asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he could give any information regarding the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease near Ripon; when was the disease discovered; when was it reported to the Board; how many animals were attacked; how many animals had been slaughtered; when were they slaughtered; what area had been scheduled as infected; and what was the source of the disease?

The hon. Member for North Shropshire was so obliging as to give me notice of his question last night, so I was enabled to submit it this morning to the President of the Board of Agriculture. I am therefore able to state the course the President is adopting in regard to this matter. I regret to say that foot-and-mouth disease was reported to the Board by the police on Wednesday last on the farm of Mr. William Richmond, about eight miles from Ripon (West Riding). At once the Board's superintending veterinary inspector proceeded there, and the outbreak was confirmed by him. On "Wednesday an Order prohibiting movement on or off the farm was served by the police on the occupier. Yesterday the Board made an Order declaring the farm to be a place infected with foot-and-mouth disease. I may here explain, for the information of the House what "a place infected with foot-and-mouth disease" means. It means that the farm where the disease is is an area to which Article 4 of, the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order applies.

Briefly, that article prohibits the removal of fodder, litter, dung, utensils, or things without permission in writing of an inspector of the Board or of the local authority, and then only when such things have been properly disinfected. Further, "no person (except the person tending the animals) shall, unless authorised in writing," as before mentioned, "enter sheds or fields in the infected area." All persons entering such infected area on leaving have to be properly disinfected. In fact, the same precautions have to be taken as if it was a case of small-pox or scarlet fever affecting human beings. The chief veterinary officer yesterday proceeded to the spot. One cow, nine yearlings, one pig, are affected on the farm; in addition are twenty-five cattle, ninety-four sheep, three pigs, all of whom have been in contact with animals affected. By direction of the President of the Board, Mr. Stockman went up last night. He has a perfectly free hand to order slaughter at once, and as many animals as he thinks fit, and the President will take any measures, however drastic, which may be necessary. The President is acting on the same lines as at Edinburgh two years ago, when he was fortunate enough to stamp out a serious outbreak completely. An area of fifteen miles is scheduled. No report has been received up to the present. No information as to source of disease is available.

Will the Board press forward the slaughter of all these infected animals? And will the hon. Baronet ask the President of the Board if these important announcements cannot be made in this House in the same way as they are made in another place?

Will full compensation be given for the animals which are slaughtered?

In view of the special gravity of the outbreak, owing to its occurring in a most important cattle-breeding area, will the Board give special instructions to the police in a larger radius than the fifteen miles to which the hon. Baronet has referred to act promptly in the event of any suspected outbreak in such larger area?

May I ask when the Board propose to issue the Order dealing with the importation of products to which the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States was attributed—

That does not arise out of this question.

Certainly I will bring before my Noble Friend the view of the hon. Member as to statements being made at the same time in both Houses. As regards the question of compensation, in this case, as in all like cases, full compensation will be paid, as provided by the Foot-and-Mouth Order, 1895. As to the question of a larger area, every precaution will be taken and the area extended if necessary. The House will also be glad to hear that all local authorities have been notified of this outbreak and put on their guard against any suspicious cases anywhere in Great Britain.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether this experience does not teach that the most effective way of stamping out the disease, and the cheapest in the long run, is the immediate slaughter of the animals which may become a source of infection on the farm; and if, any have escaped from the farm by sale or by removal since or immediately before the outbreak, whether it is not necessary to trace and slaughter these animals in order that, if possible, the disease may be checked and confined to the existing area?

Certainly, that is my opinion.

I am not quite sure, Sir, whether I am in order in making a brief personal explanation of a very important misreport of something I said last night—not important from the point of view of this House, but important from the point of view of the Colonies. Would it be proper that I should intervene now?

I have no doubt the House will wish to hear the right hon. Gentleman.

My attention was only called to it a, minute or a second ago by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). It is in an interruption which I made last night in the course of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies (Colonel Seely) on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. I am reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT to have interrupted him in these words:— I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has listened to a word I said. I repeated over and over again, with

the utmost emphasis I could use, that I thought the doctrine stated by Lord Ripon fourteen years ago was applicable, and that no statesman on either side of the House would ever think of departing from it."

What I said was "inapplicable"—that the doctrine was inapplicable, and that in the conviction as to its inapplicability everybody on both sides of the House was agreed. So that I am reported as having stated exactly and precisely the contrary of what I stated with "the utmost emphasis." As the correction is of some importance beyond the walls of this House, I thought probably I might be allowed to make it now.

There is something to be said for the reporters. I believe they often have difficulty in catching what is said because right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will not address me.

[NOTE.—The correction in the Daily Part desired by Mr. Balfour is made in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 21st July, 1910, as contained in this Volume.]

moved, "That the Proceedings in Committee upon the Civil List, in Committee upon the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, and upon Report and Third Reading of the Regency Bill be not interrupted this day at Five o'clock or Half-past Five o'clock, and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."

The House divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 92.

, who was only partially heard by the Official Reporters, moved the following Resolutions:—

Hear, hear.

I thought I ought to call attention to these two points, because they were not quite decided by the Committee, but were decided after consultation in the proper quarter. There are two other alterations which will not require statutory sanction, but I mention them because it is generally felt desirable I should make a statement in regard to them. There are two things which have received some discussion, which I think it is desirable should be settled now. One is in regard to the expense of entertaining heads of foreign States who visit this country. The other is the expense of return visits by our Sovereign to foreign countries. Up to the present the expenses of both these State visits have been borne by the Exchequer, and there was always a doubt as to what really came within the category of a State visit. There was always a question raised as to what part of the expense should be charged to the Exchequer, and what part ought to be borne by the Civil List. That involved very troublesome and sometimes very delicate and difficult questions. It has been felt, I think I may say, not merely by ourselves but by our predecessors that it was very desirable that this question should be settled once for all.

Then there is another question, and that is the Income Tax. The Income Tax is the only tax which the Sovereign has been subject to up to the present, and then it was a purely voluntary payment. It was levied as the result of quite a voluntary undertaking by Queen Victoria when the Income Tax was enacted in 1842. It was purely a voluntary promise on her part to pay the Income Tax, which was then understood to be a temporary charge. I do not suggest that was the sole reason, but undoubtedly the idea was that it was only going to last for a very few years. In 1853 Mr. Gladstone made a financial arrangement when he introduced the Budget for the termination of the Income Tax in five or six years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Seven years."] That idea was never realised, and it was always a source of trouble and irritation. The fluctuations of the Income Tax have been very considerable. I admit there is something to be said for its not being charged to the Sovereign, for after all the Civil List is not a salary but an allowance made to the Sovereign towards the maintenance of the dignity of the Crown. It is either adequate or it is not adequate for that purpose. If you deduct the sum of the Income Tax it seems to be giving with one hand and taking away with the other. I am not altogether responsible for that. I know that another Government put the tax up to 1s. 3d. in the £. At any rate, in recent years the Income Tax has been rather substantial, and if in consequence of that the allowance were to become inadequate, it simply means that the Sovereign has a right to come to the House of Commons and ask for an increased allowance. It is desirable that these two troublesome difficulties should be settled, and the conclusion—I will not call it a bargain, because that would be inaccurate—come to was that the two things should be set off against each other, and that the expense of State visits should in future be borne entirely out of the Civil List, and that no Income Tax should be charged. I am referring to the Income Tax upon the Civil List and not the Duchy. The Income Tax on the Duchy is to be charged as usual. What will be exempt is purely Income Tax on the amount voted by Parliament for the maintenance of the Office of the Crown. If the Committee will examine the accounts they will find that in comparing the amount of the Income Tax with the expense of these State visits during the late reign, in some years the Crown would gain by this arrangement and in other years the Crown would perhaps lose. On the whole, undoubtedly, by comparison of the expense of State visits of the late reign, the Crown would be a slight, but not a substantial, gainer. The prospects are, however, that the expenditure on these State visits will rather increase than diminish, and from the point of view of the public Exchequer, the Treasury is no loser by the transaction. I am perfectly certain, from the point of view of getting rid of a very difficult and troublesome question, both parties are the gainers. Those are the only alterations.

It is true that, looking at the figures which we ask the House of Commons to sanction, they appear to be higher than the figure which my predecessor put it at in the year 1901, but that is entirely due, not to the proposals we are making for increasing the charge of Royalty, but to the fact that the allowance to Queen, Alexandra comes into operation now, and for the first time a sum of £70,000 due under the Act of 1901 falls to be charged on the Exchequer. If that were taken out, the provision we are now inviting the House of Commons to make represents a diminution, and not an increase, and I think that is a fact which ought to be thoroughly well understood. I am not going to anticipate what is going to be said by the hon. Member for the Black-friars Division of Glasgow on the Amendment which stands in his name. I am not sure whether his Amendment is in order, but I think the Amendments on the Paper represent the general lines of criticism the hon. Member will direct against these proposals. I will, therefore, defer anything I have to say on the subject till I hear what he has to say. In the meantime I will content myself with these few observations in moving the Resolution which stands in my name.

May I ask before the hon. Member speaks whether the Amendment which is on the Paper is in order or not?

I do not know to which Amendment the hon. Member refers, but I daresay it will be for the convenience of the Committee that I should rule about these Amendments. The first Amendment of the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) is outside the scope of the reference to the Committee, and the second is a reasoned Amendment and not in order on a Money Resolution. The third is also outside the scope of reference. The Amendment to reduce the sum of £470,000 is in order.

On the point of Order—it is a very important one—that a reasoned Amendment is out of order in a Committee of this kind, may I ask your attention to what occurred in the year 1853? It is a very good precedent and not very much out of date. In 1853 a Motion was made in Committee for the Income Tax, whereupon it was moved to leave out all after the word "That" in order to move "That the Income Tax as at present levied is onerous to the subject, and ought to be repealed." That was the effect of it, and that was a general Motion intended to supersede the particular Motion. There was much doubt about it at the time, and all the authorities of the House were consulted, but it was held that inasmuch as it was relevant to the Motion, it was not out of order, and must be accepted. I would call your attention to that Resolution. I am sorry I have not got the exact words.

It has been contrary to practice for many years to allow reasoned Amendments on Money Resolutions. The hon. Member himself proposed a reasoned Amendment to a Money Resolution in 1901, and he was ruled out of order. He then brought up the precedent of 1860, and the Chairman of that day, the present Speaker, said:— I take it it would be a very dangerous thing to go back to the old practice. The fact that the hon. Mem- ber has to go back forty years to find an instance shows that during that period it has not been the practice of the House to accept reasoned Amendments in Committee. The hon. Member is now going back fifty-seven years.

May I ask whether the last Amendment in my name comes within your ruling? The second Resolution reads:— That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the Civil List, the hereditary revenues, and Grants for the Royal Family. My second Amendment proposes to transfer to the Consolidated Fund the revenues derivable from the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. Would not that Amendment be in order?

Before you reply, I should like to ask whether the Committee would be entitled without the Royal Assent being signified to direct that the private revenues of the Throne should be transferred to the Treasury?

I was going to say, in reply to the hon. Member for Merthyr, that I consider his last Amendment would be out of order both on account of it being outside the scope of the reference to the Committee and also because it would require the assent of the Crown.

May I ask what is the nature of the revenues referred to in the Motion?

I do not know, I have not inquired what the exact purpose of this second Resolution may be, but I take it it is for the general convenience of the House, particularly in Committee, in regard to the Bill which will be founded upon these Resolutions. It is similar to the Resolution we always have at the end of the Budget Resolutions, which allows freedom not only to the Government but more particularly to private Members to move Amendments which would otherwise be out of order. I imagine that is the purpose of the Resolution. I do not myself know why the hereditary revenues are put in. I have not had the opportunity of inquiring.

The reason why this is put in, as pointed out by you from the Chair, is in order to give not so much the Government, because I am not aware we have any Amendments, but private Members freedom to move any Amendments on any of these points.

I omitted to say with regard to the hereditary revenues that in the message from the Crown the hereditary revenues are mentioned, and that is why they are relevant to the consideration of this matter.

Before proceeding with the subject which is now before the House, I want to offer a word or two of comment upon the proceedings which have brought us up to this point, and I do so with the concurrence of my colleague upon the Committee upstairs, the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Shackleton). The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech made last month, on 15th June, stated he proposed that the same course should be followed as had been followed on previous occasions of this sort, and that a Committee should be appointed. Full information was to be given to that Committee in order that it might come to a decision upon all the facts of the situation. I have to say that, so far as I am concerned, I did not get that full information, and I want to make it perfectly plain that the House would not be justified in shielding itself behind the assumption that full information was given to the Committee, because, as a matter of fact, that information was not given. We had three meetings, as I thought, of a preliminary character, and during those three meetings a Memorandum was submitted to us which I have no hesitation in saying was an illogical and nonsensical Memorandum. It was drawn up in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was set out that the amount fixed nine years ago for the Civil List of His Majesty had been found to be on an average £32,699 in excess of requirements, and therefore—I could not see why the "therefore" came in—it was proposed to continue the allowance as nine years ago. After the third meeting the Committee—at all events, I will speak for myself—was beginning to be competent to deal with the information if we got it, but we never did get it.

The Member for Clitheroe and myself moved for a Return at the first meeting. I got a fragment of that Return on the morning of the fourth meeting. My colleague was not there, and was amazed some days afterwards, on his return, to find the proceedings were all over. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) also moved for a Return at the first meeting. I do not know whether he got it or not, but, at all events, I never saw it, and, as I say, up to the fourth meeting we had not got that information for which we had applied. On the occasion of the fourth meeting the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought down a Memorandum, and, as soon as I saw it was to be put through that day, I submitted an alternative Memorandum. It so happened I had a rough draft of it in my pocket. I had not the slightest notion it would be required that day, but I put it in with all its imperfections and blemishes, and to that Memorandum I adhere in every respect, excepting that, in the light of some information which leaked out on the occasion of our fourth meeting, together with what I have gathered myself since, I should now propose one on a less generous scale of expenditure. I venture to say that if the proposals now before the House were submitted to a meeting of intelligent persons outside this House, with all the information at their disposal, they would be regarded as outrageous, and those responsible for them would be given short shrift. Whether that is so or not, I should take the same view and the same stand I now take. It is true, I may only get a few supporters in this House, but I venture to say I shall be voicing the opinions and interests of a good many more outside.

I shall endeavour in what I have to say to be respectful and to give no kind of offence to any one. Neither shall I bring in the question of a monarchical as against a republican form of government, because I take it that does not come in. The people of this country, for good or ill, are content to remain under the former. I am not going to say but what they are perfectly right in that attitude. I have my own opinions, but they do not come in here. I should take exactly the same stand I now take under any circumstances, if we were dealing with the maintenance of the dignity of a President of a Republic. I base my objections to these proposals on three grounds. First, I believe the Duchies ought to be regarded as public property; and, secondly, apart from that consideration, I believe the amounts are excessive and beyond the requirements of the situation so far as I have been able to ascertain. I am merely now forming an opinion on the requirements of the situation upon amounts previously fixed upon, and I object to the proposals because we are asked to limit the discretion, and to tie future Parliaments. I think they ought to deal with these matters when they arise.

Before proceeding further, I should like the House to understand what the proposals really are, and I should like to disentangle them from the rhetoric of the speech to which we have just listened. The Chancellor has told us that these proposals mean a reduction in the future compared with the past. At all events, that is what I gathered from his speech. That is the ordinary impression of the newspaper editor, and of the man in the street. When this Report was issued a week or two ago, I saw many comments in the newspapers, and I heard many comments among my own friends, both here and elsewhere, and the ordinary impression of the average person outside this House, and of many inside it, is that these proposals, if they mean any increase at all, mean only a very small increase, amounting to £13,000. In fact, the Government draw up a summary on page 9 of the Report showing there is only a net increase of £13,000. I do not know what meaning the Government attach to the word "net," but I venture to say the average person outside will attach the meaning to it which I think is the right one, that the proposals now submitted to the House will involve an expenditure, say, next year, of £13,000 more than this year or last year. It is the ordinary common-sense interpretation which would be given to the statement of the Government, and I venture to say the average person who believes that, including the newspaper editor, has been altogether deluded. It means nothing of the sort.

