday last he said he wanted to make it perfectly clear, and he repeated the principles which the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down when speaking in the Debate on the financial resolutions, namely, that while they could not say that the Bill was to be confined to the current year or next year, it was clear that it was not a permanent settlement. Now, when it came to an Amendment to make that perfectly clear they declined to accept it. To-night we have brought home to the Government a most astonishing crop of broken promises—it is a longer list than was ever brought home to any Government before them—I make it four. First of all they promised a full discussion of this Bill.

I will certainly endeavour to do so. It must be admitted that the provocation we have had has been very great. By accepting this Amendment the Government have broken a pledge to meet the exigencies of the moment; It has been pointed out that the Clause as it stands is a breach of faith with the electorate, many of whom undoubtedly gave their votes to the present Government in consequence of the belief that half the Land Taxes were going in relief of rates, and a breach of faith with the Members of this House, many of whom would have put many more difficulties in the way of the Government had it been thought that this proposal would have been embodied in the Budget.

7.0 A.M.

It has been pointed out already how the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) declared that in his opinion the whole of the Land Taxes should go to the local authorities. Now it seems as if it is not the hon. Gentlemen opposite who are toeing the line but that the hon. and learned Member is toeing the line. The hon Member for Islington expressed the same view. He brought in an Amendment at the time the Budget was before the House proposing that the whole and not half of the Land Taxes should be given to the local authorities. The Government put in half in order to secure the passage of their Budget, and, having secured its passage, they now propose to repeal the provision absolutely.

I am sorry I was unable to hear the statement which the Financial Secretary made earlier on this Amendment. But I think the Government must feel that they have given ground for the disappointment felt by local authorities as to their present attitude on this matter. After all, if the local authorities did expect a great deal from these taxes and set great store by the promise, it is because the Government boasted so loudly as to what these taxes were going to be. Again and again we were told they were going to be an unfailing source of revenue increasing from year to year, ever growing and never receding. When you have told the country that, when you have told the municipalities that, and have offered to go shares, can you wonder they are disappointed when you say, "No, we will enjoy all the great increase which is to come and you will be satisfied with what you have at this moment. I am quite sure that never have the great municipalities, and especially those which have been particularly interested in this matter, been so disappointed as when they found that the tax which was, so to speak, invented by municipal reform, which was regarded by them as being essentially a municipal source of revenue springing up within the particular local community itself, and which therefore that particular local community was entitled to enjoy, never have they been so disappointed as when they found their ideas taken, their money filched away, and they themselves, after all the promises made and after the concession introduced in order to carry the Budget, now become law, deprived of even one penny of the revenue this taxation produces. What is the justification of the Government for doing this? That is really what I rose to ask the Committee to consider for one moment. It is, I think,

Division No. 59.]


[7.0 a.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)Armitage, RobertBentham, George Jackson
Acland, Francis DykeBarran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)Black, Arthur W.
Adamson, WilliamBarry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)Booth, Frederick Handel
Addison, Dr. ChristopherBarton, WilliamBowerman, Charles W.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)Brace, William

an aspect of the question which has not been touched in the Debate so far.

I understand the real plea of the Government is that as they are relieving the ratepayers of the charge of certain paupers by giving them the old age pension, therefore they are entitled to get a return for that, and instead of paying over this money to the ratepayers and then exacting other money from them towards the cost of old age pensions, they set off the one against the other, and make no cross payment. Is that what the Committee really want? Members who were in the House when the Old Age Pensions Bill was introduced, or those who remember the discussions before or since in the country, will, I think, agree that there was no point on which more stress was laid than that the new pensions should have nothing to do with the odium of pauperism. Suggestions were made in some quarters that pensions might be paid through the guardians. It was repeated by almost everybody in this House that they wanted the old age pensions to be wholly divorced from the odium of pauperism. Well, if that is so—and I do not think a single Member will dispute it—what are you doing now? You are in fact setting off the relief the guardians may get against the old age pensions You are, in fact, taking a contribution from the ratepayers just as much as if you charged it directly on the Poor Kate. You are bringing the old age pensions into exactly that connection with the Poor Rate that you wished to avoid. I hope, even at this moment, the Government will return to their earlier intentions and, at least, give half of this to the local authorities. They ought to have given the whole. If they had I think they might have arranged their taxes much more simply, with much less hardship to individuals and with more benefit to the community and to themselves. If they will not give the whole, I hope they will give the half, as they promised.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 132.

Brady, Patrick JosephHenderson, Arthur (Durham)Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Brocklehurst, William B.Henry, Sir Charles SolomonParker, James (Halifax)
Brunner, John F. L.Higham, John SharpPearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
Burke, E. Haviland.Hinds, JohnPearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.
Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnHobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)Pirie, Duncan V.
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)Hudson, WalterPointer, Joseph
Cawley, H T. (Lancs., Haywood)Hughes, Spencer LeighPollard, Sir George H.
Chancellor, Henry GeorgeIsaacs, Sir Rufus DanielPonsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Chapple, Dr. William AllenJohn, Edward ThomasPower, Patrick Joseph
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Johnson, WilliamPrice, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Clancy, John JosephJones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Clough, WilliamJones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)Primrose, Hon. Nell James
Clynes, John R.Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)Radford, George Heynes
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)Raffan, Peter Wilson
Condon, Thomas JosephJones, W. S. Glyn (T. H'mts., Stepney)Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry
Corbett, A. CameronKeating, MatthewRea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.Kellaway, Frederick GeorgeRedmond, John E. (Waterford)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Kilbride, DenisRedmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Crawshay-Williams, EliotKing, Joseph (Somerset, North)Rendall, Atheistan
Crumley, PatrickLambert, George (Devon, Molton)Richards, Thomas
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)Law, Hugh A.Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Dawes, James ArthurLawson, Sir W.(Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Delany, WilliamLeach, CharlesRobertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Dewar, Sir J. A.Levy, Sir MauriceRobinson, Sidney
Dillon, JohnLewis, John HerbertRoch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Doris, WilliamLundon, ThomasRowlands, James
Duffy, William J.Lynch, Arthur AlfredSt. Maur, Harold
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)MacGhee, RichardSamuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)MacNeill, John Gordon SwiftScanlan, Thomas
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master ofMacVeagh, JeremiahScott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Eiverston, HaroldM'Callum, John M.Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)M'Micking, Major GilbertSherwell, Arthur James
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)Mason, David M. (Coventry)Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Essex, Richard WalterMasterman, C. F. G.Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)
Falconer, JamesMathias, RichardSmyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
Farrell, James PatrickMeagher, MichaelSoares, Ernest Joseph
Fenwick, CharlesMeehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Ferens, Thomas RobinsonMond, Sir Alfred M.Summers, James Woolley
Ffrench, PeterMoney, L. G. ChiozzaTaylor, John W. (Durham)
Field, WilliamMontagu, Hon. E. S.Tennant, Harold John
Fitzgibbon, JohnMooney, John J.Toulmin, George
Flavin, Michael JosephMorgan, George HayTrevelyan, Charles Philips
Gelder, Sir William AlfredMorrell, PhilipUre, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Glanville, Harold JamesMunro, RobertVerney, Sir Harry
Goddard, Sir Daniel FordMurray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.Walters, John Tudor
Goldstone, FrankNeedham, Christopher T.Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)Neilson, FrancisWandle, G. J.
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)Nolan, JosephWebb, H.
Gulland, John WilliamNorman, Sir HenryWedgwood, Josiah C.
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Hackett, JohnO'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)O'Dowd, JohnWilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)O'Grady, JamesWilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Havelock-Allan, Sir HenryO'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Haworth, Arthur A.O'Malley, WilliamYoung, William (Perth, East)
Hayden, John PatrickO'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Hayward, EvanO'Shaughnessy, P. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Dudley Ward.