1.0 P.M.

I take these two columns on page 9 of the Report. There are two columns drawn up, one as to 1901 and the other as to 1910. There is a total brought out in the first column of £621,000 and in the second column a total of £634,000. Therefore, the Government proceed to say that the net increase is £13,000. I want to draw the attention of the Chancellor to three items in the first column and to one in the second column. I take the item of £25,000 in the first column in respect of pensions. The Chancellor knows perfectly well that £25,000 was not paid in respect of pensions last year, but only £14,000. I take the item as against the Empress Frederick of £8,000 and that as against the Duke of Cambridge of £12,000, altogether making £20,000. The Chancellor well knows these have dropped out long ago by death. I therefore submit the first column ought to be reduced by £31,000 to get at what was the true liability of the nation last year in respect of the Civil List of. 1901. I take the second column, and I think the Chancellor will agree that the diminished amount of £14,000 of pensions under the Civil List of 1901 which will have to be paid next year and put that on the second column. We then find the sum of £634,000 is increased to £648,000. The first column, however, is reduced to £590,000, and looking at the matter from my point of view, the net increase in the amount of this Civil List as compared with the last will not be £13,000, but £58,000. It might be said that is an unfair comparison, and that we are now considering the Civil List of one year as compared with the Civil List of another year, and that I have no right to drop out these amounts. I am glad the Chancellor assents to that, because I want to institute another comparison which will be interesting to the House and, I think, rather disconcerting to him. Let us project our minds forward to the time when another House of Commons may be fixing up another Civil List twenty or thirty years hence. I hope, of course, the time will be far distant, but imagine a House of Commons engaged in fixing up another List under exactly the same circumstances as we are now discussing this one, and a comparison brought forward by the then Government exactly on the same basis as this comparison. What should we find? I drop out the 1901 List; that would disappear, but, I bring forward the 1910 List just exactly as it is now. It might, of course, be objected that many of those on this List of £146,000 paid to Royalties might be then dead, but probably some others would be there to take their places, so I will leave that on both sides out of account. I bring forward this 1910 List just exactly as the Government have brought forward this 1901 List now. Therefore we have this £634,000, and we have to add to it £10,000 in respect of the Princess of Wales. Then we get £100,000 in respect of the younger children—the sons of the King—contingent charges. We get £6,000 in respect of the daughter of the King, and adding these amounts on to the £634,000 on this List we get a total not of that amount but, if these claims mature, and leaving out of consideration the £70,000 provided for the Queen in the event of Her Majesty surviving the King, and leaving out the £30,000 in respect to the Princess of Wales should she survive the Prince of Wales, because they would not come on the next Civil List—leaving all these out, but including only these contingent charges, which we assume would then be matured, we find that the Civil List of that time would be £750,000. I can imagine the Government at that time trying to persuade the House of Commons that it was not introducing another Civil List involving a great increase—I can imagine the Government of that time coming forward with a Civil List, say, of £760,000 and saying, "Look at what we have done for you. In spite of the greater prosperity of the country, greater splendour of ceremonials, greater requirements of Royalty, etc., we have fixed up a Civil List for you which only exceeds that of the old poverty-stricken age of 1910 by an excess of £10,000." But the Government of that day, in the circumstances which I have imagined, would not compare their proposals with the £634,000 on this Paper which I now hold in my hand, but they would compare it with the £750,000 which I have just mentioned.

Then I want, still dealing with this subject, to make a reference to one or two other charges, and the first one I come to is that of £70,000 in respect of the Queen Mother. Of course, that is not in question now. We are not called upon to vote for it, but I want to make a reference to it on another account—I want to make a complaint that we in this Parliament have not had that matter to deal with as occasion arose. For my part, I should have liked to have had some hand in making proper provision. I did the next best thing I could, and there is a proposal included in the Report of the Committee to allocate a certain sum of money this year towards making habitable Marlborough House for the occupation of Queen Alexandra. I voted cheerfully for that amount, and I commend it to the House, and I venture to hope that Her Majesty may long be spared to live there in the esteem of those to whom she has shown example of simplicity of life and high character. But there are other widows. There are the widows of the poor—of those who have no helper. Every one of those will have to pay their contribution to the Civil List and to that money which is now passing through our hands. My mind dwells upon some of them whom I know—women who have been left with families to educate and to fit somehow for their work out in the world. This country has done very little for the widows of the poor, except to talk about them, put their names in Blue Books, or perhaps give them a dole from a barbarous Poor Law, and I am glad to know that those from that part of the country I come from spurn it with contempt. I can only express a hope that those who are so willing to give these vast sums of money to people at the top of the scale will be ready to disburse money to the people at the bottom. There are one or two other items to which I wish to refer. I come to this £470,000. I wish to make a reference to two or three of the items beginning at the bottom, instead of at the top, because I want to dispose, first, of the items as to which I have not much to say. I take the first sum at the bottom, £13,200 down in the Civil List for Royal bounties, special services, and something else—I forget the proper heading. I have nothing to say about that. There is nothing wrong, but I find it is disbursed by the First Lord of the Treasury, and I should have liked to know something more about it, and where it gets to. My curiosity has been rather piqued by a reference of the Chancellor's, from which it appears that some of it gets into the hands of the Charity Organisation Society. I think that that would be money going into a wrong channel. I do not, however, object to this £13,200; on the contrary, I should double it, so long as I knew that the money was allocated on a proper basis. Then I come to an item of £8,000, which, by very strange irony is called "Unappropriated." There is nothing in this Civil List which is unappropriated; if there is any over it will go into the ever-open abyss—the Privy Purse. The matter is small and trivial, and, therefore, we might pass it, but I hope we shall have some explanation of why the money should not go in the increase of pensions and allowances under the Royal Bounty, because I know there are many persons who do not get on the Royal Bounty Fund because there is no money, instead of getting into the Privy Purse. I would suggest that this unappropriated money might find its way into some other channels.

I also wish to make a passing reference to the £18,000 which is brought forward in respect of pensions paid by the late King or those which will now be paid by those who settle his affairs. In an Amendment I drew up I included that £18,000. I was quite willing it should be paid. In my innocence at that time I had it in my mind that it referred to the domestic servants of the late King—in fact I believe we had been told so—but instead of that at the last meeting of the Committee, at the last moment, something was brought out from which I gathered that the first name on the list was that of a gentleman, who was in the service of the late King and who is down for £1,500 out of that £18,000, and I find also that this same gentleman has been appointed in the same capacity he occupied under the late King by the present King. Therefore I would like to know before this matter is settled if pensions like this are to be continued under the circumstances I have mentioned. I will say, further, that when the matter comes to the Committee stage, although I have committed myself in my draft report to turning over this £18,000 on to the public Exchequer, I shall not feel in any way bound by that, but shall vote for an Amendment unless I am satisfied as to the allocation of the money. I have referred to the Privy Purse, the salaries of the Royal Household, and the expenses of the Royal Household—I believe there is a good deal of hocus pocus about all three of them. As to the first, it was fixed at £110,000 nine years ago, I suppose with due regard to the circumstances of the time and the amount of revenue from the two Duchies which have been mentioned, £110,000 was the amount fixed. I find that the Duchy of Lancaster at that time yielded a revenue of £60,000; here it stands at £65,000. It has been said that the Duchy of Cornwall has been turned over to the Prince of Wales, but I am not concerned about that. This House has always treated the two Duchies as more or less public property in the sense of being publicly administered, and therefore we are justified in taking into consideration the amount of revenue from the Duchy of Cornwall as well as the Duchy of Lancaster. I find that the Duchy of Cornwall yielded £74,000 in 1901, and £87,000 last year, but we were told by the Committee that it would yield £92,000 this year. I submit, therefore, that these increases in the Duchies warrant a reduction in the Privy Purse of the first item in the £470,000.

Now I come to the other two classes—salaries of the Royal Household and expenses of the Royal Household. I believe both are honeycombed with abuse, and that the first of them covers up a nest of parasites who are battening on the nation under the shadow of the Throne. But even with all the abuses of the second and third items of the Civil List being continued, we still have a good claim for a considerable reduction, apart altogether from that. I take the information that has been supplied to the House, and I find that, taking these first two items, the salaries and expenses of the Royal Household, there has been a surplus which averages out during each year of the late reign to £25,268. I believe it was the intention of the nation that there should be a saving to the nation; but here again this money has gone into the Privy Purse. Therefore, without adding anything in regard to the improvement in the personnel there is still a good claim for a reduction of the second and third class. My colleague and myself upstairs moved for a Return of the duties of all those in Class 2 and what they get for the performance of those duties. I think they would have been very interesting. For my part, I wanted to know how much is paid for those purely decorative services as compared with what is paid to those who do the work. For instance I have in my mind in consequence of the great changes during the last few years, that the palaces now have to be attended to by someone in regard to ventilation, lighting, and heating, and I wished to know how much they got for it. We got a fragment of the Report that we asked for on the last morning, but while we were waiting for it an appointment took place to the Royal Household—I gathered that from the public Press—and certain statements were made as to the attainments, if not the qualifications, of the person who had been given the appointment. I find that this decorative person, who takes £2,000 of the money now passing through our hands, is said to be an excellent golfer, a good shot, is well-known on the turf, and has the reputation of being one of the best dressed men in London. These may be very fine attributes. I should like to indulge a little more than I do in golf myself, but I refuse to give my quota to keeping a man playing golf or to show off his fine figure amongst London swelldom. At the fourth Committee meeting—on which occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down with a Report and steam-rollered the Committee into acceptance of it—we got a Report, not the one I applied for, but a Report of the duties of a few of those decorative officers that I mentioned, and anyone with half an eye can see that it is got up not to reveal facts, but rather to conceal them. The duties of the Lord Steward, for instance, are set out, and the most is made of them, but they do not appear to amount to a great deal. In winding up, in regard to the Department, they say:— His principal assistant is the Master of the Household, who under the Lord Steward is responsible for the administration of the fund, controls the staff, and checks the expenditure. That is to say, that this decorative dude, who plays golf and shows his fine figure in the West End of London, takes £2,000 of the public money and another man does his work. Then I find that there are other men who appear to do similar duties. There is one who takes £700 for showing the people to their places on State occasions and there are certain Lords-in-Waiting, some of whom may be in the hearing of my own voice, who take £600 or £700 for certain more or less fancy duties. To my mind it is perfectly plain that these are mere fancy names given to a number of people. They are really not serious offices. They are not Household offices at all. If anything is done for these moneys they are given for political services. These offices are mainly a relic of the old times of George III. and Lord North. These men are kept men of the Government and they are given fancy names to hide up the real nature of the deal. I wanted that information for which we had applied because I wanted to do something, if I could, to direct attention to the enormous disparity as between the amounts paid for these more or less fancy duties at the top and the miserable payments made to those at the bottom. I should like to know how much is paid for the real work in connection with the Royal Household, the Palaces, and so on. In the absence of that, might I mention one or two facts which have come within my own information during the last day or two in regard to State servants. I had a letter the other day from an obviously intelligent man in the service of the Government at Osborne College on miserable wages, so wretched a pittance that he could not afford to take his wife with him, and she had to remain in London, earning a little money as best she could by washing and charing, and things of that sort. I had a letter, I think this week, from a man also in the service of the Government, at one of our Labour Exchanges. He tells me that the magnificent salary paid to him for full-time duties, looking after an immense building of four floors, he and his wife being almost continually employed, is the miserable wage of 15s. per week, and he is expected to get out of that the amount necessary for the utensils that he uses for the pur- pose. It is a shame that the Government should continue these miserable salaries to the people at the bottom, and it is the mission of the party to which I belong, I am glad to say, to lessen the enormous gap between one and the other, and to abolish the salaries now paid to those at the top for no services rendered whatever.

I come to the Prince of Wales. With a fine show of generosity the Chancellor said that there was no demand made for the Prince of Wales. The Prince of Wales is to be dependent on the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had something to say in the way of minimising the importance of that statement, as I gathered, by saying that the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall were a fluctuating amount, and that they had dropped in 1901 as low as £51,000. Therefore he gave the House to understand that it is quite possible they might be reduced in future. I can see no indication of anything of the sort. As a matter of fact, in the year which the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned as having revenues of only £51,000, there was an additional sum of over £21,000 paid, and the revenues actually amounted to about £74,000. These revenues have shown an increase from the time they were given to the Prince of Wales, in 1863, when they amounted to £43,000. They amounted last year to £87,000, and this year they will amount to £92,000, and within a year or two they will be £96,000. That is the state of affairs so far as these particular revenues are concerned, and we are told they are to be paid to the Prince of Wales. It is an insult to our intelligence to be told that this £92,000 will be handed to a boy of sixteen years of age, or that he can spend it when he gets it. We got a Report in 1901 when the Civil List was considered, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he did not look forward to any increase in the amount of these revenues, but, if I know anything of the circumstances, it is likely they will grow more rapidly in the future than in the past. This property consists very largely of land and houses which is on the other side of the river Thames. That particular area is a slum area, which I know very well, because I have lived there. I know it is an area which was not very creditable to the Duchy of Cornwall a few years ago. I am quite willing to believe that the Duchy of Cornwall authorities had no option in the matter. Leases had to run out on the property. There is no district in London improving more rapidly than that particular district, and I say that the improvement, is likely to be more rapid in future because the expenditure of public money by the county council just on the other side of the bridge and adjoining the area in question amounts to £1,000,000. There is no doubt that the revenues will enormously increase in the immediate future.

I do not know what is the view of hon. Members as to the way these revenues should be allocated, and the bearing which they should have on the relationship of the Crown to Parliament. It was once a custom on the part of learned constitutional lawyers to hold that it was inadvisable for the Crown to have any large property, and especially landed property, so as to make it independent of Parliament. Mr. Gladstone, who was a stickler for the rights of Royalty, assented to that, and in 1873, speaking in this House, lie assented to a measure that was then under discussion which involved the question of Royalty willing away money secretly. He assented to that largely on the ground that there was no fear of any accumulation, and that, if there was any such fear, that was not the time to look into it, but he added that Parliament had a right to look into the matter at the beginning of every reign. I believe that under the proposal we have now before us the revenues from these Duchies will at least reach £500,000 in the next five years during the minority of the Prince of Wales. It may be more or less. I should call that an accumulation. There are those who handle public money who may call that a nest egg, but I call it an accumulation, and I refuse to assent to this particular proposal, because I believe it is an obvious job. Then there is in the list £70,000 "for Her Majesty Queen Mary, in the event of her surviving His Majesty the King": £10,000 for the Princess of Wales in the event of the marriage of the Prince of Wales, that sum to be increased to £30,000 in the event of the Princess of Wales survivng the Prince of Wales; and £10,000 in respect of each son of His Majesty, other than the Duke of Cornwall, who attains the age of twenty-one years, and a further sum of £15,000 in respect of each son who marries. I object to this Parliament being called upon to sanction the expenditure of a single halfpenny under these heads. I should make provision, as I said before, for the Queen-Mother at the present juncture. In future, if the Queen or the Princess of Wales should be left a widow, I should be willing to make provision under proper circumstances for them, but I am not willing to tie up the discretion of Parliament to deal with this matter. I object to the item with respect to the younger children of the King on that ground as well as on its merits.

I want to direct the attention of the House to a serious matter on this point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer very easily glided over the ground, but, so far as I could follow his speech, he asked the House to believe that it was perfectly in accordance with a precedent. I can find no precedent for provision being made for the younger children of the King before the money is wanted. [An HON. MEMBER: "Provision was made for the Prince of Wales' children."] No, that was not a precedent. The Prince of Wales' children were provided for only when they were of age. We are now called upon to provide money for some children who are scarcely out of the cradle, and it might be for some who are yet unborn. I feel at this time that the House should take into consideration the lengthy list of Royalties in respect of whom we are called upon to pay. I find from a speech made by Mr. Labouchere in 1889 that the amount paid up to that time in respect of other than the ruling Sovereign was £4,961,000. I do not know how much has been paid since then. I have tried to ascertain, but 1 cannot. It is probable that nearly as much has been paid since that time. I think we ought to refuse to pay money unless it is well guarded. I should draw a limit in the direction which I have already indicated by providing handsomely for widows in the circumstances I have mentioned and providing also for the Heir-apparent, but I should refuse to pay a single penny of public money outside of these categories. Now I come to what is, perhaps, the most important matter in connection with these proposals, namely, the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. I can find no real title on the part of Royalty to these revenues except what is based on mere assertion on the part of the Crown and mere servility on the part of Parliament.

In the message read to the House just immediately before setting up the Committee the Crown is made to say, "surrender is made of the revenues of the Crown land, and in consideration thereof the Crown relies upon Parliament to give a proper amount for the maintenance of the dignity of the Crown." That is put, therefore, in the nature of a bargain, and that is understandable if a bargain has been made. As a matter of fact, the Crown does not give up the Crown revenue and the hereditary revenue. It only gives up the Crown land in the narrow sense of woods and forests. It does not even give up those, because, as a matter of fact, there are some of those castles and other places near London and elsewhere occupied by grace and favour of the Crown which have never been returned to the public at all. Therefore the bargain has not been carried out, if there is one. I have spent a great deal of time going over the records of previous Debates in this matter, and, from what I can gather, the whole idea of the Civil List appears to have been that the King and the Crown gave up not only Crown lands but all revenue in return for adequate provision being made by Parliament for the maintenance of the Royal Household. I might go back to the time of Queen Anne, when an Act was passed, which has been generally called, I believe, the Restraining Act since, by which not only the Crown lands, but, these lands are considered to be public property, and Kings and Queens of this Realm, from the time of Queen Anne, are expressly barred from alienating any of these lands. Therefore I take it that these lands are public, and not private. Of course, in these days the Civil List was burdened with a great many charges other than come on it now, so that a comparison is not much use. But, coming to a more recent date; I quote from a speech of Mr. Fox, in 1802, in which he said: "From the time Parliament exonerated the Crown from the expense of levying Fleets and Armies, from that moment the hereditary revenues became the property of the public." At a more recent date, in 1857, Sir George Lewis said it had been deemed a matter of policy in this country to strip and denude the Sovereign of all hereditary property, and render him during his life wholly dependent upon the bounty of Parliament. Those were the principles accepted by everybody well into the last century.