Helme, Norval WatsonO'Sullivan, Timothy


Archer-Shee, Major MartinBurn, Colonel C. R.Doughty, Sir George
Baird, John LawrenceButcher, John GeorgeEyres-Monsell, Bolton M.
Balcarres, LordCarlile, Edward HildredFell, Arthur
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy VictorCassel, FelixFisher, William Hayes
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)Castlereagh, ViscountFleming, Valentine
Barnston, HarryCator, JohnFoster, Philip Staveley
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.Gibbs, George Abraham
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)Gilmour, Captain John
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh HicksClay, Captain H. H. SpenderGoldsmith, Frank
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)Clive, Percy ArcherGordon, John
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)Clyde, James AvonGrant, J. A.
Bennett-Goldney, FrancisCooper, Richard AshmoleGreene, Walter Raymond
Bigland, AlfredCourthope, George LoydGretton, John
Bird, AlfredCraig, Captain James (Down, E.)Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward
Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)Hall, D. B (Isle of Wight)
Boyton, JamesCrichton-Stuart, Rt. Hon. Lord NinianHambro, Angus Vaidemar
Bridgeman, William CliveCroft, Henry PageHardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)
Burgoyne, Alan HughesDairymple, ViscountHenderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Hill-Wood, SamuelNicholson, William G. (Petersfield)Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Hohler, Gerald FitzroyNield, HerbertStaveley-Hill, Henry
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)Stewart, Gershom
Hunt, RowlandOrde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.Swift, Rigby
Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)Ormsby-Gore-Hon. WilliamTalbot, Lord Edmund
Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.Perkins, Walter FrankTouche, George Alexander
Kerr-Smiley, Peter KerrPeto, Basil EdwardTullibardine, Marquess of
Kerry, Earl ofPole-Carew, Sir R.Walker, Col. William Hall
Knight, Capt. Eric AyshfordPollock, Ernest MurrayWeigall, Capt. A. G.
Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)Pryce-Jones, Col. E.Wheler, Granville C. H.
Lewisham, ViscountQuilter, William Eley C.White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)Rawson, Col. Richard H.Williams, Col. R. Dorset, W.)
Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-UryanWilloughby, Major Hon. Claude
Long, Rt. Hon. WalterRonaldshay, Earl of.Winterton, Earl
Mackinder, Halford J.Rothschild, Lionel deWolmer, Viscount
Malcolm, IanRoyds, EdmundWood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Mills, Hon. Charles ThomasRutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Moore, WilliamSalter, Arthur ClavellWorthington-Evans, L.
Morpeth, ViscountSanders, Robert ArthurWortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)Sanderson, LancelotYate, Col. C. E.
Mount, William ArthurScott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)Younger, George
Neville, Reginald J. NSmith, Harold (Warrington)
Newman, John R. P.Spear, John Ward

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease.

Newton, Harry KottinghamStanier, Beville

Question, "That the words, cease to have effect, stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Remaining words omitted.

Division No. 60.]


[7.20 a.m.

Archer-Shee, Major MartinFoster, Philip StaveleyPerkins, Walter Frank
Ashley, Wilfrid W.Gibbs, George AbrahamPeto, Basil Edward
Astor, WaldorfGilmour, Captain JohnPole-Carew, Sir R.
Baird, John LawrenceGoldsmith, FrankPollock, Ernest Murray
Balcarres, LordGordon, JohnPryce-Jones, Col. E.
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy VictorGrant, James AugustusQuilter, William Eley C.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)Greene, Walter RaymondRawson, Col. Richard H.
Barnston, HarryGretton, JohnRice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)Guinness, Hon. Walter EdwardRonaldshay, Earl of
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)Rothschild, Lionel de
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh HicksHambro, Angus VaidemarRoyds, Edmund
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)Salter, Arthur Clavell
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)Hill-Wood, SamuelSanders, Robert Arthur
Bennett-Goldney, FrancisHohler, Gerald FitzroySanderson, Lancelot
Bigland, AlfredHope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bird, AlfredHome, Wm, E. (Surrey, Guildford)Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.Hunt, RowlandSpear, John Ward
Boy ton, JamesHunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)Stanier, Beville
Bridgeman, William CliveJardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Bull, Sir William JamesKebty-Fletcher, J. R.Staveley-Hill, Henry
Burgoyne, Alan HughesKerr-Smiley, Peter KerrSteel-Maitland, A. D.
Burn, Colonel C. R.Kerry, Earl ofStewart, Gershom
Butcher, John GeorgeKnight, Captain Eric AyshfordSutton, John E.
Carlile, Edward HildredLawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)Swift, Rigby
Cassel, FelixLewisham, ViscountTalbot, Lord Edmund
Castlereagh, ViscountLocker-Lampson, O. (Hunts, Ramsey)Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Cator, JohnLockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.Touche, George Alexander
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.Long, Rt. Hon. WalterTullibardine, Marquess of
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)Mackinder, Halford J.Walker, Col. William Hall
Clay, Captain H. H. SpenderMalcolm, IanWeigall, Capt. A. G.
Clive, Percy ArcherMills, Hon. Charles ThomasWheler, Granville C. H.
Clyde, James AvonMoore, WilliamWhite, Maj. G. D. (Lanc. Southport)
Clynes, John R.Morpeth, ViscountWilliams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cooper, Richard AshmoleMorrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Courthope, George LoydMount, William ArthurWilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)Neville, Reginald J. N.Winterton, Earl
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)Newman, John R. P.Wolmer, Viscount
Crichton-Stuart, Lord NinianNewton, Harry KottinghamWood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Croft, Henry PageNicholson, William G. (Petersfield)Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Dairymple, ViscountNield, HerbertWorthington, Evans, L.
Doughty, Sir GeorgeNorton-Griffiths, J.Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart.
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)Yate, Col. C. E.
Fell, ArthurOrde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.Younger, George
Fisher, William HayesOrmsby-Gore, Hon. William
Fleming, ValentinePease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. L. Hardy and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

Forster, Henry WilliamPeel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Question put, "That the words, 'not have effect until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirteen,' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 199.


Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Acland, Francis DykeHackett, JohnO'Malley, William
Adamson, WilliamHarcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Addison, Dr. ChristopherHarvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)O'Sullivan, Timothy
Armitage, RobertHavelock-Allan, Sir HenryPalmer, Godfrey Mark
Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)Haworth, Arthur A.Parker, James (Halifax)
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)Hayden, John PatrickPearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
Barton, WilliamHayward, EvanPearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)Helme, Norval WatsonPease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Bentham, George JacksonHenderson, Arthur (Durham)Pirie, Duncan V.
Black, Arthur W.Henry, Sir Charles SolomonPointer, Joseph
Booth, Frederick HandelHigham, John SharpPollard, Sir George H.
Bowerman, Charles W.Hinds, JohnPonsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Brace, WilliamHobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.Power, Patrick Joseph
Brady, Patrick JosephHorns, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Brocklehurst, William B.Hudson, WalterPriestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Brunner, John F. L.Hughes, Spencer LeighPrimrose, Hon. Neil James
Burks, E. Haviland.Illingworth, Percy H.Radford, George Heynes
Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnIsaacs, Sir Rufus DanielRaffan, Peter Wilson
Carr-Gomm, H. W.John, Edward ThomasRaphael, Sir Herbert Henry
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)Johnson, WilliamRea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Chancellor, Henry GeorgeJones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Chapple, Dr. William AllenJones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)Rendall, Atheistan
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)Richards, Thomas
Clancy, John JosephKeating, MatthewRichardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Clough, WilliamKellaway, Frederick GeorgeRoberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)Kilbride, DenisRoberts, George H. (Norwich)
Condon, Thomas JosephKing, Joseph (Somerset, North)Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Corbett, A. CameronLambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)Robinson, Sidney
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Law, Hugh A.Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Crawshay-Williams, EliotLeach, CharlesRowlands, James
Crumley, PatrickLevy, Sir MauriceSt. Maur, Harold
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)Lewis, John HerbertSamuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)Lundon, ThomasSamuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Dawes, James ArthurLynch, Arthur AlfredSamuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Delany, WilliamMacdonald, J. R. (Leicester)Scanlan, Thomas
Dewar, Sir J. A.MacGhee, RichardScott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridge)
Dillon, JohnMacnamara, Dr. Thomas J.Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.
Doris, WilliamMacNeill, John Gordon SwiftSherwell, Arthur James
Duffy, William J.MacVeagh, JeremiahSimon, Sir John Allsebrook
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)M'Callum, John M.Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)
Edwards, Allen Clement (Glamorgan, E.)M'Micking, Major GilbertSmyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)Mason, David M. (Coventry)Soares, Ernest Joseph
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)Masterman, C. F. G.Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master ofMathias, RichardSummers, James Woolley
Elverston, HaroldMeagher, MichaelTaylor, John W. (Durham)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)Tennant, Harold John
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)Mond, Sir Alfred M.Toulmi, George
Essex, Richard WalterMoney, L. G. ChiozzaTrevelyan, Charles Philips
Falconer, JamesMontagu, Hon. E. S.Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Farrell, James PatrickMooney, John J.Verney, Sir Harry
Fenwick, CharlesMorgan, George HayWalters, John Tudor
Ferens, Thomas RobinsonMorrell, PhilipWard, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Ffrench, PeterMunro, RobertWardle, George J.
Field, WilliamMurray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.Webb, H.
Fitzgibbon, JohnNeedham, Christopher T.Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Flavin, Michael JosephNeilson, FrancisWhite, Patrick (Meath, North)
Gelder, Sir William AlfredNolan, JosephWhyte, A. F. (Perth)
Glanville, Harold JamesNorman, Sir HenryWilliams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Goddard, Sir Daniel FordO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Goldstone, FrankO'Connor, John (Klidare, N.)Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Young, William (Perth, East)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)O'Dowd, John
Gulland, John WilliamO'Grady, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. William Jones.

For the purpose of keeping the undertaking I gave my hon. Friend earlier in the proceedings, I beg to move in place of the words left out to insert the words, "to be suspended in its operation as from the day of the principal Act until Parliament will otherwise determine."

You were good enough, Mr. Chairman, to say that the Amendment I had put down was in order. With the addition of one or two words it-would meet the case.

The Amendment is now out of order, as I explained to the hon. Member privately. I stated to the Committee previously that it was in order on the technical point of interception, but it seems to me we have now decided the question which the Amendment raises. We have decided that part of the money should not go to local authorities. I do not see how we can now decide that the whole should go to them. That is the reason the Amendment is out of order.

It seems to me that the Amendment of the Government is worth nothing at all. It is a mere mockery. We have had far more definite pledges in the Debates on the Finance Bill of 1909. I have taken the trouble to look it up, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged himself in the most definite way that this money would be put aside and earmarked and only spent for the purposes of the focal authorities. His difficulty was that he could not allocate it to any fund for the local authorities, but they regarded it as being as good as paid over to them. He got the tax by the methods of quicklime instead of the methods of butter. He said he would submit the matter to a Departmental Committee, but we can measure the value of that by the preference of the promises with regard to local taxation. We know what that meant in the past. We cannot expect that the Departmental Committee will have more attention given to its Report than the Report of the Royal Commission received. That Commission was appointed by a Liberal Government seventeen years ago, and they took no notice of its Report, and they will take no more notice of the less important Departmental Committee. There is one point which, I think, has not been mentioned. The Government are taking credit for a grant of money which is not made to the rating authorities at all. The Government say that because they are helping the boards of guardians towards the cost of paupers that therefore the county and borough councils are to forego this relief to which they are entitled under the Act of 1909.