We have departed from those principles; we have left the Crown in possession of these great and growing revenues, and, notwithstanding that the Crown still comes to us, and says that owing to certain laws being passed, under which it is prevented from making proper provision, we should make that provision in respect to the younger son. It was well asserted, and an axiom, that it only asked for pro- vision being made for a younger son because the laws of this Realm prevented it making that provision itself. We have abolished those laws; in 1800, in 1860, and I think in 1833, Acts were passed, and by these Acts we have left to the Crown private property, and we still have these messages calling upon us to support the younger son and other people. Before passing away, I may refer to the speech of Mr. Gladstone on 21st July, 1873. He was a great stickler for Royalty, and if he had any doubts I am sure he would have mentioned them. He called attention to the 1800 Act, which made a distinction, so to speak, between property held by the Crown. He admitted the Restraining Act of Queen Anne, but he said that there were certain properties which did not come within its province—that is to say, properties which might be bought by the Crown out of the Privy Purse, or properties that might be given to the Crown. It is quite obvious that neither of these Duchies could by any stretch of imagination be included within either of these categories. I therefore submit to the House that these Duchies are public and not private property. Moreover I am glad that the Chancellor assents to that. All I ask is that provision should be made whereby the public should get the benefit of it. I submit that they are public property, and that they have been publicly administered. The office of one of them, the office of the Duchy of Cornwall, has been paid for out of public funds, and, moreover, the Parliamentary giants of the last century all assented to that, and regarded it as part and parcel of the national possessions. But during the last three reigns there appears to have been no notice taken of these growing revenues at all.

At the beginning of the reign of Queen Victoria I find that the Civil List was £385,000, and at that time these revenues were very small, amounting to less than £30,000. At the beginning of the last reign, notwithstanding that these revenues had increased to £120,000, the Civil List was raised to £470,000. If one takes the Privy Purse by itself the case is even stronger, because at the beginning of Queen Victoria's reign the Privy Purse amounted to £60,000, and even with the Duchies thrown in it amounted to considerably less than £100,000. At the beginning of the last reign, when the revenues of the Duchies amounted to at least £120,000, there was an increase to £110,000 of the Privy Purse. Therefore the Privy Purse amounted in effect to nearly £250,000. Now we are asked to assent to this further increase. I think I have said enough to show the need for the mergence of these, as I call them, public properties of the Duchies along with the other Crown lands and hereditary revenues. There is just one other point that I want to refer to, and that is the £20,000 mentioned by the Chancellor in respect to public property. I object to £20,000, or as it has now been increased to £47,000, being treated in this way, because I believe in the future that that £47,000 for the upkeep of palaces will be taken more or less out of the purview of Parliament, and I think that the repair of those palaces is a matter not for the discretion of the occupant of the palace for the time being, but that it ought to come under the purview of Parliament, and that Parliament ought to have proper control over it. I have done. I hope I have put the case without offence. I feel very strongly in regard to it. I dare say that there are many who think that these views which I have been putting forward are very unwelcome ones, ones that should not be held. But I can only say I am here to voice my own opinions, the opinions of those with whom I am associated, and I believe the interests of those whom I represent. I thank the House for having listened to me so patiently. I am against the provisions that are proposed, and I shall bring forward Amendments later on when the time comes, because, as I believe, these are excessive, because I believe that public properties are not being treated as they ought to be, and because this Parliament is called upon to incur liabilities and responsibilities that ought only be incurred by the Parliaments that should deal with them in the times to come.

I confess I listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down with some feeling of regret as well as with much difference of opinion. I do not propose to travel in detail over the ground which he has traversed. From part of it I dissent absolutely upon historical grounds. For instance, apart from his general complaint that Royalty costs us too much, which is the real gravamen of his speech, the main point was that we were treating the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall in a different way from what the Crown revenues properly so called are treated. The hon. Member seems to think in some way that the Crown revenue should be considered by the Government, as a portion of the property of the Sovereign or of the Prince of Wales, and should be treated differently from other parts of the property which come down from generation to generation. But I think that is historically inaccurate. It is perfectly true that neither the Duchy of Lancaster nor the Duchy of Cornwall are in exactly the same position as Sandringham or Balmoral. But it is equally true that they are not to be considered as exactly in the same position as, for example, the site of Regent Street or of Pall Mall. These are Crown properties, but the others belong, and in history have always belonged, to a different category and a different class, and I see no reason why this House should depart from the historic method of dealing with these two sources of revenue. The hon. Gentleman was actually mistaken in some of his facts. He told us that the management of the Duchy of Cornwall was provided for out of public funds. It is not provided for out of public funds, and is not under public management. The Duchy of Cornwall belongs now, and always has belonged, to the eldest son of the Sovereign. When I say always, I mean going back to a long, historic past, many centuries—say, 500 years.

Unless I am very much mistaken, the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall were turned over by Queen Victoria to the Prince of Wales in 1844.

The revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall were allowed to accumulate for the benefit of the Prince of Wales during his minority.

Just the same arrangement as in the present case.

There is no change, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, in this particular at all. The revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall have always been regarded as the property of the Prince of Wales. When the Prince of Wales is not of age to administer or enjoy the revenues, they are accumulated on his behalf. The management of the Duchy of Cornwall has never been a charge thrown on the public, but it is carried out by the Prince of Wales when of age to do the work, with the assistance of those whom he appoints, and no Government Department or semi-Government Department, nothing in the nature of the Department of Woods and Forests, has anything to do with the management of the estates. That is the historic position. I am glad this House has not departed from it. The hon. Gentleman did not give us any reason at all why he thinks it is desirable the House should depart from it. Indeed he looked forward to some immense increase in the revenues in the Duchy of Cornwall, which, I suppose, he thought would make the Prince of Wales richer and wealthier in the years to come than is necessary on public grounds. I believe he is mistaken about this immense prospective increase. Those who are actually responsible for the management of the Duchy of Cornwall inform me that the last, or almost the last, of the profitable leases has fallen in, and whatever increase there may he will not be of the excessive character that the hon. Gentleman appears to suppose. The real root of the hon. Gentleman's objection is that he thinks it too much. All the other observations he made are really either intended to lead up to that, or to create prejudice which may induce other people to come to the same conclusion as the hon. Gentleman has done. If that is his view what is the worth of the comparisons he made between the £70,000 given to the widow of the late King and the small income of a poor and struggling widow? Of course, there is a great difference. But if you mean to have a monarchy at all there must be a difference. The hon. Gentleman drew a parallel between some official at Osborne and the Lord Steward. I might observe in the first place that the position of the official at Osborne is not that of an official of the King at all. He is not a Court official, he is not paid out of the Civil List, he is on the Votes, I believe in Class I. of the Estimates; and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Minister responsible for Class I. is giving salaries to the officials for whom he is responsible at a lower rate than they ought to receive it is on Class I. he ought to raise the objection. It has no reference to the Civil List. But leaving the Osborne case out of account the hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me to say so, for rhetorical purposes which he very unjustly charged the Chancellor of the Exchequer with in his very business-like treatment of the subject, objects to the Lord Steward. The Lord Steward is under a system which makes him both a Court official and a Member of the Government. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks there ought to be an absolute divorce made between these two classes of officers, and that you should no longer have Lords in Waiting, Masters of the Horse, Lord High Stewards, and other great Court officials, who are also Members of the Government for the time being.

That is an arguable proposition. But this question has its roots in the distant past. At one time no doubt the multiplication of these officials was a considerable abuse, as anybody who knows the history of the Debates of the eighteenth century is well aware. There is no abuse here. If you were to divide the political officials from the Court officials, strictly so called, the Court must still have these officials to carry out State ceremonials, and I presume the Government must have officers to carry out their work. You would have two sets of officers and two sets of salaries, instead of one set of officers and one set of salaries. I cannot see how the efficiency of the Government or the dignity of the Crown, or the economy of the public service, would really be served by getting rid of this historic arrangement, anomalous though on the face of it it may appear. If we grant, as we must grant, that you are to have a Crown and a Court, you must have officials of the Crown and Court to carry out those duties of which the hon. Gentleman gave us a sarcastic description. These ceremonials are necessary, inevitable, and proper incidents of the Court, and I believe the hon. Gentleman would be among the first to complain if they were not carried out. Then the hon. Gentleman complained of the provision made in this Act and in this Resolution for the younger sons of the Sovereign. I am perfectly unable to reconcile that criticism with another criticism which he made to the effect that the Sovereign should not he allowed to accumulate this money. In some mysterious way he seems to think that we are taking the Sovereign beyond the purview of Parliamentary sanction and may enable him to carry out acts without due Ministerial advice and put him altogether in an unconstitutional position. If you are not to allow the Sovereign to make provision for his younger children, nor yourselves to make provision for the younger children when you have to deal with tie whole question of the Expenditure of the Crown, how are you to do it? The hon. Gentleman made, I think, a most unfair comparison between the cost of this Civil List and the cost of the last Civil List, because he compared this year with last year. What he ought to do is to compare the first year of the new reign with the first year of the old reign, or, if he likes, to throw his mind forward and compare the tenth year of the new reign with the tenth year of the old reign. That would be comparing like with like, but to compare the first year of the new reign with the last year of the old reign is not to compare like with like. It is not serving any sound purpose, and really only tends to mislead public opinion out of doors upon this question. I entirely approve, if my opinion is worth anything, of the Government having at the beginning of the reign made provision for the younger children.

After all, what we do in proposing the Civil List is to say to our Sovereign, "Part of the functions of your great position is to carry out official duties of various kinds, and we make provision in order that you may do this adequately and properly without either excess of extravagance or regrettable meanness." But if you are going to ask your Sovereign to do all those things you must give him surely adequate provision for doing what everybody has got to do, namely, to provide for his family. If you choose to increase the Civil List—I mean some other class of Civil List—to increase the Privy Purse—that would be an intelligible policy. I do not think it would be as good as the policy this Government has proposed, but neither to provide more of a Privy Purse adequate to provide for his younger children nor to make special provision for them leaves them unprovided for, which is an intolerable and absurd position. I think I should so far carry the hon. Member with me in the view that that was an intolerable position. He would say that the true remedy was to come to the House of Commons and ask for money for those younger members. Surely it is far better in every way that we should recognise the fact that the Sovereign as the father of the family has duties to his family, as all fathers have thrown upon them, and that we should enable him to carry out those duties by giving funds out of which he can provide for those younger children. That is far better than to drag in these difficult and delicate matters constantly before Parliament. Nothing is gained in the public interests, nothing is gained in the Royal interests, or in any interest whatever by doing so. It is a far more businesslike procedure that has been adopted by the Government, and I trust that the precedent will be regarded for all time as a precedent which ought to be followed. After all we have to recognise that the real root of the criticism of the hon. Gentleman is that he thinks that Royalty is too expensive a luxury in this country. That lies at the bottom of the whole thing.

It is immoral.

2.0 P.M.

I did not know that that was the hon. Gentleman's view, nor did a single word from anybody suggest that it was immoral, but that he thought it expensive.

The expense is immoral.

It does not matter whether I talk of expense or immorality, it is the same thing. It is the expense that they object to. Let us recognise at once frankly that we have to choose. You could get on I suppose, and I suppose the community so far as this island is concerned would not sink into chaos if this was a Republic and not a Monarchy. In my opinion the Empire would sink into chaos if this was a Republic and not a Monarchy. You could not have as the head of an Empire so peculiarly situated as ours is a President elected, say, like the President of the United States every four years, a creature of party, or at all events the choice of party, representing the party, changing many times in the lifetime of every individual, and representing the abstraction of constitution and not the personal head of the Empire. You could never work this Empire on that principle simply because if you insist upon having an elected President of this country he is elected by the voters of this country, and not by the electorate of any other of the dominions of the Crown, or any of the Crown Colonies, and without that hereditary claim on the allegiance of the subjects of the Empire which those who have been observant of the lessons of the history of this country realise, and which history tells us, if it tells us anything, is the most natural and the most easy to accept as the ground of kingship. If the House pass, as I am confident they will, this proposal, and since the vast majority of the people agree that it is a monarchy and only a monarchy which can be the head of an Empire like our own, then, Sir, it is folly to try and run the monarchy upon principles which may or may not be proper to a President, who is, after all, merely a Prime Minister under another name. I do not believe that even a President like the President of the French Republic, can be run much more cheaply than ours.

You must have in these days of international relationships, and if the head of the State in England is to meet those of great foreign allies, you must have ceremonial, you must have ornamental officers, and you must have all the apparatus of the Court, and if you must have the apparatus of the Court, do it properly. Will anybody who knows the fitting ceremonial of other great countries contend that there is absurd extravagance or waste or pomp in this country? It is not. It is done admirably. No one would pretend it is done to excess, and, for my part, if you refuse to do it decently and properly and with dignity, I think you had better alter your whole system, and look around for some other system which to your mind will have the advantage of being cheaper, and I suppose the hon. Gentleman would say more moral, than the one under which for many centuries this country has flourished. The cost of the Crown bears an incomparably smaller ratio to the wealth, even of the community even in these Islands, to say nothing of the Empire, than in the past. Those who look back to the vast sums provided, and willingly provided, by this House to pay the huge debts of, say, George IV. when Prince of Wales, and the gigantic Civil list of George III. and his predecessors, may be shocked and horrified, as I confess I have often been, by seeing the vast drain made upon the national resources at that time? What were the national resources at that time? The Crown then asked a great deal more of the House of Commons, and the House of Commons had much less to give. I quite agree that at this time of day, when no such abuses and no such extravagance can be urged against the Crown, or any member of the Royal Family, at a time when more than ever in our history the necessity for the monarchy is becoming more and more apparent to every impartial observer, to say that this Civil List is framed on terms of so extravagant a character that this House ought to refuse either to the Crown or to the Government the Supplies they ask for, I think would be a discredit to this Assembly. I am convinced that the Government, in pursuing the course they have pursued, not only command a majority in this House, but that they have behind them the assent of the whole population of this country outside this House, and of those great Dominions who still look to this country and to the monarch of this country as the head and centre of the vast Empire. For these reasons I most earnestly hope that the House will show, by an overwhelming majority, that they accept and approve of these proposals.

In the few remarks I shall make I shall absolutely avoid the whole of the last part of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, leaving it to be dealt with by those who sit behind me. I should not have taken part in this Debate, having voted for the Second Reading of the Report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had it not been for the very strong opinions I hold against even that Report, though it is more moderate than others have been, in the matter of the Duchies. The view which I shall take some other opportunity of putting before the House is represented by the vote I gave with some other Members against paragraph 6 of the Report. In that paragraph it is stated that not only the amount of the Civil List but its distribution amongst the various classes was thoroughly and accurately gone into in 1901, and that is given as a reason why on this occasion it need not be done again. The facts laid before the Committee show, I think, that that cannot be said to have been true, because it will be found on page 1 of the appendices to the Report that, while the Privy Purse was settled at £120,000. £31,000 was added to the Privy Purse in the first year by reason of savings on the other heads which had been so carefully settled. These statements appear to be mutually destructive. The position is further illustrated by the fact that in the second year £17,000 of savings were added, in the fourth year £37,000, and in subsequent years £38,000. Therefore I think that that settlement cannot have been accurate in the sense of doing away with the necessity for a careful supervision on this occasion.

My reason for rising was to enter a word of protest against the doctrine of the Leader of the Opposition on the subject of the Duchies. He will recognise—it is quite unnecessary to go over the old fight again in detail—that the matter has always been in dispute in the House of Commons, and that the doctrine which he has laid down has never been laid down in this House without immediately being questioned by some of the most considerable statesmen who have been responsible for the affairs of the country. I do not think he will deny that fact. Therefore without repeating the argument, I must enter a protest at once. To put the matter popu- larly, how did the property of John of Gaunt come into the possession of William III.? I cannot see the answer to that question. The title to the Duchies is more absolutely Parliamentary than almost any other title in this country. Therefore, if we hear that they have always been in the possession of the Crown, or have always been the property of the Crown, in one sense those words may be justified; but they are Parliamentary beyond any other property, and must be considered as being, and ought to be recognised by law as being, absolutely within the control of Parliament. I may allude to the fact that there was a fairly full investigation of this subject, not so much on the occasion of the last Civil List in 1901 as in 1889 and in various earlier years. On those occasions Members will find that the whole matter was argued for day after day in the House of Commons, and they will see how weighty are the names and the arguments by which the doctrine of the bargaining and of the handing over of the State lands, but not of the Duchies, was contested in this House whenever it was raised. Let me warn the Committee, especially on this side, against being led away by the great name of Mr. Gladstone. It will not be denied that on this subject Mr. Gladstone was a far higher Tory than any one sitting on the benches opposite. Therefore he must not be quoted to us upon this matter as though he were an authority for us. I think it was the late Mr. W. H. Smith who, when he and the House beat Gladstone by a large majority about the Thames Embankment lands, condemned his doctrine and suggested that if Mr. Gladstone had his way he would encourage the Crown to build all over Hyde Park.

The revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall have been in dispute this afternoon. I do not know how far we are justified in alluding to statements made in evidence before the Committee, as the proceedings were confidential, but as there have been contradictions on the subject between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes), I may state the impression made upon my mind as to the future of the Duchy. With regard to information, I think that the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) and the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) may have some ground for complaint that the proceedings of the Committee were not sufficiently prolonged for them to get information on other matters for which they asked. I cannot make that statement of myself, because the subject on which I desired information, which had not hitherto been forthcoming, was on what I may call the prospective income of the Duchies. Although that information is too intangible to be laid before Parliament in a Return of the sort, in view of the difference of opinion that has arisen, perhaps I might state the impression of it upon my mind. The Duchy of Lancaster, it was asserted in the Debates in 1889, had been somewhat starved as regarded its capital account. In the case of both Duchies there had been a tendency to draw from time to time too large an income from them for their permanent welfare. They would have been better and richer if more money had been spent upon capital account. One of the great reasons for public control, for taking them over absolutely into the hands of Parliament, and for obtaining a still more continuous control of the Woods and Forests than we have in regard to some portions of those properties, is that they will never be managed properly, and managed on the principle that they are properties, until there is no inducement for anyone to draw the utmost farthing of income from them in each year. In the case of the Duchy of Cornwall, which was, of course, mentioned in the 1889 Debates, it was stated that, during the minority of one of the Princes, the income which was got from the Duchy was spent upon other objects. There were other similar cases. Under these circumstances it would have been far better for both of these Duchies had they been more directly in the hands of Parliament. As regards the amount of the Duchy of Lancaster, it is, I think, £64,000 a year, and likely to be steady for some time. The Duchy of Cornwall is £94,000 a year. It will not decline. It is likely to rise to £96,000, and drop again to £94,000. There is, of course, a chance that the price of tin may affect these revenues, and there is a speculative chance of an enormous increase in the revenues. But that cannot be counted upon. These very large revenues are taken into account in the fixing of the Civil List, and the more it is plain that they are so taken into account, the better for all parties in this Debate. I should not have ventured to have spoken if the question at issue had merely been one of amount or cost, but as regards the public control of the Duchy, the future expansion which we ought to look forward to, I am certain that there ought to be rigid public management of these lands of the Duchies insisted upon. If the old fiction of their being in a peculiar sense the possession of the Crown stands in the way that fiction ought to be swept away.

With regard to what has been said as to the provision for the younger branches, in one sense provision has been made, because the old bad precedent, against which some of us contended on every possible occasion, of special provision by this House for grandchildren, was expressly given up. All attempts to ask this House to provide for grandchildren has been abandoned. But I agree in principle with my hon. Friend behind me, that what this House ought to aim at doing is to provide for the dignity of the Throne itself; to do so directly rather by payments to the King, to the widowed Queen, and possibly the Heir Apparent, than by making provision for various branches of the family. In support of that view I would add this, apparently a trivial argument, but one which, as regards the sentiment, has some weight with me. So far as the Monarchy acts as a tie throughout the Empire, and is recognised in a peculiar degree as the outward sign of that tie, in India and in the Dominions, the people are impatient at the decoration of public buildings and the holding of public holidays on birthdays other than that of the King and Queen. On the occasion when the Proclamation was made out of nineteen ceremnoial days, only two were concerned with such occasions as would be generally recognised throughout the Empire. I am convinced from the Imperial point of view that what you have to provide for is the Crown itself, and that it is undesirable to recognise more than may be necessary other members or junior branches of the Royal Family.

The position of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall has occupied much of the speeches made. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) has argued as to the position of the Duchy of Lancaster, but has judiciously said little as to the original acquisition of the Duchy of Cornwall. At any rate, it will be admitted by all that the Duchy of Cornwall property is differently circumstanced to the Crown lands. The Duchy of Cornwall estates were private estates originally owned—up to his death in 1336—by the brother of Edward III., who, as heir, succeeded to them, and handed them over in lieu of allowance, I suppose, to the Black Prince, from whom they had descended, to the present members of the Royal Family. To my mind they are as much the private property of the present holders as is private property the possession of any private individual. Apart from that, to take away control from the Prince of Wales would be bad policy, and a policy viewed with intense disfavour by those chiefly concerned. On the Duchy of Cornwall estates in London and Devonshire the King has set a noble example. The management, under His Majesty's close superintendence, could not have been better. Although I have no direct authority to say so, I know, from personal experience, that the Duchy tenants in Devonshire would view with dismay the transference of this property to other hands. To give only one instance out of many of enlightened management, I know that in connection with the Devonshire property His Majesty earnestly desires to further the policy of providing small holdings, and of his own initiative during the last few years has provided an immense number of such holdings. He has further done what many landlords have been unable to do; he is providing for the equipment of these holdings. He is erecting buildings and dwelling houses for the prospective small holders.

The management of the London property has been no less enlightened. We have had proof in Committee of the King's anxiety to improve housing accommodation, with special attention to sanitation and the prevention of overcrowding. The hon. Member (Mr. Barnes), in his speech, has testified to the improvement in the condition of the Duchy property in London of late years, but he scarcely did justice to the management of that property, for he has ascribed that improvement to the expenditure of public funds. We have been told, however, in Committee upstairs, that the King has spent £100,000 on working men's dwellings since the year 1901, £26,000 being expended in 1909. We have learnt that almost half the gross receipts from the Duchy properties went back into those properties in the course of the preceding year. I believe that I am right in saying that the London property administered by the Woods and Forest Department is relet on building leases as it falls in. King George, on the other hand, desiring to dispense with the intervention of the middleman, has not leased to building speculators, but has arranged that the Duchy itself should rebuild and let direct to the small tenant; so that control over the property may be retained and that kindly and enlightened management of the estate may be assured. That is universally recognised by all who live upon this property, and I think it will be the greatest mistake to seek to alter the existing arrangement, and, further, I hold that it is a very excellent thing that the Heir to the Throne should have personal experience of the rights and duties of the owner of private property. With regard to the provisions contained in the other Resolutions, I hold most strongly that they are not more than adequate to keep up the dignity of the Throne, and I shall give to them my strong support.

I thought it would be very difficult when I came into the House for a private Member to criticise any portion of this Bill for want of detailed knowledge of what occurred at the Committee upstairs. But I am sure, after what we heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke), and from the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), that the Members of the Committee were almost equally badly off for information and were supplied with as little information as the House itself. I think we ought to hear some answer to these allegations from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is hardly fair to ask a Committee to deal with important matters of this sort and then not to lay before that Committee all the information they ask for. It is impossible to come to a conclusion on the Report of a Committee which had not laid before it all the facts which were necessary to enable them to come to a proper decision. I have one or two criticisms to offer, and the first is as to the amount of money for the repair of outside palaces. It is now proposed that a sum of £27,000 should be voted annually for the repair of these outside palaces. I object very strongly to the House having to vote any sum of money the detailed expenditure of which cannot be criticised in Committee of this House. It is now proposed that £27,000 a year should be allocated for use whether wanted or not, and that any balance left over after expenditure should be carried forward to the next year. I believe that to be setting a very bad principle and I am perfectly sure it is a system that must lead to gross extravagance. It is exactly the system we complain of in regard to public works. Money is placed outside the control of Parliament and leads and always lead to wasteful expenditure. I rely upon certain sums being put upon the Votes, the expenditure of which could be criticised by the House. I do not see why the Royal palaces should be treated in this or any other way than other expenditure is treated. You might just as well say that a fixed amount of money should be allocated annually for expenditure on Royal yachts. I do not see why Royal palaces should be made an exception any more than Royal yachts or Royal parks.

With regard to the question of the Duchies, I regret extremely that this opportunity has not been taken to come to terms with the Crown for the surrendering of the revenues of the Royal Duchies. I cannot see how the revenues from these Duchies differ from that of any other Crown land. I am aware that these Duchies were excepted in the reign of Queen Victoria, but I have never seen any good reason for these particular exceptions. These revenues undoubtedly always go with the Crown but how was it that these revenues came to the Crown? In the case of the Duchy of Lancaster it was the property of John of Gaunt. It true that whenever there was a change of dynasty these revenues always followed the Crown, and it is a very interesting historical fact bearing upon this, that there is not a single manor—and when I say manor I mean manorial right—that belonged to the Duchy of Lancaster in the days of John of Gaunt that does not still belong to it at the present time. When we come to the allowance which is to be made to the Duke of Cornwall the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed us that £20,000 a year which was voted to the present King when Prince of Wales outside the revenues of the Duchies would not go to the Duke of Cornwall. He said that was to be made up by the fact that there were accumulations until the Duke came of age, and, secondly, that there were the revenues of the Duchy; but he did not tell us this also, that the Duke of Cornwall, as soon as he comes of age, like the other sons of the King, is to have an addition to his income of £10,000 a year.

No, no.

May I read what is stated in the Report?

Read the Resolution.

The Report says, "Your Committee concur in this view, and therefore recommend that provision should be made in the Civil List Act of the present reign for granting an annuity of £10,000 a year to each of His Majesty's sons on attaining his majority."

Read the Resolution.

I was guided by the Report. I am very glad to hear it is not to be the case. If it was so it would be obvious to the House that the Duke of Cornwall when he comes of age would absolutely have been in receipt of as large an income—because the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall have gone up by more than £13,000 a year—as the present King had when he was Prince of Wales. Now I come to the question of the policy of the Crown having this income from the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster, rather than having a fixed amount. I am not sure constitutionally that it is a sound thing that these revenues should go to the Crown, but that point I do not want to argue. What I want to argue is that it is not advisable in the interests of the Crown that the income provided for the Crown should be of a fluctuating character. I think it would be better for the Crown and for the country that there should he a proper and sufficient sum allocated to the Prince of Wales rather than the amount should fluctuate. It is perfectly true that fluctuation in the case of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall has been constantly increasing. That does not seem to me to be a perfectly sound system of making a Grant. As the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean has pointed out, it is quite on the cards that the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall may not always be as large as they are to-day. If a very serious diminution takes place we might find the Prince of Wales placed in the undignified position of having to come to Parliament, saying "My revenues have fallen off, and, although I accepted them, I cannot live upon those revenues, and I must ask for a further Grant from Parliament." That is not a position that it is advisable we should allow to arise, and it would be infinitely better to give him a fixed sum and let the State take all the revenues of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. One hon. Member has pointed out that the Duchy of Cornwall has now taken upon itself to become a direct landlord, and is rebuilding the old property, keeping the new property in its own hands. Is that a desirable thing? There are times when disagreeable incidents arise in connection with the ownership of property, and it is conceivable that evictions might take place. In my opinion it is not desirable that either the King or the Prince of Wales should be placed in the position of having to take proceedings against his own personal tenants. I think it would be infinitely better that these Crown properties should be handed over to the country for a fixed sum. When this matter was before the House of Commons in 1901 Sir Michael Hicks-Beach said the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall were not altering very much, but in the year 1910 a very large number of leases would fall in to the Duchy. We have not heard anything of that from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I wish to know if he has taken into account the falling in of these leases. In that case will the revenue be more than the moderate growth which has taken place in recent years? I think this is a very important factor when we are considering this question. I regret that this opportunity has not been taken of making an arrangement with the Crown for taking over these two Duchies.

I should not have intervened in this Debate except for the fact that I have been very closely connected for a large number of years with the Council of the Duchy of Cornwall. I wish to answer a question put by the last speaker as to the probable increment in the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. When the sum of £96,000 was fixed it included all the sums obtained from the falling in of leases. As a matter of fact, all the large building leases have now fallen in, and it is not expected that within a reasonable time the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall will exceed £96,000. With reference to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, I do not think that the fluctuation in the tin-mining industry is likely to be an extremely important factor as regards the revenues of the Duchy. It may effect them in one way or another, but by far the greater proportion of the revenue is derived quite independently of the mining industry, and the fluctuations in the tin trade would not be a very important factor. Upon the general question, I am very much opposed to the suggestion that the Duchy of Cornwall should be taken over in the same way as the estates now administered by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. First of all I will answer what was said by the Mover of the Amendment. Really he was inaccurate as regards the Duchy of Cornwall, because he talked about the two Duchies as if they were on the same basis, whereas they are quite distinct. The Duchy of Cornwall was originally private property given many years ago, and in the year 1336 it was transferred as private property by Edward III. to the Black Prince. It passed by settlement to the eldest son. From that time the property has devoluted to the eldest living son of the Monarch for the time being.

Not unless he is created Prince of Wales.

It has nothing to do with being created Prince of Wales. His present Majesty, when he was Duke of Cornwall, was not created Prince of Wales till the year after, and from the moment of Queen Victoria's death, as Duke of Cornwall, he became entitled to the income and revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. Not only was that so, but, if I may add it—and I am dealing, not with the evidence before the Committee, but with the law—from the very moment of the death of the King his eldest surviving son—whether he be Prince of Wales or not—becomes legally entitled to the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. That is exactly what happened when His present Majesty, as Duke of Cornwall, had the revenues of the Duchy, as of right, years before he became Prince of Wales. It would not matter in the least if the eldest son of the King was never made Prince of Wales at all, as far as the title is concerned. It is wholly inaccurate to say that the title to the Duchy depends on the owner being created Prince of Wales; it depends entirely on his being the eldest surviving son of the Monarch. There have been inquiries whether, in order to keep the title, any act of any sort ought to be done, but it has been universally found that the Prince becomes entitled as of right, and that no special Act of Parliament or otherwise is necessary. Therefore, so far as the Duchy of Cornwall is concerned, I think the whole Debate in this House has proceeded under a misapprehension. It is, in fact, a property which now devolutes under a private settlement started in 1336, and which has never been departed from up to this time. It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean has been under a misapprehension in this matter. I have now given him accurate information, and I hope he will never again raise these fallacies with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall.

Apart from the question of title, no doubt we have to consider the question of administration. I do not think I am going too far when I say it has been universally recognised, in recent years, at any rate, that the property of the Duchy of Cornwall has been administered as well as any property can possibly be administered, having regard to the duties involved. May I read what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the last occasion when this question was before the House? He said:— I am bound to speak of the admirable way in which the estates of the Duchy have been administered, largely owing to His present Majesty's own superintendence. Reference has been made to the conditions of the property in South London. Up to 1885 there were long outstanding leases, so that the Duchy of Cornwall had no real control. There were many poor and even slummy properties on the estate. In 1885 the leases began to fall in, and since then most have fallen in. Arrangements have been made to clear away the whole of the slum property, and the Duchy is now spending a sum of about £200,000. It is being done without any middlemen in order that there may be absolute security in matters of sanitation and health, that the best is done for the large working-class population living in this district. I do not think any difficulty arises from the responsibility of the Duke of Cornwall as regards these estates. I occupy the position of Attorney-General to His Royal Highness, and it is my duty to inquire into matters in which difficulties arise. I do not think any difficulties arise in this connection any more than they do in connection with litigation of a far more important character which has to be conducted in the name of the King. The fact is here you have a good estate to which the country at large has no title of any sort or kind. It is devoluted under special conditions, like any other private estate. It is admitted that it is administered in an admirable way; that everything possible is done to develop the property. It is not managed with the mere idea of getting the maximum of income; money is freely spent in order to ensure that the estate is properly conducted. I congratulate the Committee on the fact that their Report did not include any proposal for interfering with the estate. When you have an estate administered in the best possible way, you only make the conditions less favourable if you interfere.

I agree that the amount allocated to the Sovereign out of the revenues of the Kingdom ought to be very large, and, indeed, magnificent. I am therefore not in the least disposed to quarrel with the amount proposed by the Government, nor should I quarrel with it if it were larger. But there are certain matters which require attention in this matter. The hon. Member who initiated this Debate complained of the somewhat hurried way in which the Committee conducted its inquiry. I make no complaint of that. He also alluded to the absence from the published Report of certain accounts placed before the Committee. I do not think it well, not for the King's honour, that any accounts should be suppressed, and I have no doubt that His Majesty takes the same view. What is the true principle of the Civil List? It is that His Majesty places his Crown possessions at the disposal of Parliament, and, as it were, denudes himself, as Sovereign, of all Crown property, relying on the generosity of Parliament to supply the needs of the Crown. That, in fact, is the only justification for the demand for provision to be made for the younger children, because you have taken away from the monarch the ordinary methods by which the ordinary father provides for his children.