That question has been settled. The question now is whether these words are to be inserted or not.

I can see that it is impossible at present for the Government to state the details. They cannot obviously say now whether the money is to be allocated on a rateable value or on population. We do not ask that they should settle that for the moment, but we do say that surely to put these words in is worse than nothing. It will, perhaps, throw dust into the eyes of the local authorities, who still have some faith in Government promises. To that extent it will discredit the agitation which would otherwise be inevitable against the very sharp practice of the Government in taking back that money which practically had been given to the local authorities already. The land values have not been created by the Government; they have been created by the local authorities. Already the local authorities are getting less benefit than that to which they are strictly entitled, because they would have shared the land values not only with the urban communities who created them, but with the whole of the local authorities throughout the country, even those who had nothing to do with the increased value of urban sites. It seems to me that the compromise proposed on this side of the House is a very generous one on the part of local authorities.

I cannot allow the hon. Member to proceed on that. That matter is not before the Committee. There is a blank in the Bill, and it is proposed to fill that with the words proposed by the Financial Secretary. The hon. Member keeps referring to discussions now closed by the decision of the Committee. He hungers for the old words, but that matter is now settled.

These words are absolutely useless; they mean nothing whatever. Every Act of Parliament is binding "until Parliament otherwise determines." For the Government to contend that in this way they are in any sense fulfilling their pledges to-local authorities is mere nonsense. I represent one of the largest boroughs in the kingdom, and what I want to say is this: that they, in common with all other boroughs and urban authorities, have expected to receive considerable benefit from these taxes. They have had every reason to expect that benefit. Less than a year ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer, receiving a deputation from the Association of Municipal Corporations, used these words: "We have definitely allocated half the amount towards local expenditure." What is the meaning of the word "definitely"? He meant that he was not going back upon it. Surely the Government must realise that great expectations have been built up? Then, a little later, on 27th September of last year, when he came to the question of allocating this money, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in this House that he did not see his way to provide a scheme of allocation immediately, but he added: "I do not think this will make any serious difference in regard to the localities." And what has been the difference? Why, the most serious of all differences. Money is now to be taken away "until Parliament otherwise determines." I think it is an absolute mockery to insert words of that sort. It would have been better to have left the Clause as it was. It is simply throwing dust into the eyes of the municipalities; it is nothing but window-dressing. I say, in fact, that we do not thank the Government in the least for these words. But we claim this: if there are any Land Taxes at all the only fair justification for them is this—that local improvements may be paid for by the special tax upon land in the neighbourhood. And not half of them, but all of them should be paid thus, and not when Parliament further determines, but immediately.

I do hope that the Government will really reconsider this. These words are not merely futile, but unmeaning; they are, I think, deliberately, misleading and delusive. They are intended to produce an impression which does not exist, namely, that this is a mere temporary measure. You have told us several times to-night that this deprivation of money from the borough councils and county councils is temporary. Then why do not you introduce words in the Bill that say so? May I suggest to the Government an alteration if they will not take this straightforward and honest course? Let them try a preamble. Might I suggest the terms of the preamble?

"Whereas it is intended at some future time, which this House is unable to name, to hand over half these proceeds of the Land Taxes to the local authorities, but such process cannot immediately be brought into operation."
Really, if you ask us to put in words like "until Parliament otherwise determines," it is perfectly ridiculous. If the Government are really in earnest, if they mean that this taking away of money is only temporary, why not say so in fair and honest terms.

I desire to protest against the Amendment. The Home Secretary has at least been consistent in going against the explicit statements by his colleagues once again. There

Division No. 61.]


[7.45 a.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)Barton, William
Acland, Francis DykeArmitage, RobertBenn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)
Adamson, WilliamBarran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)Bentham, George Jackson
Addison, Dr. ChristopherBarry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)Black, Arthur W.

was a more or less explicit statement in the first place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would not anticipate a searching inquiry and a rearrangement of our local and central finance. That has been anticipated by the Clause in its first form. In the second place, he said he would deal with it immediately. That has been flatly contradicted by the suspensory Amendment. The promise was perfectly explicit. The right hon. Gentleman said, "It is perfectly clear that local and Imperial finance has got to be dealt with in a very thorough, and I should say, a very searching way." It is a very thorough and searching way in which Clause 10 deals with it. The right hon. Gentleman went on, "And I think it would be a mistake to anticipate the lines on which they will be dealt with, and on which we propose to legislate by including in this Bill anything in the nature of a complete and full allocation of the funds." I have seen a great many people interested in the matter, and they are all opposed to defining the lines of the apportionment; they want it to be dealt with at a future date." The right hon. Gentleman deprecated any anticipation. That anticipation has been carried out in the Clause as it stood. He led us all to believe that it would be dealt with soon, and now this Amendment means that it is to be postponed in perpetuity, or until such time as the Government think fit to determine. I wish to ask the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) whether he proposes to support the Government on this Clause, and whether his colleagues are also willing to support either the Clause or the Government's Amendment. The hon. Member has declared that he thought the whole amount ought to be handed back to the local authorities. Does he propose to support the Government in an Amendment which carries out a principle exactly the contrary of what he himself has supported in this House?

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 128.