But how can you, under these circumstances, defend the withdrawal of the two. Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall from the surrender to Parliament of the Crown properties? In spite of what has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, I say that both the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall are absolutely Crown property. Up to the year 1800 there was no such conception in this country as that an English King was capable of holding property as a private person. It was only in 1800 that you made the King of England a private person—apart from the King—capable of holding private property, and at the same time you made him expressly liable to all the taxes and impositions to which his subjects are liable, and if that be carried to a legitimate conclusion one might conceive a Monarch of this country with a large Civil List—say up to £1,000,000 sterling—having at the end of a long reign accumu- lated millions out of savings that were never intended to be made. You allocate the Civil List to the great dignitaries of the Crown so as to show that no such savings are intended to be made.

I come now to the Duchy of Lancaster. Every Member knows that that was brought to the Crown by Henry IV. There was a special Act of Parliament passed declaring it to be Crown property, the only condition made being that it should be kept separate from other Crown property. But that does not divest it of its true Crown property character. It is at this moment Crown property in exactly the same sense as the Royal demesnes and the woods and forests are Crown property. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir A. Cripps) has told us that the Duchy of Cornwall was handed over by Edward III. in 1337 to the Black Prince by charter, confirmed by Act of Parliament, and it was vested in the Prince of Wales as the eldest surviving son of the Sovereign till his accession to the Throne. But it has become subject to an Act of Settlement. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain this? During the reigns of William III. and Queen Anne the revenues of the Duchy—there being then no Duke of Cornwall or Prince of Wales—were paid not to the Sovereign, but to the Exchequer. It is only since then that any part of the revenue—when there has been no Duke of Cornwall or Prince of Wales—has gone into the Privy Purse. At any rate, down to the reign of Queen Anne the Duchy of Cornwall was still held to be Crown property. I have not found statesmen or financiers since this matter was first debated who have not held the opinion that these two Duchies ought to be surrendered at the beginning of the reign. It was so held by Burke and by Lord Brougham, and it is held by leading men to-day. I hold it certainly, and none of the arguments that I have heard to-day have convinced me that these Duchies in any respect differ from other Crown property.

3.0 P.M.

The persons responsible are the Ministers who have advised His Majesty. I regret for my part that they did not advise the surrender of the two Duchies with the rest of the Crown properties. Then there is the question of Income Tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that the payment of Income Tax by the Sovereign was voluntary. I do not think that is the case even in regard to Crown property. It cer- tainly is not true of the private property of the Sovereign. I have here the Sovereign's Private Property Act of 1862—an Act to amend the law relating to the private property of the Sovereign. In this it is provided that the private estates of Her Majesty shall be subject to such taxes, rates, duties, and assessments and other impositions as her subjects pay. That is clear proof of the liability of the Sovereign to pay Income Tax. This, of course, only refers to real estate, but as real estate is liable to Income Tax under Schedule A the same liability applies to the private estates of the Sovereign as attaches to any of his subjects. Therefore, unless you pass a special Act of Parliament to provide special exemption in the Finance Act, the private estates of the Sovereign will be in exactly the same position as the property of the subject.

I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was referring only to the Civil List?

The sums allocated under the Civil List of the last two reigns have been liable to Income Tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it is a voluntary payment. If so, I can only say it is a very creditable payment, and I should be sorry to see it stopped for the first time under the present reign. But I am not at all sure that it is a voluntary payment. Take the salaries of the Lord High Steward and the other great dignitaries who add so much to the embellishment and splendour of the Court. I am not at all sure that they are not liable to Income Tax in the ordinary way. At any rate, Income Tax is paid on them.

The liability of the individual to pay Income Tax on his salary is surely different from the liability of the Crown to pay Income Tax on the Civil List.

I think the money is paid over to the Crown to be paid as salaries in these cases. But the last two Sovereigns certainly paid Income Tax themselves on Class I. and Class III., the Privy Purse and the Household Expenses. I now come to the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who says it would be absurd to charge the Income Tax or to compel payment of the Income Tax upon the Civil List, for this reason: He says the Civil List is either sufficient or it is not. It is either an adequate or a proper sum for the duties contemplated or it is not. If it is only a proper sum for these services, if you charge Income Tax upon it you diminish the sum which you have already settled to be the right one. That is true, but it is also true in regard to every man who pays the Income Tax, and who is in the public service—it is true of the sailor, and of the soldier, of the captain in the Army, or the lieutenant in the Navy. You pay him a salary which you conceive to be a proper one for him, and then comes the wolf in the shape of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and draws away a portion of that income and calls it Income Tax.

The same argument which applies to the Civil List therefore applies to the Civil Service and to the Army and Navy, and if it is true in one case it is equally true in the other. Then I should like to know if you really do propose to exempt the Sovereign from Income Tax by Statute in some legal way, how it is to be done. Are you going to do it on this Civil List or on a Finance Bill? And if you are going to do it, do we understand that it is not to extend to his private estates? If the income of his private estates was settled and the Income Tax rate, one rate, fixed, it would be easy enough to say that the Sovereign should pay Income Tax on such and such a sum, or such and such a sum. But you have now the Super-tax, and I say where Income Tax applies Super-tax also applies. There is no more authority to levy Income Tax than there is to levy Super-tax under the same Act. Then what do we come to? If the Sovereign is to pay Income Tax on his private estate, or, as in the last two reigns, on the major part of the Civil List, then you cannot ascertain the amount of the tax until you have a return of the whole of his revenue, and I conceive that the whole of his revenues would include the Civil List. That is one of the difficulties you make when you specialise and make special rates for the Income Tax, and you cannot ascertain, as in the case of the Estate Duty, what the rate is to be until you know the total amount of the sum on which you are to levy. In my belief the sum allocated to the Sovereign in this Civil List is not too much, and were it a great deal larger I, for one, should support it. But I strongly hold that in regard to the Civil List, as in other matters, the whole truth should be given to the public in all the accounts that are presented to it. I do certainly hold that both the Duchies are completely and absolutely Crown property, and in that sense ought to be surrendered, and, in the matter of Income Tax, I earnestly hope that no Minister of the Crown will be found to advise His Majesty to be less public spirited and less taxpaying than his two predecessors.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman who is a keen economist has at once admitted that the proposals that have been recommended by the Government are not too large for the purposes to which they are to be devoted. His criticism has been rather upon technical points. He has asserted, in regard to Duchy property and Duchy estates, that they are absolutely Crown property, but I think I shall be able to show that, although they are not private property, and although they are much nearer Crown property than private property, yet notwithstanding, his definition of these estates does not really hold good. I admit at once that so far as the Duchy of Cornwall revenue is concerned, he is quite right in the assertion that that revenue was paid to the Exchequer during the reigns of Queen Anne and William III., the reason being that there was no Duke of Cornwall in existence. In regard to the exemption of Income Tax, I would like to point out that there is no necessity whatsoever to provide to exempt the Sovereign from paying Income Tax, because, by our law, as I understand it, unless there is a distinct provision such as exists in the Private Estates Act of 1862, that the tax shall be paid by the Monarch, no tax whatsoever shall be paid or need be paid by him. Therefore, it was really an act of grace on the part of Queen Victoria from 1842 onwards, and of His late Majesty, in allowing any deductions to be made for Income Tax from the revenue which they obtained from the country. There is one point to which the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Ashton) alluded, which I ought, perhaps, to dispose of before I deal with the Duchy estates, and it is one in which he has made a protest against a definite sum being contributed every year to the maintenance of Royal palaces. I was not fortunate enough to be a Member of the Committee, and therefore I can only say what my colleague, the First Commissioner of Works, has told me, and it is this, that he has found it to be most inconvenient to come to the House of Commons at the beginning of every Session and urge that his Estimates should be put forward first of all in the voting of Supply. If the necessary work which should be done upon the palaces year by year is to be undertaken, it ought at the commencement of every financial year to be possible for him to be able to enter into the necessary contracts for doing the work, and frequently the House of Commons at that time does not want to talk about the housekeeping of the Palace of Westminster or other subjects of that kind which at one time or another have interested certain Members of the House. They find at that time more important subjects which they wish to discuss and it has been very difficult for the First Commissioner of Works to enter into those contracts without the necessary permission of this House as to his proposals.

He has satisfied the Committee that £27,000 is not an unreasonably large sum to be expended, taking one year with another, upon the restoration, preservation, and maintenance of our Royal palaces, but he proposes that the criticism of his work shall be in no way taken away from the Members of this House and that he shall be responsible for all that he does in connection with the expenditure of public money in his position as First Commissioner of Works to this House. I want for a few moments, if I may be allowed, to allude to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Barnes). He took a very different view from the hon. Member for King's Lynn, he asserts that the Monarchy is too expensive, as is indicated by these Votes upon the Civil List. We realise what his views are because he has placed Amendments upon the Paper, which I understand not to be in Order, that the Privy Purse is to be reduced by £85,000, and he would also deprive His Majesty the King and the Heir to the Throne, the Prince of Wales, of the present revenues from the two Duchy estates amounting to £151,000. That sum of £236,000 is one which he proposes should be knocked off the recommendations of the Committee and the recommendations which are being put forward by the Government. With regard to the revenues, it is impossible for us to say that the revenues from these two estates are likely to increase to any very large extent in the future. The reason they have increased in the last sixty or seventy years is due to two causes—firstly, to very good management, and, secondly, to the falling in of long leases whereby better arrangements can be made, and great savings can be effected. It is also attributable to the fact that, especially in the estates of the Duchy of Lancaster, increasing sums have been secured from royalty rents, but as the coal becomes exhausted the royalty rents will diminish, and I do not think we can calculate on any substantial increase in future years from these two particular estates. The revenues may be increased by a few thousands a year, or in certain circumstances they may be reduced, but I agree that it is desirable that revenues of that kind should be made, as far as they can, constant and fixed rather than a fluctuating income for the Sovereign.

So far as I can understand the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes), he is not wedded to the reduction which he proposes of about £236,000 from the income which will be given to the Royal Family and to His Majesty the King, and upon subsequent information which he has got he has admitted that, whilst he is willing to provide handsomely for the Monarch, yet at the same time he will do it on a less generous scale than even he has indicated by his Amendment. The opinion of the Government is that we are not justified in handing over the revenues of these two Duchy estates without giving the Sovereign some quid pro quo, and I think if the hon. Gentleman had been cognisant of all the facts he would not have proposed that the whole of this sum should be taken away from the Monarch. There has, undoubtedly, been some confusion and some misapprehension in regard to the position, and I want to point out how these estates differ from Crown lands. In 1760 it was arranged with George III. when he came to the Throne that he should surrender the revenues of the Crown in return for additions to the Civil List, and I believe it is law that in the event of there being no Civil List the Monarch would still be able to retain the revenue of the Crown lands, and the Crown is entitled to keep the revenue unless a Civil List is voted by Parliament in lieu of the revenue from the Crown property. The Crown property produced £520,000 last year. I am not cognisant of all the sources of that revenue, but no doubt the greatest bulk of it would be money which the Crown is entitled to receive in the event of there being no Civil List. I will not dwell upon the necessity of maintaining the position of our Sovereign and the upkeep of our palaces in a condition which would be a credit to the nation and the Empire, but I should lie to point out that there has been not only a growing population and growing wealth in this country, as well as increasing wealth and prosperity throughout the whole of the Empire, which compels the Sovereign from time to time to increase his expenditure in a way which was not necessary under previous reigns. The engagements of the Monarch are ever increasing. The nation expects the Monarch to fulfil certain obligations, and, of course, we have been most fortunate in having Sovereigns who have been most generous in their response to public demands in connection with public engagements and functions which they have undertaken from time to time.

I should like to explain what the origin of these two Duchies was. The greater portion of the Duchy of Lancaster estates came to the Monarch through John o'Gaunt, not through himself, but because he happened to have married Lady Blanche, who was the daughter of the third Duke of Lancaster, in 1351. They were originally private property belonging to Lady Blanche, and were not Crown properties at all. In Henry IV.'s reign these properties were very largely added to by Lady Mary de Bohun, in 1356, and her sister, who were co-heiresses and daughters of the Earl of Hereford. The estates of the Earl of Hereford in Suffolk and in many other counties were joined with those of Blanche, daughter of John o'Gaunt, and these came to Henry IV. Henry IV.'s title to the throne was supposed to be a little uncertain, but he was quite sure that this property was all his, and, with the assent of Parliament, he arranged that the properties should remain to his descendants for ever, and they were recognised by the country as belonging to the Sovereign so long as he was a direct descendant of John o' Gaunt. In 1399 the Act was passed which settled them on Henry IV. and his heirs for ever, to be administered as though he had never attained regal dignity. Blackstone, I think, laid it down that if he had not retained the Throne, at any rate he would have retained these properties. But by a subsequent Act it was admitted that these properties should descend to the King, and, as in the case of Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, and Queen Anne, the properties did not go to the direct descendants of John o' Gaunt, but by a subsequent Act which was passed in Edward IV.'s reign the revenues were all to belong to the Crown. For the House of Commons to-day to attempt arbitrarily to remove from the control of the Monarch these properties, for which over 500 years have existed as under his control, without any compensation—and no compensation has been suggested from the Labour Benches—would be not only a strong order, but action of a very high-handed character.

I want also to point out that the King, through his Chancellor, had to perform a good many duties in Lancashire which are now performed by the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary, and the Lords of the Treasury. They have been exercised for many hundreds of years under special enactments, and it would be absolutely impossible on a Friday afternoon by any amendment of the Civil List, to readjust affairs in the way suggested and hand over these revenues and estates direct to the control of this House. On the grounds of administration I may point out that there would be no direct economy, at any rate, in connection with the staff of the Department if the management of the estates was transferred. It would still have to be maintained. As to the Duchy of Cornwall I need not dwell on this as the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire has already alluded to it. But I would like to point out that he was quite right and that the hon. Member for King's Lynn was not quite accurate in the matter where a difference occurred between them. These estates of the Duchy of Cornwall were the property of John of Eltham and reverted to his brother Edward III., and they were granted by the King to the Black Prince who was created Duke of Cornwall.

I wish to remark in regard to these estates that there would be no advantage at the present time in handing over the management in the same way as the Crown lands have been taken over. In regard to small holdings, I believe we have been in these two Departments rather pioneers. When Mr. Bryce occupied the position I have now the honour to hold he communicated with the parish councils in regard to the providing of small allotments. If the parish councils desired to secure the allotments from the Duchy of Cornwall they were enabled to secure land. I have been looking into the matter and I find that in the Duchy of Lancaster the estates held are as follows:—

24.—Bolingbroke, Lincoln, 2 out of 24, over 60 acres.

5.—Castleton, Derbyshire, vary from 13 to 76.

15.—Lancashire, 31, 15, 77, 68, 301, 170, 86, 36, 56, 93, 161, 14, 104, 108, 112.

36.—Staffordshire, 17 over 60; 19 under 60.

13.—Yorkshire, all under 60.

In Northampton there are fourteen acres let to the Smallholders' Association. I can really assure the House that, so far as small holdings and allotments are concerned, I do not think the management of any estate has done more in the direction of helping forward the movement than has been done under the management of both the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster. On His Majesty's own in-initiative, 1,300 acres were let to the county councils in the West of England, and, as the hon. Member for Devonshire has already stated, sites have been selected and buildings erected which are applicable for small holdings in the event of the land in future being cut up into a greater number of properties by the county councils.

As to the London property, I can only reassert what has already been stated, that improvements have been made in connection with that property by the Council of the Duchy of Cornwall. These improvements are very marked. Since 1901 enormous sums of money have been spent in the improvement of working men's dwellings, and this large expenditure of capital has not been incurred with the view of increasing the revenue from the property, but rather with the view of improving the conditions under which the working classes live in the districts. Last year alone £26,590 was the amount of capital expenditure in this direction. From the point of view of a model employer, I do not think anyone could have been found more willing and earnest in spending money on his estate than the present King during the period when he was directly interested in the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. The relations between landlord and tenant. have been as satisfactory as they possibly could be. An hon. Member just now read a passage from a speech by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, now Lord St. Aldwyn, in 1901. I would like to read a passage from another of his speeches. He said that the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall ought to remain in the position they have been in for hundreds of years, and that no estate management could have been better than that of these estates. The whole matter was debated and decided in the House on the accession of His late Majesty. I have myself looked into the estate management, so far as I have been able, and I am more than satisfied with the character of the management of the estate for which I am responsible.