Booth, Frederick HandelHayden, John PatrickO'Sullivan, Timothy
Bowerman, Charles W.Hayward, EvanPalmer, Godfrey Mark
Brace, WilliamHelme, Norval WatsonParker, James (Halifax)
Brady, Patrick JosephHenderson, Arthur (Durham)Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
Brocklehurst, William B.Henry, Sir Charles SolomonPearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.
Brunner, John F. L.Higham, John SharpPease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Burke, E. Haviland.Hinds, JohnPirie, Duncan V.
Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnHobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.Pointer, Joseph
Carr-Gomm, H W.Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)Pollard, Sir George H.
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)Hudson, WalterPonsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)Hughes, Spencer LeighPower, Patrick Joseph
Chancellor, Henry GeorgeIllingworth, Percy H.Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Chapple, Dr. William AllenIsaacs, Sir Rufus DanielPriestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.John, Edward ThomasPrimrose, Hon. Nell James
Clancy, John JosephJohnson, WilliamRadford, George Heynes
Clough, WilliamJones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)Raffan, Peter Wilson
Clynes, John R.Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Condon, Thomas JosephJones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)Keating, MatthewRedmond William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.Kellaway, Frederick GeorgeRendall, Atheistan
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Kilbride, DenisRichards, Thomas
Crawshay, Williams, EliotKing, Joseph (Somerset, North)Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Crumley, PatrickLambert, George (Devon, Molton)Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Dawes, James ArthurLawson, Sir W.(Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)Robinson, Sydney
Delany, WilliamLeach, CharlesRoch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)Levy, Sir MauriceRowlands, James
Dillon, JohnLewis, John HerbertSt. Maur, Harold
Doris, WilliamLundon, ThomasSamuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Dully, William J.Lynch, Arthur AlfredSamuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)Scanlan, Thomas
Edwards, Allen Clement (Glamorgan, E.)MacGhee, RichardScott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)MacNeill, John Gordon SwiftSherwell, Arthur James
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master ofM'Callum, John M.Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Elverston, HaroldM'Micking, Major GilbertSmith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)Mason, David M. (Coventry)Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S. I)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)Masterman, C. F. G.Soares, Ernest Joseph
Essex, Richard WalterMathias, RichardStrauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Falconer, JamesMeagher, MichaelSummers, James Woolley
Farrell, James PatrickMeehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)Sutton, John E.
Fenwick, CharlesMond, Sir Alfred M.Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Ferens, Thomas RobinsonMoney, L. G. ChiozzaTennant, Harold John
Ffrench, PeterMontagu, Hon. E. S.Toulmin, George
Field, WilliamMooney, John J.Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Fitzgibbon, JohnMorgan, George HayVerney, Sir Harry
Flavin, Michael JosephMorrell, PhilipWalters, John Tudor
Gelder, Sir William AlfredMunro, RobertWard, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Glanville, Harold JamesMurray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.Wardle, George J.
Goddard, Sir Daniel FordNeedham, Christopher T.Webb, H.
Goldstone, FrankNeilson, FrancisWedgwood, Josiah C.
Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)Nolan, JosephWhite, Patrick (Meath, North)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)Norman, Sir HenryWhyte, A. F.
Gulland, John WilliamO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Hackett, JohnO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)O'Dowd, JohnWilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)O'Grady, JamesWood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)Young, William (Perth, East)
Havelock-Allan, Sir HenryO'Malley, William
Haworth, Arthur A.O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Illingworth.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.


Archer-Shee, Major MartinBull, Sir William JamesCroft, Henry Page
Ashley, Wilfred W.Burgoyne, Alan HughesDairymple, Viscount
Astor, WaldorfBurn, Colonel C. R.Doughty, Sir George
Baird, John LawrenceButcher, John George (York)Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy VictorCarlile, Edward HildredFell, Arthur
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)Cassel, FellsFisher, William Hayes
Barnston, HarryCastlereagh, ViscountFleming, Valentine
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)Cator, JohnForster, Henry William
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.Gibbs, George Abraham
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh HicksChamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Wore'r)Gilmour, Captain John
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)Clay, Captain H. H. SpenderGoldsmith, Frank
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)Clive, Percy ArcherGordon, John
Bennett-Galdney, FrancisClyde, James AvonGrant, James Augustus
Bigland, AlfredCooper, Richard AshmoleGreene, Walter Raymond
Bird, AlfredCourthope, George LoydGuinness, Hon. Walter Edward
Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Boyton, JamesCraig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)Kambro, Angus Vaidemar
Bridgeman, William CliveCrichton-Stuart, Lord NinianHardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)Nield, HerbertStanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Hohler, Gerald FitzroyNorton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.Stewart, Gershom
Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)Ormsby-Gore, Hon. WilliamSwift, Rigby
Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)Touche, George Alexander
Kerr-Smiley, Peter KerrPerkins, Walter FrankTullibardine, Marquess of
Kerry, Earl ofPeto, Basil EdwardWalker, Col. William Hall
Knight, Captain Eric AyshfordPole-Carew, Sir R. (Cornwall, Bodmin)Weigall, Capt. A. G.
Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)Pollock, Ernest MurrayWheler, Granville C. H.
Lewisham, ViscountPryce-Jones, Col. E.White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc. Southport)
Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)Quilter, William Eley C.Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.Rawson, Col. Richard H.Willoughby, Major Hon. Clauds
Long, Rt. Hon. WalterRice, Hon. Walter Fitz-UryanWinterton, Earl
Mackinder, Halford J.Ronaldshay, Earl ofWolmer, Viscount
Malcolm, IanRothschild, Lionel deWood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Mills, Hon. Charles ThomasRoyds, EdmundWood, John (Stalybridge)
Moore, WilliamRutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Morpeth, ViscountSalter, Arthur ClavellWortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)Sanders, Robert ArthurYate, Col. C. E.
Mount, William ArthurSanderson, LancelotYounger, George
Neville, Reginald J. N.Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Newman, John R. P.Smith, Harold (Warrington)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Lord E. Talbot and Lord Balcarres.

Newton, Harry KottinghamSpear, John Ward
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)Stanier, Beville

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

Division No. 62.]


[7.54 a.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)Levy, Sir Maurice
Acland, Francis DykeEssex, Richard WalterLewis, John Herbert
Adamson, WilliamFalconer, JamesLundon, Thomas
Addison, Dr. ChristopherFarrell, James PatrickLynch, Arthur Alfred
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)Fenwick, CharlesMacdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Armitage, RobertFerens, Thomas RobinsonMacGhee, Richard
Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)Ffrench, PeterMacnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)Field, WilliamMacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Barton, WilliamFitzgibbon, JohnMacVeagh, Jeremiah
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)Flavin, Michael JosephM'Callum, John M.
Bentham, George JacksonGelder, Sir William AlfredM'Micking, Major Gilbert
Black, Arthur W.Glanville, Harold JamesMason, David M. (Coventry)
Booth, Frederick HandelGoddard, Sir Daniel FordMasterman, C. F. G.
Bowerman, Charles W.Goldstone, FrankMathias, Richard
Brace, William.Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)Meagher, Michael
Brady, Patrick JosephGuest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Brocklehurst, William B.Gulland, John WilliamMond, Sir Alfred M.
Brunner, John F. L.Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)Money, L. G. Chiozza
Burke, E. Haviland.Hackett, JohnMontagu, Hon. E. S.
Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnHarcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)Mooney, John J.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)Morgan, George Hay
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)Harvey, T. E. (Leods, West)Morrell, Philip
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs, Heywood)Havelock-Allan, Sir HenryMunro, Robert
Chancellor, Henry GeorgeHaworth, Arthur A.Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.
Chapple, Dr. William AllenHayden, John PatrickNeedham, Christopher T.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Hayward, EvanNeilson, Francis
Clancy, John JosephHelme, Norval WatsonNolan, Joseph
Clough, WilliamHenderson, Arthur (Durham)Norman, Sir Henry
Clynes, John R.Henry, Sir Charles SolomonO'Brien, Patrick, (Kilkenny)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)Higham, John SharpO'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Condon, Thomas JosephHinds, JohnO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Corbett, A. CameronHobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.O'Dowd, John
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)O'Grady, James
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Hudson, WalterO'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Crawshay-Williams, EliotHughes, Spencer LeighO'Malley, William
Crumley, PatrickIllingworth, Percy H.O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)Isaacs, Sir Rufus DanielO'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)John, Edward ThomasO'Sullivan, Timothy
Dawes, James ArthurJohnson, WilliamPalmer, Godfrey Mark
Delany, WilliamJones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)Parker, James (Halifax)
Dewar, Sir J. A.Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
Dillon, JohnJones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.
Doris, WilliamJones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Duffy, William J.Keating, MatthewPirie, Duncan V.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)Kellaway, Frederick GeorgePointer, Joseph
Edwards, Allen Clement (Glamorgan, E.)Kilbride, DenisPollard, Sir George H.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)King, Joseph (Somerset, North)Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)Power, Patrick Joseph
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master ofLambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Contral)
Elverston, HaroldLaw, Hugh A.Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)Leach, CharlesPrimrose, Hon. Nell James

The Committee divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 129.

Radford, George HeynesSamuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)Walters, John Tudor
Raffan, Peter WilsonScanlan, ThomasWard, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Raphael, Sir Herbert HenryScott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)Wardie, George J.
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.Webb, H.
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)Sherwell, Arthur JamesWedgwood, Josiah C.
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)Simon, Sir John AllsebrookWhite, Patrick (Meath, North)
Rendall, AtheistanSmith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Richards, ThomasSmyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)Soares, Ernest JosephWilliams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Roberts, George H. (Norwich)Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)Summers, James WoolleyWilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)Sutton, John E.Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Robinson, SidneyTaylor, John W. (Durham)Young, William (Perth, East)
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)Tennant, Harold John
Rowlands, JamesToulmin, George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. W. Jones.

St. Maur, HaroldUre, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)Verney, Sir Harry


Archer-Shee, Major MartinGibbs, George AbrahamPeto, Basil Edward
Ashley, Wilfrid W.Gilmour, Captain JohnPole-Carew, Sir R.
Astor, WaldorfGoldsmith, FrankPollock, Ernest Murray
Baird, John LawrenceGordon, JohnPryce-Jones, Col. E.
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy VictorGrant, J. A.Quilter, William Eley C.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)Greene, Walter RaymondRawson, Col. Richard H.
Barnston, HarryGuinness, Hon. Walter EdwardRice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)Hambro, Angus VaidemarRothschild, Lionel de
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh HicksHardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)Royds, Edmund
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)Rutherford, W (Liverpool, W. Darby)
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)Hill-Wood, S.Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bennett-Goldney, FrancisHohler, Gerald FitzroySanders, Robert Arthur
Bigland, AlfredHope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)Sanderson, Lancelot
Bird, AlfredHorne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Boyton, JamesJardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)Spear, John ward
Bridgeman, William CliveKebty-Fletcher, J. RStanier, Seville
Bull, Sir William JamesKerr-Smiley, Peter KerrStanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Burgoyne, Alan HughesKerry, Earl ofStaveley-Hill, Henry
Burn, Colonel C. R.Knight, Captain Eric AyshfordSteel-Maitland, A. D.
Butcher, John GeorgeLawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)Stewart, Gershom
Carlile, Edward HildredLewisham, ViscountSwift, Rigby
Cassel, FelixLocker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Castlereagh, ViscountLockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.Touche, George Alexander
Cator, JohnLang, Rt. Hon. WalterTullibardine, Marquess of
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.Mackinder, Halford J.Walker, Col. William Hall
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)Malcolm, IanWeigall, Capt. A. G.
Clay, Captain H. H. SpenderMills, Hon. Charles ThomasWheler, Granville C. H.
Clive, Percy ArcherMoore, WilliamWhite, Maj. G. D. (Lanc, Southport)
Clyde, James AvonMorpeth, ViscountWilliams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cooper, Richard AshmoleMorrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Courthope, George LoydMount, William ArthurWinterton, Earl
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)Neville, Reginald J. N.Wolmer, Viscount
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)Newman, John R. P.Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord NinianNewton, Harry KottinghamWood, John (Stalybridge)
Croft, Henry PageNicholson, William G. (Petersfield)Worthington-Evans, L.
Dairymple, ViscountNield, HerbertWortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart.
Doughty, Sir GeorgeNorton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)Yate, Col. C. E.
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)Younger, George
Fell, ArthurOrde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Fisher, William HayesOrmsby-Gore, Hon. William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Lord E. Talbot and Lord Balcarres.

Fleming, ValentinePease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Forster, Henry WilliamPeel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Perkins, Walter Frank

claimed that the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," be now put.

Question put, "That the Question, 'that

Division No. 63.]


[8.0 a.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)Bentham, G. JBurns, Rt. Hon. John
Acland, Francis DykeBlack, Arthur W.Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Adamson, WilliamBooth, Frederick HandelCawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)
Addison, Dr. C.Bowerman, C. W.Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)Brace, WilliamChancellor, H. G.
Armitage, R.Brady, P. J.Chapple, Dr. W. A.
Barren, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)Brocklehurst, W. B.Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)Brunner, J. F. L.Clancy, John Joseph
Barton, WilliamBurke, E. Haviland.Clough, William

the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 130.