May I add another remark in connection with the interest taken in agriculture by the present Sovereign and by the late lamented Sovereign, King Edward? In the thirty-eight years between King Edward's majority and the time he ascended the Throne he attended every council meeting of the Duchy of Cornwall with the exception of one. The present King, since 1901, when he became responsible, has attended every meeting with the exception of those he was unable to attend owing to absence either in the Colonies or in India. The direct advantage of the supervision of the estates by the Sovereign or the Heir Apparent is that it places upon him certain personal duties and rights as the owner of property. I would suggest to the Committee that no adequate case has been made out for the transfer of the estates, and I submit that we should allow them to continue under the excellent management to which they have always been subject.

I rise to put myself in order and to place something before the Committee. I understand that we have been talking more or less at large until now. It has been suggested that I should put forward an Amendment. I beg to move in Resolution I ["For the King's Civil List, £470,000"], to leave out "£470,000" and to insert instead thereof "£385,000."

I would like to correct a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as to the bearing of this Amendment, and as to my attitude generally.

On a point of Order. If the Amendment is moved shall we be prevented from discussing the question generally?

An Amendment is moved. The discussion must be confined to the Amendment. When the Amendment is disposed of there is no reason if the Committee desire why we should not go back to the general discussion.

I was only going to say that each of these Amendments stands by itself, and when the right hon. Gentleman said I proposed to reduce the amount by £85,000, plus the amount of the revenues of the two Duchies, he was stating what is not a fact. If he had done me the honour of reading my Report he would see that I had made provision more or less adequate, as I thought, for the transfer of these Duchies by rearranging the allowance in that Report and notwithstanding that the moneys for the upkeep of the palaces came out of the Civil List, yet my total exceeded the Government total by a sum of £8,000. I only want to say further, on the suggestion that we should refer to the Civil List of Queen Victoria. I might, if there was time, and if I was so disposed, quote from speeches of right hon. Gentlemen who now occupy the Front Government Bench in favour of that particular sum being adequate for the requirements of the situation, but I will spare their feelings.

I cannot assent to the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member, and I am

puzzled to know how he makes up the amount.

I simply propose to revert to the Civil List of nine years ago, which was considered, in the opinion of right hon. Gentlemen, adequate at that time.

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. He is not reverting to that Civil List; quite the reverse. If he compares the present Civil List with the last Civil List he will see that there is a saving in comparison with that List. Therefore if that is the argument on which he is basing his contention he is absolutely wrong. The hon. Member cannot possibly have considered the Amendment. If his suggestion was carried out it would add another £8,000.

Question put, "That £470,000 stand part of the Resolution."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 26.

I beg to move to leave out the paragraph:—

"In the event of the marriage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, for Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales.

In respect to the Princess of Wales—in the event of the Prince of Wales getting married—the proposal is that £10,000 should be paid to the Princess of Wales, and £30,000 in the event of the Princess of Wales surviving the Prince. I have no desire to put the Committee to inconvenience, and with the permission of the

£10,000, to be increased to £30,000 in the event of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales surviving His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales."

Committee, if I get a vote on this Amendment, I will combine the other three standing in my name.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 21.

I beg to move to leave out the words:—

accordance with the understanding mentioned by my hon. Friend, I move the three items be omitted from the Civil List. The first deals with the sons of His Majesty, who are to be allotted £10,000 per year to the age of twenty-one, and a

further sum of £15,000 per year each on marriage. What we do in this first item is to decide that at some future time the State shall be called upon to provide £25,000 per year for each married son of the present monarch. The item following that applies to daughters, and £6,000 per year is to be allocated to each daughter as she attains the age of twenty-one years. Following that there is the provision of £70,000 per year for the present Queen in the event of His Majesty predeceasing her. The objections to this course are twofold, and one of those objections should appeal to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) especially. He usually takes the role, and a very necessary role it is, of being a financial purist. He is interested in maintaining the full control of the House of Commons over expenditure. In that role he is admired and followed, as far as possible, by most of the Members of the House of Commons, and especially those in Opposition. What is being proposed in these items is that the present Committee shall take out of the control of future Parliaments the expenditure of sums which may easily amount to £100,000 per year. I respectfully submit that that is bad finance. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are fond of telling us, and many on this side also, of the extreme popularity of the Royal Family and of the Crown as an institution. If the Crown be so popular, what is the reason for these proposals? As far as I know, there is no precedent whatever for this proposal being asked to he agreed to. When last a proposal on similar lines was before the House, the reason put forward was that it was most undesirable that the financial affairs of the Royal Family should from time to time be brought under the cognisance of the House of Commons and of the nation. If the Royal Family be so popular, and if the Crown be so popular, surely the more frequently the nation and the House of Commons have opportunities for showing that popularity the better for all concerned. The reason for these proposals is that we may settle now the amounts to be given to the Royal Family so as to prevent their case being brought before the Houses of Parliament or future Parliaments when Grants require to be made. I submit that that is bad finance and that it would not be agreed to in any other Department of State. What would be condemned by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, in regard to any other Department of State expenditure, should not be agreed to in connection with these Royal Grants.

I do not think it is necessary for me to enter into the arguments advanced by the hon. Member. Those who know the readiness and sacrifice with which the members of the Royal Family have always been able to render public service and to devote their time to that purpose, will not agree with the hon. Member when he says that this allowance will lead them to continue in a life of ease, luxury, and idleness. That is the last charge that can be brought against them. We are pursuing simply the course which has been pursued in the past. There is no principle involved here. On the contrary, there is a distinct precedent invariably followed up to the present. We are not adding to the amount. I do not think any one who looks at the amount will say that it is excessive, and I trust the Committee will agree to the proposition of the Government.

It does not come well from the Liberal Government that they should say that they are strict followers of precedent. It appears to me that this is an opportunity for them to reduce the large amount of money which we pay to Royalty. I say there is a strong feeling in the country that too much money is being spent. Here is an opportunity for the Liberal Government to reduce it. I remember very well that when old age pensions were first proposed that hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House argued that 5s. per week to an old person would lead to idleness and what not. How much more then, if instead of 5s. or 7s. per week being given to an old person, a young person receives thousands?

I support as strongly as I can the Amendment which is now before the House. The reason I do so is this: I listened to the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and he seemed to imply by those remarks that unless we have expensive ceremonials and ritual in connection with the Monarch there was a great danger of the Monarchy falling into contempt. The last monarch, of whom I think there was not one in a million in this country but who spoke with feelings of reverence of, acquired his popularity because of the simplicity of his life. It was not extravagance of ceremonial that gained him the esteem of his subjects. It was the fact that he rode about, and mingled amongst his people quite unattended. If the Monarch means really to live in the esteem of his subjects, it is not these hundreds of thousands a year in these Votes that will gain the Monarch esteem. If it has to be perpetuated it is not large sums of money that will do it. It is suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that it was very unpleasant for the King to have from time to time to lay applications before Parliament for sums of money to be given to members of the Royal family. Of course it is unpleasant, but Parliament exists to do unpleasant things. When salaries are being voted, the searchlight of Parliamentary criticism is devoted to expenditure, and a good many unpleasant things are said and done, but because the process is an unpleasant one is no reason at all why it should be withdrawn from the purview of Parliament. I contend Parliament has absolutely no right to take out of the rates and remove from Parliamentary criticism and control these sums of money. That is what we are doing here. We, who may have our existence terminated in a very short time, have no right to do that. It is not only undemocratic, but it is unparliamentary, and opposed to all recent precedent that, constituted as we are, we should arrange that no other Parliament during the lifetime of the present King, or during the lifetime of any of his children who may marry, shall have the right to say whether or not certain sums shall be granted. That is a thing we have no right to do. It is by keeping the sums voted within the purview of Parliament that extravagance can be avoided. The Leader of the Opposition said nothing pleased him so much as to see how greatly we differ from the proceedings of the eighteenth century. What is the good of directing us to the musty records of the eighteenth century, or to the inflated revenues devoted to George II. or George III. We are here in the twentieth century, with ideas, I will not say as to economy, but at any rate as to Parliamentary control. Whether we be economic or spendthrift, we have a right to see that the money which is devoted annually to particular purposes should come within the purview of Parliament. The Motion which is before the House would take away from the control of Parliament altogether these sums of money which are expended annually. That is not only bad finance, but it is a preceder we have no right to establish, and for these reasons I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

The speech of the hon. Member would carry him a great deal further than anything that is proposed in the present Bill. The objection which the hon. Member has taken to the proposal brought forward by the Government, on the recommendation of the Committee upstairs, is that it withdraws certain grants of money from the annual control of Parliament. But that objection would be fatal to the whole principle of fixing the Civil List in the beginning of a reign.

The point is this: that the main items in the Civil List are for contingencies which have arisen at the present day, and are for present day expenditure. This particular proposal is for other contingencies that have not arisen yet, and cannot arise for years.

I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman separates himself at once from the argument of his colleague. I was engaged in replying to the hon. Gentleman who preceded me, and not the hon. Member for Merthyr. I say the hon. Gentleman's argument would go to the extent of keeping the whole of the Civil List provisions of the Crown under the annual review of Parliament. That might be a good thing or a bad thing. I think it would be a bad thing, and I think it is sufficient to say that no such suggestion was made in any quarter of the Committee upstairs. Nobody thought it a reasonable suggestion to make, and until this moment nobody has ever done so. If you do not take that extraordinary course, surely then you must take the whole of the circumstances into account in making provision for the Crown, and not leave the occupant of the Throne in uncertainty as to whether provision is to be made for his children or whether he has himself to make provision for them out of the money granted to him. These Grants for the younger members of the Royal Family contingent on their reaching the age of twenty-one, on their being married, were part and parcel of a settlement recommended by a Committee of this House. You cannot strike out a part of that settlement without destroying the whole. If you are not going to make special provisions for the children, then you must revise the provision recommended for the Crown, leaving the Crown to allocate the money among the children. I think that is a much more speculative arrangement for the House of Commons, because we should have to make full provision without knowing whether the contingency for which we wished to provide would arise or not. I think the course the Government have taken, which was recommended by the Committee, is a far wiser one, and I join with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in urging this Committee to adopt these proposals.

I wish to urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer what I unsuccessfully urged on the Committee, namely, that if these Grants are to be given to young children of four, six and eight years, they should not have an absolute vested interest in them, but they should be at the discretion of someone. The question was discussed in 1889, and on that occasion the sum of money allocated to the young children was placed in the hands of trustees and the Sovereign, who had the power of disposing of the money. I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider this particular proposal, and will make some provision in the Act to provide against this contingency.

The Chancellor based his defence of these proposals on the ground of precedent. One of his colleagues, in defending this new proposal in the Civil List which creates a new and very mischievous precedent, said it was inconvenient for a Minister to come to Parliament every year to ask for such sums. To me that seems to be creating an exceedingly dangerous precedent, because if it is allowed to be done by one Minister the House of Commons will be asked to do the same thing for another Minister. I refer to these contradictory statements in order that this House, which seems to live on precedents, may seize the opportunity of this new reign to create a new precedent in the matter of dealing with the Civil List. I agree with a great deal of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), and I think the House owes a debt of gratitude to him for the very careful way in which he analysed these proposals and explained them. I have only risen because I do not want the country to think it is only the Labour party who takes the view that this Civil List is too generous. There are a great many independent Radicals in the House and in the country who think so too. I do not believe the nation gains by the splendour of its Court. I agree with the hon. Member for Merthyr that putting at the disposal of the Court very large sums of money like this tends, or may easily and naturally tend, to luxury, to frivolity, and to extravagance, and has in the past tended to very much worse things. Examples set by the Court, let it be remembered, are very easily followed and very apt to be followed by courtiers and by the various grades of sycophantic society. I believe provision ought to be made for the rational and dignified life of His Majesty the King our Monarch at all times, but I desire to see from the King, as we have seen in the recent past, an example in living which his people may follow.

I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sums granted to the sons and daughter of His Majesty under twenty-one and eighteen years will be made to them on this Vote receiving assent—whether the money will be allocated to them from now or whether only on their attaining their majority

The allowance will be made, as indicated in the Resolution, in respect of each son who attains the age of twenty-one years, with a further allowance in respect of each son who marries and in respect of each daughter who attains the age of twenty-one years or marries. The hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) made a suggestion to the Committee that the money should be paid over to trustees on its allocation and distribution and that a vested interest should be created. I think there was a general disposition in the Committee to agree that the point raised has substance in it. The Government have considered it, and we have adopted the same view, and when my hon. Friend gets the Bill he will find that is incorporated in it.

I do not wish to give a silent vote, but I have risen particularly to protest against the suggestion that the test of loyalty rests upon the amount one is prepared to give for the upkeep of the Court. I was more than surprised to hear some of the jibes that came from that side with regard to the protests made upon what I believe is a new precedent, so far

as this Parliament is concerned. Most of us come from the homes of the workers, who are the majority of the people in this country, and we know very well upon what their loyalty rests. I am safe in saying the great popularity of the late Queen Victoria was largely owing to her readiness to accept changed conditions so far as the income of herself was concerned. She was prepared to meet new suggestions, and if ever the idea gets into the minds of the people of this country that the power of loyalty depends on the amount they are paying for it it will be a bad day so far as Royalty is concerned. We on these benches are equally loyal with those who sit on the other side of the House. We are making no attack upon His Majesty or upon the necessary funds that should be granted for the upkeep of himself and his family in the dignity required by the State. But we object to throwing an obligation on future Parliaments that may be called upon to be more generous than we are. It is a well-known fact that a friendly State, presided over by a contitutional monarch, has been making certain inquiries with a view to an increase in the grant to that particular monarch, and for the simple reason—arising out of a similar policy which hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to inflict on this country—that the taxation has increased the cost of living to so great an extent. That, at any rate, is the argument used by the opponents of Royalty in that country. It is desirable, I think, to let well alone. There is large provision being made for His Majesty, and I believe that when his children come of age and are able to render service to the State, in the same way as their illustrious father has done, a future House of Commons will be as anxious to do justice to them as we are to do justice to our present Monarch. We are opposing this because we think it is invading the rights of future Houses of Parliament by outstepping what is our immediate duty. We do not want to jeopardise loyalty in this country by making it a matter of £ s. d. so far as the Crown is concerned.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 20.

Main Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 19.

First Resolution put, and agreed to.

Resolution proposed,

I beg to move to insert the following new Clause:—

"No part of the said sums authorised to be issued and applied as aforesaid shall be issued or applied to any use, intent, or purpose whatsoever other than the respective uses, intents, and purposes specified in the several schedules to this Act, and any person who issues or applies or is privy to the issue or application of any sum whatever to any other use, intent, or purpose shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall in addition forfeit any office he holds under the Crown or in the public service, and shall be a debtor to the Crown for the sum so issued."

The first portion of the proposed new Clause was always in this Bill for hundreds of years up to the year 1870. I have further strengthened the old Clause by the additional words beginning with "and any person," which set up a terror to evil-doers in the shape of a punishment, but I may say at once that if His Majesty's Government would accept the Clause without the penalty, I would, in the interests of the Amendment, omit the penalty from the Clause. That would leave the Clause exactly as it was in every Appropriation Bill up to 1870. I regret very much that I have not been able to give the House due notice by putting this Amendment on the Paper. But the Committee will remember that we only got this Bill at two o'clock yesterday, which I think is very inconvenient, and I happened not to be in the House after the Second Reading was concluded. But I may remind the Committee that on 14th June last I gave the House notice of my intention to move this Clause, which I then moved to insert in Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill. I was then supported by a large number of true economists and true constitutionalists, and was only beaten by the very small majority under the circumstances of eighty-four. I hope that I shall receive adequate support upon this occasion. As I have said, every Appropriation Bill up to 1870 contained the Clause I am now moving, with the sole difference to which I have referred. It was only in 1870 that it was left out without a word of explanation, except that Mr. Stansfeld, Secretary to the Treasury, said that it would be simpler to leave it out. No doubt it is simpler to have no kind of check upon your expenditure of public money and no prohibition and no punishment, and then you would be allowed to take your fill of public money and do what you please with it. But that is what I object to. As a result I mentioned six weeks ago that the Post Office had unlawfully issued £69,000 of public money without its being voted at all, for old age pensions. My justification, I think my sufficient justification, for introducing this Clause is the reply of the Secretary to the Treasury when I made that complaint. He admitted the illegality, and that it was an improper issue, but I think he said it was clearly desirable from every point of view to commit this illegality. I cannot really accept that. To commit that illegality in a Department, and to have it justified in this House, is the way to bring all law and order in finance to an end. I think it is perfectly shocking to see a Minister of the Treasury stand up in his place and openly avow the illegality, but yet propose that it should be continued. These illegalities in the Departments are becoming more and more shocking every day. There are the Income Tax Commissioners openly supporting perjury, and telling us they are going to continue doing it. They are sworn to secrecy, and they break their secrecy to assist their colleagus in the Estate Duty Department, and when they are questioned, they, forsooth commissioners, not judges of the land, not the House of Lords, tell us they do not consider that this is perjury so long as it is confined to responsible officials. I only mention this in order to show the extreme importance of putting a bridle into the mouth and a curb under the chin of these presumptuous officials. It is they and they alone who will be checked, who will be brought up, and who will be confined to their proper functions by a clause like this. As to the Government, whatever Government sits on that bench, it would only derive from the Clause I am proposing further strength in dealing with restive officials. The House is thoroughly possessed of the merits of the case. The Clause is an old one, it is one which appeared in every Appropriation Bill up to 1870, and it is one which I believe would never have been omitted had not its omission been smuggled through in a silent way by Mr. Stansfeld and his colleagues. It ought to be restored. I defy anybody to give any good reason against it, and if His Majesty's Government, as I hope they will be, are convinced by such arguments as I have advanced to-day, and still more those which I used at greater length on 14th June, and will accept this Clause, I am perfectly willing to leave out the last portion of it which is of my own introduction. I believe the very prohibition contained in this Clause would bring such a sense of fear and proper regard for the law to public officials without punishment, that it would have a very definite effect. I beg to move.