Clynes, J. R.Isaacs, Sir Rufus DanielPirie, Duncan V.
Collins, G. P. (Greenock)John, Edward ThomasPointer, Joseph
Condon, Thomas JosephJohnson, W.Pollard, Sir George H.
Corbett, A. CameronJones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)Power, Patrick Joseph
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Crawshay-Williams, EliotJones, William (Carnarvonshire)Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Crumley, PatrickJones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Davies, E. William (Eifion)Keating, M.Radford, G. H.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)Kellaway, Frederick GeorgeRaffan, Peter Wilson
Dawes, J. A.Kilbride, DenisRaphael, Sir Herbert H.
Delany, WilliamKing, J. (Somerset, N.)Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Dewar, Sir J. A.Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Dillon, JohnLambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Doris, W.Law, Hugh A.Rendall, Atheistan
Duffy, William J.Lawson, Sir W.(Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)Richards, Thomas
Duncans, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)Leach, CharlesRichardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)Levy, Sir MauriceRoberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)Lewis, John HerbertRoberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Randnor)Lundon, T.Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master ofLynch, A. A.Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Elverston, H.Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)Robinson, Sydney
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)MacGhee, RichardRoch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.Rowlands, James
Essex, Richard WalterMacVeagh, JeremiahSt. Maur, Harold
Falconer, J.M'Callum, John M.Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Farrell, James PatrickM'Micking, Major GilbertScanlan, Thomas
Fenwick, CharlesMason, David M. (Coventry)Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ferens, T. R.Masterman, C. F. G.Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.
Ffrench, PeterMathias, RichardSherwell, Arthur James
Field, WilliamMeagher, MichaelSimon, Sir John Allsebrook
Fitzgibbon, JohnMeehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Flavin, Michael JosephMond, Sir Alfred M.Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Gelder, Sir W. A.Money, L. G. ChiozzaSummers, James Woolley
Glanville, H. J.Montagu, Hon. E. S.Sutton, John E.
Goddard, Sir Daniel FordMooney, J. J.Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Goldstone, FrankMorgan, George HayTennant, Harold John
Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)Morrell, PhilipToulmin, George
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)Munro, R.Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Gulland, John W.Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.Verney, Sir Harry
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)Needham, Christopher T.Walters, John Tudor
Hackett, J.Neilson, FrancisWard, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)Nolan, JosephWard, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)Norman, Sir HenryWardle, George J.
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Webb, H.
Havelock-Allan, Sir HenryO'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Haworth, Arthur A.O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Hayden, John PatrickO'Dowd, JohnWhyte, A. F. (Perth)
Hayward, EvanO'Grady, JamesWilliams, J. (Glamorgan)
Helme, Norval WatsonO'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)Williams, P. (Middlesborough)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)O'Malley, WilliamWilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Henry, Sir Charles S.O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Higham, John SharpO'Shaughnessy, P. J.Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Hinds, JohnO'Sullivan, TimothyYoung, W. (Perthshire, E.)
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.Palmer, Godfrey M.
Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)Parker, James (Halifax)
Hudson, WalterPearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wm. Jones.

Hughes, S. L.Pearson, Weetman H. M.
Illingworth, Percy H.Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)


Archer-Shee, Major M.Cassel, FelixGordon, J.
Ashley, W. W.Castlereagh, ViscountGrant, J. A.
Astor, WaldorfCator, JohnGreene, W. R.
Baird, J. L.Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.Guinness, Hon. W. E.
Baring, Captain Hon. G. V.Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Barlow, Montague (Salfo'rd, South)Clay, Captain H. H. SpenderHambro, Angus Vaidemar
Barnston, H.Clive, Percy ArcherHardy, Laurence
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)Clyde, J. AvonHenderson, Major H. (Abingdon)
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)Cooper, Richard AshmoleHill-Wood, Samuel
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh hicksCourthope, G. LoydHohler, G. F.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)Craig, Norman (Kent)Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)
Bennett-Goldney, FrancisCrichton-Stuart, Lord NinianHunt, Rowland
Bigland, AlfredCroft, H. P.Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)
Bird, A.Dairymple, ViscountJardine, E. (Somerset, E.)
Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.Doughty, Sir GeorgeKebty-Fletcher, J. R.
Boyton, J.Eyres-Monsell, B. M.Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr
Bridgeman, W. CliveFell, ArthurKerry, Earl of
Bull, Sir William JamesFisher, W. HayesKnight, Captain E. A.
Burgoyne, A. H.Fleming, ValentineLawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)
Burn, Colonel C. R.Gibbs, G. A.Lewisham, Viscount
Butcher, J. G.Gilmour, Captain J.Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)
Carlile, E. HildredGoldsmith, FrankLockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Long, Ht. Hon. WalterPollock, Ernest MurrayTerrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)
Mackinder, H J.Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Malcolm, IanQuilter, William Eley C.Touche, George Alexander
Mills, Hon. Charles ThomasRawson, Colonel R. H.Tullibardine, Marquess of
Moore, WilliamRice, Hon. W. F.Walker, Colonel William Hall
Morpeth, ViscountRonaldshay, Earl ofWelgall, Capt. A. G.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)Rothschild, Lionel deWheler, Granville C. H.
Mount, William ArthurRoyds, EdmundWhite, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Neville, Reginald J. N.Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Newman, John R. P.Salter, Arthur ClavellWilloughby, Major Hon. Claude
Newton, Harry KottinghamSanders, Robert A.Winterton, Earl
Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)Sanderson, LancelotWolmer, Viscount
Nield, HerbertSmith, Harold (Warrington)Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)
Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)Spear, John WardWood, John (Stalybridge)
O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)Stanier, Beville.Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. WilliamStaveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton)
Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)Steel-Maitland, A. D.Younger, George
Perkins, Walter F.Stewart, Gershom
Peto, Basil EdwardSwift, Rigby

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Lord E. Talbot and Lord Balcarres.

Pole-Carew, Sir R.Talbot, Lord E.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Division No. 64.]


[8.10 a.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin)Ffrench, PeterMathias, Richard
Acland, Francis D. (Camborne)Fitzgibbon, JohnMeagher, Michael
Adamson, WilliamFlavin, Michael JosephMeehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Addison, Dr. ChristopherGelder, Sir William AlfredMond, Sir Alfred Moritz
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)Glanville, Harold JamesMoney, L. G. Chiozza
Armitage, RobertGoddard, Sir Daniel FordMontagu, Hon. E. S.
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)Goldstone, FrankMooney, John J.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)Guest, Major (Pembroke)Morgan, George Hay
Barton, WilliamGuest, Hon. F E. (Dorset, E.)Morrell, Philip
Bentham, George JacksonGuiland, John WilliamMunro, Robert
Black, Arthur W.Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.
Booth, Frederick HandelHackett, JohnNeedham, Christopher Thomas
Bowerman, Charles W.Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)Neilson, Francis
Brace, WilliamHarvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)Nolan, Joseph
Brady, Patrick JosephHarvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)Norman, Sir Henry
Brocklehurst, William B.Havelock-Allan, Sir HenryO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Brunner, John F. L.Haworth, Arthur A.O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Burke, E. Haviland.Hayden, John PatrickO'Connor, T. P (Liverpool, Scot'd.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John (Battersea)Hayward, EvanO'Dowd, John
Carr-Gomm, H. W.Helme, Norval WatsonO'Grady, James
Cawley, Sir Fredk. (Prestwich)Henderson, Arthur (Durham)O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)Henry, Sir CharlesO'Malley, William
Chancellor, Henry GeorgeHigham, John SharpO'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Chapple, Dr. William AllenHinds, JohnO'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.O'Sullivan, Timothy
Clancy, John JosephHorne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Clough, WilliamHudson, WalterParker, James (Halifax)
Clynes, John R.Hughes, Spencer LeighPearce, Robert (Leek)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)Illingworth, Percy H.Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Condon, Thomas JosephIsaacs, Sir Rufus DanielPearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.
Corbett, A. CameronJohn, Edward ThomasPease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.Johnson, WilliamPine, Duncan V.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)Pointer, Joseph
Crawshay-Williams, E.Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)Pollard, Sir George H.
Crumley, PatrickJones, Leif (Rushcliffe)Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)Power, Patrick Joseph
Davies, Timothy (Louth)Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Dawes, James ArthurKeating, MatthewPriestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Delany, WilliamKellaway, Frederick GeorgePrimrose, Hon. Neil James
Dewar, Sir J. A.Kilbride, DenisRadford, George Heynes
Dillon, JohnKing, Joseph (Somerset, North)Raffan, Peter Wilson
Doris, WilliamLambert, George (South Molton)Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry
Duffy, William J.Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)Law, Hugh AlexanderRedmond, John E. (Waterford)
Edwards, A. C. (Glam., E.)Leach, CharlesRedmond, William A. (Tyrone, E.)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)Levy, Sir MauriceRendall, Atheistan
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)Lewis, John HerbertRichards, Thomas
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master ofLundon, ThomasRichardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Elverston, HaroldLynch, Arthur AlfredRoberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Esmonde, Dr. J. (Tipperary, N.)Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)MacGhee, RichardRoberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Essex, Richard WalterMacnamara, Dr. Thomas J.Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Falconer, JamesMacVeagh, JeremiahRobinson, Sidney
Farrell, James PatrickM'Micking, Major GilbertRoch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Fenwick, CharlesMason, David M. (Coventry)Rowlands, James
Ferens, Thomas RobinsonMasterman, C. F. G.St. Maur, Harold

The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 129.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)Tennant, Harold JohnWhyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)Toulmin, GeorgeWilliams, John (Glamorgan)
Scanlan, ThomasTrevelyan, Charles PhilipsWilliams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Scott, A. M'Callum (Bridgeton)Ure, Rt. Hon. AlexanderWilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Seely, Rt. Hon. ColonelVerney, Sir H.Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Sherwell, Arthur JamesWalters, John TudorWood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Simon, Sir John AlluebrookWard, John (Stoke-upon Trent)Young, William (Perth, East)
Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)Wardle, George J.
Summers, James WoolleyWebb, H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Benn and Mr. Soares.

Sutton, John E.Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Taylor, John W. (Durham)White, Patrick (Meath, North)


Archer-Shee, Major MartinGibbs, George AbrahamPeto, Basil Edward
Ashley, Wilfred W.Gilmour, Captain JohnPole-Carew, Sir Reginald
Astor, WaldorfGoldsmith, FrankPollock, Ernest Murray
Baird, John LawrenceGordon, JohnPryce-Jones, Col. E.
Balcarres, LordGrant, James AugustusQuilter, William Eley C.
Baring, Capt. Hon. Guy VictorGreene, Walter RaymondRawson, Col. Richard H.
Barlow, Montagu (Salford, S.)Guinness, Hon. Walter EdwardRice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Barnston, HarryHall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)Ronaldshay, Earl of
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)Hambro, Angus VaidemarRothschild, Lionel D.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Gloucester, E.)Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)Royds, Edmund
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh HicksHenderson, Major H. (Berkshire)Salter, Arthur Clavel
Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth)Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)Sanders, Robert Arthur
Benn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)Hohler, Gerald FitzroySanderson, Lancelot
Bennett-Goldney, FrancisHope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Bigland, AlfredHorne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)Spear, John Ward
Bird, AlfredHunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)Stanier, Beville
Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith.Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Boyton, JamesKebty-Fletcher, J. R.Staveley-Hill, Henry
Bridgeman, William CliveKerr-Smiley, Peter KerrSteel-Maitland, A. D.
Bull, Sir William JamesKerry, Earl ofStewart, Gershom
Burgoyne, Alan HughesKnight, Capt. Eric AyshfordSwift, Rigby
Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End)Talbot, Lord E.
Butcher, J. G.Lewisham, ViscountTerrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)
Carlile, Edward HildredLocker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Cassel, FelixLockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.Touche, George A.
Castlereagh, ViscountLong, Rt. Hon. WalterTullibardine, Marquess of
Cator, JohnMackinder, Halford J.Walker, Col. W. H.
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.Malcolm, IanWeigall, Captain A. G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)Mills, Hon. Charles ThomasWheler, Granville C. H.
Clay, Captain H. H. SpenderMoore, WilliamWhite, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Clive, Percy ArcherMorpeth, ViscountWilliams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Clyde, James AvonMorrison-Bell, Major A. (Honiton)Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Cooper, Richard AshmoleMount, William ArthurWinterton, Earl
Courthope, George LoydNeville, Reginald J. N.Wolmer, Viscount
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)Newman, John R. P.Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Tnanet)Newton, Harry KottinghamWood, John (Stalybridge)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord NinianNicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)Worthington-Evans, L.
Croft, Henry PageNield, HerbertWortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart.
Dairymple, ViscountNorton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)Yate, Col. Charles Edward
Doughty, Sir GeorgeO'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)Younger, George
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Fell, ArthurOrmsby-Gore, Hon. William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease.

Fisher, William HayesPeel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Fleming, ValentinePerkins, Walter Frank