5.0 P.M.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to express his great regret that another important meeting absolutely prevents his being present to hear and to reply to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member has already stated that there is no notice of this important Amendment upon the Notice Paper. The form of the Appropriation Bill is one which has been followed, as the hon. Gentleman himself has stated, evere since 1870. That is the form for the last forty years. My hon. Friend rightly attaches very great importance to the form in which this Bill is presented to the House. I would venture to appeal to him to allow the Government sufficient time upon proper notice given and appearing on the Paper to consider the momentous change that he proposes. It is true that the Clause appeared in the Appropriation Bill which preceded the year 1870, but circumstances, I think the House will admit, have changed to a considerable extent since then. All that is sought to be done now is to enable transfers to be made from one account to another. I entirely agree that if those transfers go beyond certain points, it is quite right that attention should be drawn to them, and that the Minister who may be responsible, or whoever may be responsible, should be called on to account in the proper way for them. I do press the inadvisability of changing the language of the Appropriation Bill— language which has now been sanctioned by forty years' usage. Whatever case there may be for a change of that kind, I am certain that the House will consider that it is a matter which ought to be considered with every advantage of time and with careful deliberation. I trust, under those circumstances, my hon. Friend will not pursue the matter further. I can assure him that the Government will give full consideration to considerations which he has stated to the House, with his usual force and lucidity. I trust, therefore, he will consent to withdraw the Motion.

If His Majesty's Government could assure me that they will be in office this time next year, at the time of the next Appropriation Bill, I should take the assurance immediately. As it is, I think it is extremely unsatisfactory, and I confess, if I can get a Teller, I shall go to a Division.

I think my hon. Friend is right in looking after these matters. I have no doubt that presently all Governments, and especially the Liberal Government, will have to have means taken to prevent extravagance.

Question put, and negatived.

Schedules A, B and C ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next, 25th July.

There are several Motions to recommit the Bill in respect of Clause 4. I may point out that the Amendments proposed to be made can be made on Report if hon. Members care to take them on Report.

Bill, as amended in Committee, considered.

moved, after the word "oaths" ["take the oaths"] to insert the words "and shall make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the Declaration." It will be remarked that this Bill does not include the King's Declaration. I think there is every reason why that Declaration should be included in a Regency Bill. It was included in 1811 and again in 1830, but in 1840 it was left out, presumably by accident. Lord John Russell in moving the Second Reading of the Regency Bill in the House of Commons on 29th July, 1840, said:— The only precedent on the subject to which Parliament could look with satisfaction, was that which it was proposed to follow in the present Bill, namely, the provision of the Regency Bill in the year 1830. In seconding the Motion Sir Robert Peel said:— In the provisions of the Bill he cordially concurred. It was founded altogether on the precedent set in l830. Therefore, from the speeches of both Mover and Seconder, it was obviously the intention of the Government of the day to include the Declaration in the Regency Bill, and it was purely by accident that it was left out. I presume the same thing applies to-day, and that it is purely by accident that the Prime Minister has omitted the Declaration from the present Bill. If possible, it is much more important that the Regent should make the Declaration than even the Sovereign, and to my mind it is very important that it should be made by the Sovereign. The reason why I think it is even more important in the case of the Regent is that the Regent would not only rule the same as the Sovereign, but also have the care of the young Sovereign, who probably would be of tender age and entirely under the domination and control of the Regent, who might wield a very undesirable influence over him. It may be contended that it not particularly important that the Declaration should be inserted in the present Bill. I submit that it is very important, because this Bill will probably form a precedent for future Bills. Therefore, I trust that the Government will see their way to accept my Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment. I do think that it is absolutely necessary that we should protect this Declaration wherever we can, and get it into the Regency Bill, as we hope to preserve it in another place. I trust the Government will accept this Amendment of my hon. Friend, as we have no mandate from the nation to make this alteration.

My hon. Friend certainly has not neglected any opportunity to put his views before the House, and in this case I may say in the crudest and bluntest manner possible. [Sir CLIFFORD CORY: "No, no."] Here is a measure dealing with matters more or less controversial, and the hon. Gentleman desires to thrust a Declaration into it, which the House of Commons quite recently, by an enormous majority, decided it is undesirable to force any British Sovereign to make at the present time.

The House only voted for the First Reading out of courtesy.

Do hon. Members expect the Government to accept this Amendment?

Yes.

Then I am afraid they are doomed to disappointment.

I rise with some regret to find myself in complete disagreement with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. What is wanted by the Amendment is, I understand, that there shall be but the same Accession Declaration of a belief in the principles of the Church of England as by the law established, and leaving out any statement that is offensive to the religious convictions of many of His Majesty's subjects: that the Regent shall be called upon to make the same Declaration of his religious faith as the Monarch himself. Surely that does not import anything at all derogatory or objectionable to the conscientious scruples of anyone of the millions who may believe in other faiths. I think with the hon. Baronet who has moved the Amendment that it is quite as advisable in the case of the Regent to have the necessary Declaration made as it is in the case of the Monarch. The Regent is something more than a person engaged in uncontroversial matters. The last Regency—the prolonged Regency of George IV.—was a Regency, I think we may say, at least not creditable in the history of England. The Regent is something more than a mere dictator of fashion. He creates the atmosphere of the time very largely. We do say that this is a matter of infinite importance to the well-being of these realms. The Regent should be called upon in every respect to act in the place of the King. If it is necessary—and I think every person will agree that it is necessary—that the Sovereign himself should make a Protestant Declaration, it is surely quite as necessary that the Regent also should make a Protestant Declaration. That Declaration, I fully agree, should not contain anything unreasonably offensive to anyone of the millions of His Majesty's subjects who believe in other religions. I will certainly vote for the Amendment and for the insertion of a Declaration that would not antagonise and embitter the feelings of others. It is necessary for the Regent as it is for the King, for the Regent governs as King for the time being, to make some declaration. There is now in the Schedule some reference to the government and discipline of the Church of Scotland as by law established. The very fact that the Church of Scotland is brought into it gives point and pungency to the need for bringing in the Church of England. No one seeks to import any bitter or barren controversy, but surely if the Church of Scotland is brought in that fact in itself emphasises the necessity for asking the Regent to make some Declaration and Belief in the Church of England as she is required to do in the case of the Church of Scotland. This is not a small matter. It is a very serious one, and it opens up, in my opinion, a great range for controversy. I do not think we ought to be described as being very valorous, rushing in where angels fear to tread, because we point out to the Government an omission which we are entitled to have supplied in this Bill.

I think the hon. Member who has spoken last overlooked the fact that the Amendment of the hon. Member beside him proposes to insert the old Declaration.

I propose the one existing to-day, but I am quite willing to alter

my Amendment so as to include any Declaration passed by the House of Commons.

That will not do. The two Amendments hang together. If the hon. Member has got some other Amendment which he proposes to the Schedules, notice should be given of it. Until that is done, I assume the Amendment he is now moving relates to one of the Schedules.

It is obvious what this Amendment means. The Home Secretary is entitled to claim that whatever else the Division on the First Reading meant, it did mean that the House thought the present Declaration should not stand. It is clear the House will have to frame a new Declaration, and to enter into the whole discussion now, which will come on next week, would be in the highest degree inconvement. The hon. Member's proposal, that upon the Report stage of the Regency Bill, we should enter upon framing a new Declaration, cannot be regarded as reasonable. This would be a very inconvenient moment to enter into a discussion as to whether we could frame a new Declaration and as the matter is now only purely academic, to enter further into it would be a waste of time.

There is only one Declaration in force and it is Protestant. The hon. Baronet spoke in the direction of supporting that Declaration; I shall support his Amendment. This particular Declaration was omitted on a previous occasion, and we should now endeavour to repair that omission.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 123.

moved, in Sub-section (2), alter the word "married" ["person who shall be married"], to add the words, "to the Sovereign knowing that the marriage is a marriage."

The Committee will remember that the word "knowingly" was agreed to be inserted in the first part of this Clause, and it is only right that the same alteration should be made in the latter part. This merely carries out a pledge given to the House.

I gladly accept this Amendment.

Further Amendment proposed in Sub-Section (2) to leave out the words "to the Sovereign" put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

I beg to move to add at the end of the Clause the words, "or to any Bill for repealing or altering an Act of the fifth year of the reign of Queen Anne, made in Scotland, intituled 'An Act for securing the Protestant religion and Prebyterian government.'"

The Bill, as originally introduced, contained these words. The effect of the Clause in the original Bill was to say that the Regent should not have power to give the Royal assent to any Bill for repealing, changing, or in any respect varying the course of succession to the Crown of this realm as established by Statute, or repealing or altering the Act made in Scotland in the year of Queen Anne for securing the Protestant religion. These words have appeared in every single Regency Bill which has been introduced into this House since the date of the Union of England with Scotland, and I feel bound to say I think it is really unfortunate that they should have been omitted from the Bill in Committee in precisely the manner in which they were along with an Amendment raising a totally different question, and without one single word being addressed to the precise question by any Law Officer of the Crown or by any Scottish Law Officer. I think it is only right the House should have an opportunity of reconsidering this question. As I have said, these words have been in every Bill since 1707, and that is natural, because they were there in pursuance of the Act of Union. It may be necessary for me to call attention to the actual words of the Act of Union. There was issued this morning a White Paper, and I propose to quote the words therein given from the actual article of the Treaty of Union itself.

These articles say: "Our Sovereign lady and the estates of Parliament considering that by the late Act of Parliament for a treaty with England for an union of both Kingdoms it is provided that the Commissioners for that treaty should not treat of or concerning any alteration of the worship discipline and Government of the Church of this Kingdom as now by law established which treaty being now reported to the Parliament and it being reasonable and necessary that the true Protestant religion as presently professed within this Kingdom with the worship discipline and government of this Church should be effectually and unalterably secured therefore Her Majesty with advice and consent of the said estates of Parliament doth hereby establish and confirm the said true Protestant religion and the worship discipline and government of this Church to continue without any alteration to the people of this land in all succeeding generations and more especially Her Majesty with advice and consent aforesaid ratifies approves and for ever confirms the fifth Act of the first Parliament of King William and Queen Mary intituled Act ratifying the confession of faith and settling Presbyterian Church government with all other Acts of Parliament relating thereto in prosecution of the declaration of the estates of this Kingdom containing the claim of right bearing date the eleventh of April one thousand six hundred and eighty-nine And Her Majesty with advice and consent aforesaid expressly provides and declares that the foresaid true Protestant religion contained in the above mentioned confession of faith with the form and purity of worship presently in use within this Church and its Presbyterian Church government and discipline (that is to say) the government of the Church by kirk sessions presbyteries provincial synods and general assemblies all established by the foresaid Acts of Parliament pursuant to the claim of right shall remain and continue unalterable and that the said Presbyterian Government shall be the only government of the Church within the Kingdom of Scotland.

"And further Her Majesty with advice aforesaid expressly declares and statutes that none of the subjects of this Kingdom shall be liable to put all and every one of them for ever free of any oath test or subscription within this Kingdom contrary to or inconsistent with the foresaid true Protestant religion and Presbyterian Church Government worship and discipline as above established and that the same within the bounds of this Church and Kingdom shall never be imposed upon or required of them in any sort. And lastly that after the decease of Her present Majesty (whom God long preserve) the Sovereign succeeding to her in the Royal Government of the Kingdom of Great Britain shall in all time coming at his or her accession to the Crown swear and subscribe that they shall inviolably maintain and preserve the foresaid settlement of the true Protestant religion with the Government worship discipline right and privileges of this Church as above established by the laws of this Kingdom in prosecution of the claim of right."

These words appear in the Act of Union, and it is in virtue of those words in that Act that this provision has always appeared in successive Regency Bills down to the present time. Of course, it is said, and it may be said, that the House of Commons is entitled, after all, to alter an Act of Parliament and vary it. Yes; I will admit that to the full, but these words appear not only in an Act of this Parliament, but they appear in a Treaty, which is a very different thing. Let me put a point to the hon. Member who suggested that it might be possible to effect an alteration in any Act of Parliament. Supposing this treaty had not been made with Scotland—take the case of a treaty made with some foreign country. Would the hon. Gentleman suggest for a moment that without the consent of the other Power it would be possible to alter the terms of the treaty with that foreign country? Of course it would not without the consent of the other party to the treaty. That is exactly what I am prepared to say. The Government have not got that consent, and if they apply to the people of Scotland they would not get it. I do not think for one single moment that there is one single Member opposite representing a Scottish constituency who would dare to go back to his constituency and say he had aided and abetted the Government in tearing up the Act of Union. I do not think one hon. Member would be prepared to go back and say deliberately, and it would be deliberately, after this Debate, that he had agreed that the Sovereign should not be called upon to take the most solemn oath that he would preserve inviolate the Covenant in regard to the Presbyterian religion stated in the claim of right. I do not think there is a single Scotch Member who would dare to go back to his constituents and make a speech setting out the facts I have stated. I go further: this document appears in a paper issued to-day, entitled "Statutory Enactments Affecting the King's Religion," and is issued by the Government in order to show that there are a considerable number of what are, I understand, called safeguards to the Protestant Succession.

I put this question to the Government. If you are going to propose to-day to alter one of these things, which you describe as a safeguard to the Protestant Succession, what do you suppose people on Wednesday will say when you hold this same thing up as absolutely safeguarding the Succession for ever? The Government cannot have it both ways. Either the contents of this Paper which has been presented to-day are not absolute safeguards of the Protestant Succession, or, if they are, the Government have no right and no power to make the alteration they made in this Bill in Committee. If there are any hon. Members who may think there is sonic question with regard to the disestablishment of the Church in England connected with this matter, I think they ought to understand that the Church in Scotland stands in an entirely different relation to the State from the Church in England. In the Church in England the State has a large voice by patronage and otherwise in the appointment of the actual ministry, and the courts have considerable power in the direction of the administration of the Church. In Scotland nobody, and no representative of the State whatever, has any control in the way of patronage, and no court, except the court of the Church itself, has any control over the religious affairs of the Church. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, composed of ministers and laity, has absolute power over the control of its religious affairs, and I understand that Convocation in the Church of England has no such power at all corresponding to the General Assembly. I put these considerations forward in case the question of disestablishment, as it applies to the Church of England, might influence any hon. Member, and I urge the Government very seriously, and I hope not in any undue spirit of bitterness, because I really do not think they quite realised what they were doing when they originally accepted the Amendment, to reconsider their position, and I hope they will see their way to agree to the insertion of the words which I now beg to move.

There are some points in which I think it necessary to supplement my hon. Friend's speech. The Bill was introduced in a way perfectly satisfactory to hon. Members from Scotland. We had no reason to suppose that any fundamental change would be made in it. It was under the charge of the Home Secretary. We know that he, along with the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil), interested himself in the matters of the Rubric and of the interpretation of the original language into the revised version, and I am sure that what time he has been able to spare from those studies he has given to a minute study of Scotch Ecclesiastical History. But I think, in spite of that study, he had rather allowed himself to be rushed into an unwise surrender. I was called out of the House for a few minutes, and when I came back I found that this important change had been made. A later change in the Schedule was proposed, but by that time wiser counsels had prevailed, and hesitation had seized even the Front Bench opposite with regard to this further change. The words of the Schedule were preserved, but these words were far less important than this Clause which was carelessly surrendered. After all, what is this Schedule? It cannot affect legislation in the slightest degree. We know quite well that the Oath was no hindrance, and could not be treated as a hindrance to the. Sovereign giving her assent to the disestablishment of the Irish Church in 1868. It does not add to the power of veto as constitutionally exercised by the Crown. But the Clause the restoration of which we now wish to bring about, is a far more important thing. That Clause has been continued in every Regency Act passed since the Act of Union of 1707. It was that Act of the Parliament of Scotland, passed in the reign of Queen Anne, which was recited and repeated, and its binding nature was over and over again stated. It is quite easy to say Parliament can overturn any legislation, however sacred, and sanctioned by however solemn adjurations. But may we not carry this idea to a dilettante extent? At all events, this Clause marked one step more in the defence of something to which some may have some attachment. Let me ask the Member for Oxford University whether he thinks that if the Members of the Scottish Parliament in 1707 had been told that these solemn words were no more than waste paper which might be torn to pieces by the English Parliament of 1708, the Act of Union would ever have been passed under these circumstances? I am sure that no one who has studied the history of Scotland at that time would for a moment say that it ever would have been passed. What did this Act express? I have no doubt that many people who have not given close attention to the matter believe that it preserves the privileges of the Church as it stands, but I would ask hon. Gentlemen to remember that the main object was to preserve the Presbyterian form of Church Government. In clause after clause of that Act there is no mention whatever of the Established Church, but over and over again there is mention of the preservation of the government of the Church by kirk sessions, presbyteries, synods, and the general assembly, and that the Presbyterian form of government shall be the only form of Church government within the Kingdom of Scotland. I find no great fault with the right hon. Gentleman for having in a moment of generous concession given up a point the importance of which he did not see. I am appealing to my colleagues in the representation of Scotland in no party sense. I ask them to consider this from the point of view of Scotchmen. Do they not agree with me that the main object with which Scotland was then concerned in 1707 was to maintain in the Established Church or otherwise the Presbyterian form of Church governments? There were even at that day thousands of people in Scotland who had broken away from the Established Church. There were many dissenters. There were, for instance, the Cameronians.

But they were the strongest promoters, many of them, of this Act of 1707. That separated that altogether from the question of establishment, and what they were fighting for was the maintenance of that which was bound up with the whole history and genius of the Scotch nation, the Presbyterian form of Church government. I ask hon. Members from Scotland to think twice before they give up this, which is bound up so much with the genius, history and traditions of our country. The hon. Member for Oxford pointed out, when the question was up before, that the Act of 1707 has already been altered by the Act of 1905. The object of the Act of 1905 was to do something which all hon. Members know had nothing whatever to do with the Church in Scotland. It was to endow the large free United Presbyterian Church with the riches which the courts had declared to belong to a small section of the Free Church. It was found convenient in the course of that Act to put in a Clause making a slight change in reference to the Church in Scotland, making, I think, insignificant changes, and for my own part it was no slight study of the conditions of ecclesiastical history that assured me that that Clause was absolutely unnecessary, and that the Church in Scotland had power under its own ecclesiastical courts to do everything that was done by Clause 5 in that Act. Therefore, however reasonable it is for an English Member to insert this change, I think it falls to the ground owing to the fact that this Clause was absolutely needless to give the necessary authority to the Church in Scotland. I appeal to my colleagues representing Scotland to defend the Presbyterianism of Scotland. They know what English Members do not know, and what the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford did not know. What is the position of the Churches in Scotland at the present moment? We know that there is an enormously important Committee, representative of all the great bodies of dissenters and the Church of Scotland, which is now meeting, and meeting with the print of view of Scotchmen. Do they able to arrange a reconciliation and union of the Churches which will absolutely make the question of disestablishment disappear. They know that is the case. Do they think that within the few months of the great calamity which would bring on the Regency if it did occur, the few months which is the utmost period during which it would continue, a prospect of an Act of Disestablishment for Scotland would he contemplated with the goodwill of the great mass of the people of Scotland, at this moment when we see prospects opening for our country of a great reconciliation which would bind up their ecclesiastical differences to a large extent? What are you doing at this moment? If you strike out these words you will accomplish nothing. You do yourselves no good; you do not hasten by one hour the approach of disestablishment, if you wish it; but you do insult the feelings of Scotland, you do wantonly and recklessly tear up the strong condition belonging to the history of their race—the condition to which they are bound, and which they will not willingly see surrendered. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to restore those words. I have not urged this matter in any unreasonable spirit, and the omission of these words will be seriously felt and resented by the vast majority of the country.

I do not think that all the very serious consequences stated by the hon. Gentleman, in his excellent speech, really depend upon the decision which the House may come to either in one way or the other upon this Amendment. If they did, I quite agree that scarcely any more important topic could occupy our attention. But the Government hardly feel that such important issues hang on our discussions this afternoon. The Prime Minister, when this matter was debated in Committee, showed how entirely desirous the Government were of falling in with the general view of the House of Commons. Originally the Bill was in the old form, with all the words in the Clause, and it was at the wish of the House and in deference to that wish that Amendments were made. The subject was discussed, but the House did not regard the matter as of that supreme importance which the hon. Gentleman now attaches to it. It was shown that these matters only covered a period of a few years, and that whatever we put into this Bill could by the two successive Acts of Parliament be altered, and we could put in the original safeguard even for that temporary occasion. The House, after hearing the discussion, and after representations were made from all quarters of the House, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire——

There was not a word about this part of the Bill.

Yes; I heard the whole discussion, and I think there was a very general feeling that a reasonable course was being adopted. The Government was quite prepared to let the whole Clause go or any part of it, and, indeed, the argument against any portion of the Clause was valid against the whole. The general feeling was that it should be amended in this form, and that feeling was emphasised and expressed by the House in a Division by a majority of 209 to 118. In these circumstances, I do not think the Government are taking a harsh or obstinate line either in one direction or in the other, Frankly, we are not able to see that great consequences hang on the decision. If it were the general wish of Scottish Members in all parts of the House, if they attach sentimental importance to the inclusion of these words—though frankly we cannot see it—the Government would certainly bow to that general wish. I do not believe that it is so. I think the disposition of the House will be to adhere to the decision deliberately come to after the considerable discussion which took place in Committee, and unless I am further informed that there is a strong and united wish on the part of Scottish Members for the inclusion of these words, I shall probably put it to the House that we should not go back on the decision to which Parliament deliberately came on the occasion of the discussion in Committee.

6.0 P.M.

Unfortunately, I was prevented by illness from being present the other day, and, therefore, have an imperfect knowledge of what took place in the House. When the right hon. Gentleman shelters himself on what he calls, most subtly, the opinion of the House of Commons, as expressed by the majority of 200 odd against some 119, I cannot doubt that those figures would have been far more than reversed if the right hon. Gentleman had adhered to what he now admits to be the only logical form——

made a remark which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.

If the Government—I beg pardon—adhere to the form in which the Bill was drafted, and they admit it is the only logical form, they admit, as far as they are concerned, that they are quite ready to restore it. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman goes the length of saying he is prepared to restore it to the only other logical form. If you keep any part of the old Clause you must keep it all. That is not arguable, and the right hon. Gentleman, to do him justice, did not attempt to argue it. He went back to the parties in the Division Lobbies, and that was literally the only argument he advanced. Under those circumstances I cannot understand why the Government show the smallest reluctance, or why Parliament should show the smallest reluctance to put back the Clause into its original shape, because it affords an equal measure of protection to the Establishment in England and in Scotland.

It is not proposed by this Amendment to include the Act of Uniformity.

I do not think that the bon. Gentleman quite apprehends the point. The point is that the Clause as it originally stood was a bi-lateral Clause which deals out the same measure to England and to Scotland. As it is it deals out one measure to Scotland and another to England. Under those circumstances I cannot understand why the Government should adhere to what they admit is illogical and unequal. As the Debate goes on I cannot help thinking that they will see the propriety of adopting a course, which they frankly admit they have no personal objection to, to restore the Bill to the shape in which it was originally introduced in this House.

There is some misconstruction on the benches opposite and I should like to bring back the House to the facts of the case and of the law as it stands. May I say I entirely agree with what has fallen from the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow (Sir H. Craik) about the hope that we Scottish Members have on this side as to the issue of the negotiations that are going on as to an understanding between the two great religious bodies in Scotland, and I hope nothing will be said here which will at all affect a hope of the successful issue of those negotiations. With reference to what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, I think he has quite forgotten that in an earlier stage of the discussion on this Bill his Noble relative below the Gangway made a fierce attack upon the security which is granted under the original Clause to England, and said that the words of the Act of Uniformity and its preservation, was a matter of no importance whatever and might go. So that any argument that the Leader of the Opposition may found upon equal rights being conceded to Scotland and to England goes. Let me turn for a moment to the arguments of the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson). He suggests the restoration to the Clause of a reference to the Act securing the Protestant religion in Scotland, and says that the Act of Union creates a necessity for the insertion. The Act of Union does nothing of the sort. What it says, and this is the security for the Scottish establishment, is:— And lastly, that after the decease of her present Majesty (whom God long preserve) the Sovereign succeeding to her in the royal government of the kingdom of Great Britain shall, in all time coming at his or her accession to the Crown, swear and subscribe that they shall inviolably maintain and preserve the foresaid settlement of the true Protestant religion with the government, worship, discipline, right and privileges of this Church as above established by the laws of this kingdom, in prosecution of the claims of right. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Read on."] Yes—as a fundamental and essential condition. The Sovereign, at the present time, always makes that Coronation Declaration or Oath to maintain the Scottish Church. It is exactly what is suggested the Regent shall do now. In the Schedule there is a provision that she shall make exactly the same Declaration as the Sovereign has to make when he or she comes to the Throne. There is nothing whatever in either the Act of Union or the Act of Settlement, which says that the Sovereign is never to have the power of consenting to an alteration in the establishment. It is simply and solely confined to this particular Declaration which is in the Act at the present time. Now turn back to the Sovereign. The Sovereign does not say anything on his accession about never giving consent to an Act of Parliament, even as regards the most explicit statements in the Act of Union that both the Church of England and the Church of Scotland shall be inviolate. All lawyers are agreed that that refers to the executive character of the Sovereign, and not to his legislative character. To show that we have acted in that sense, the Act of Union in Scotland has been altered once or twice. The hon. Member opposite (Sir H. Craik) admits that in an Act passed only four years ago there was an important provision. He minimises it; but what does it do? It gives the whole of the Church of Scotland, its synods and assemblies, the right to alter the confession of faith—and he calls that an unimportant thing. That was the very thing secured by the Act of Union.

It does not allow them to alter the confession of faith; it only allows them to alter slightly the terms of adhesion to the confession of faith.

I have not the statute with me; but, speaking from memory, I think it allows the synods to alter the confession of faith. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."]

Well, we shall see. I have not got the statute here, and I am quoting from memory. But what I want to point out is this——

It was altered to "a formula of subscription."

Will the hon. Gentleman give me the formula of subscription? The formula of subscription meant this: That if there was any alteration made, the people who were given that formula might accept the alteration. You will find that that was the object of the alteration, because the Church of Scotland desired to make certain alterations in its confession of faith—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—with progress and evolution. Nowadays Churches demand that. But this is beside the point. What I want to impress upon the House is that this is going beyond the necessity of the case altogether. The Sovereign never does make any such Declaration as that ought to be imposed. We will not consent to alter the Act of Union, or any other Act, and to put this into the mouth of the Regent except as regards the Succession—there, I admit, it is useful—but, of course, the Regent stands in a peculiar relation to the Sovereign who is a minor, to go further and say that the Act of Union imposes any such security is really to fly in the face of facts. I hope my colleague opposite will not say now that I am less keen for the establishment in Scotland. It is not in the Act of Union that there is security such as he wishes to impose on the Regent. I am perfectly con- vinced that the Church of Scotland will go on existing just as well without the security as with it.

I may perhaps be allowed to say one word, though I do not attach very great importance to the subject which is now dividing the House. I think what took place in Committee was this: An Amendment was put down to leave out the whole Clause. I supported that Amendment, and still support it, because I think that Clause 4 of the Regency Bill is a foolish one. At any rate, the argument which I addressed to the Committee was that Clause 4 was a foolish Clause. It says:—"The Regent shall not give or have power to give the Royal Assent to any Bill for repealing or changing, or in any respect varying, the order or course of Succession to the Crown of this Realm, as established by the Act of Settlement."

That is as it stands now. As it stood before there was a reference to the Act of Security, and to the Act of Uniformity. It is obvious that the only effect of the Clause is that if Parliament passed a Bill they would have to pass two Bills instead of one. The only conceivable reason or object that I can see is to put Acts of Parliament into different categories. It cannot really restrain Parliament in the least. Personally, I think it would be better to leave out the Clause altogether. There is this difference between the two. The Debate merely turns upon the English Act, and I pointed out that there was just this chance that we might want to modify the Act of Uniformity within the next two or three years owing to certain changes in the Rubrics, but there is no prospect whatever of the Act of Settlement being interfered with.

I agree that the subject which the House is now discussing is extremely theoretical. I cannot understand why my hon. Friend the Member for South Durham should lay such stress upon the terms "fundamental" and "essential" which appear in the Act. These terms seem to me to be altogether meaningless in the British Constitution, because in our Constitution there is no such thing as fundamental law requiring special machinery for its operation. What is the effect of this Clause? It prevents the Regent giving her assent to a measure to which the King could not give his assent. That would mean this: that had the Act to which the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University referred been brought forward during the Regency, the Regent would be unable to give his or her assent to it. The hon. Member also referred to the work of the Union Committee representing both of the great Churches in Scotland. That body is in favour of finding a basis of union between these two great denominations. Were the parties successful, and was it necessary as a result of their labour that some change should be made which would improve the condition of things, it would be impossible during the Regency to give effect to the labours of that Committee. That seems to me to be a most regrettable conclusion, and in the circumstances I think the House would be well advised in adhering to the omission of the Clause.

It appears to me that both the hon. Members have completely misapprehended the point. I cannot imagine that we have anything whatever to do with the Establishment of the Church of Scotland or the disestablishment of the Church of Scotland or the reestablishment of the Church of Scotland. What we have to deal with is the expediency or inexpediency, the justice or the injustice, of keeping in Clause 4 the Act of Settlement and of excluding from Clause 4 the Act for settling the Presbyterian Church in Scotland. That is the question. The hon. Member opposite spoke as if this question with regard to Clause 4 raised some issue with reference to the Declaration. Clause 4 is a clause of limitation on the powers of the Regency. Limitation of the powers of the Regent may be wise or unwise; if I were to speak entirely for myself I cannot see why the Regent who is to act for the King should not be as free as the King, but that means the deletion of Clause 4. That is not proposed at all. The proposal is that Clause 4 is to remain, but to remain only to the effect of preventing the Regent from giving assent to any measure which upsets or interferes with the Act of Settlement.

Or Succession to the Crown——

That is quite true—Succession to the Crown as established by the Act of Settlement, but, fortunately or unfortunately, and unfortunately for the view maintained on the other side, the the Act of Settlement, so far as it relates to the Succession to the Crown, does bring, and necessarily brings in the relation of the Sovereign to the Protestant reformed religion as established by law in England, and it also necessarily excludes, unless you bring in our Scotch Act for the settlement of the Presbyterian government, the Sovereign's relation to the Protestant religion in Scotland. Observe that this matter may be regarded to a large extent as one of sentiment, but it does touch both the imagination and the hearts of the people of Scotland deeply. I want to make it quite clear what I mean by saying that the Act of Settlement does touch the relation of the Sovereign to Church government in England, and does not touch the relation of the Sovereign to Church government in Scotland at all. Under the Act of Settlement one of the things that the Sovereign must do is to take the English Coronation Oath, and that is an Oath by the Sovereign put to him by an English Archbishop or Bishop. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, it is an English Act."] That is my point, but the hon. Member has apparently forgotten the Scotch history of the question. The Oath put to the Sovereign by the Archbishop or Bishop pledges him to do his utmost to maintain and preserve the settlement of the true Protestant religion as by law established. That relates to English law, and so strongly did the Parliament of Scotland realise that that was so that the Scotch Parliament insisted on incorporating with the Act of Union not merely the English Act of Settlement, but also our Scotch Act of Security, thus embracing in the Act of Union from a Scotch point of view the Act for the settlement of the Presbyterian religion which was originally passed after the Revolution of 1690, and which was re-enacted in 1707. In our Scotch Act of Parliament it was provided that the King was to take his oath to Scotland, and was to maintain the settlement of the Presbyterian religion. We thought in Scotland in that respect that we had come out of the negotiations for the Union very well, but the provisions of the Act of Settlement were reinforced, and we got included our own adhesion to the Presbyterian government across the border. The hon. Member opposite says that the King does that now, but he appears to me to be mixing up two things—that is, the Declaration or the Oath the King takes with the obligation in the Treaty of Union, which is just as strong as any obligation to be found in the Act of Settlement, to maintain Presbyterian government in Scotland. That established that Presbyterian government shall be observed in all times as a fundamental and essential condition of any treaty of union to be concluded between the two kingdoms. I think my point of view is plain enough. The Scottish Parliament of 1707 and the Scottish people of today do regard the preservation in our treaty with England of that assurance of the settlement of Presbyterian government in Scotland as of very considerable importance to them The real matter at issue is this: Is it reasonable, in view of that state of feeling, to keep Clause 4 in the Bill, but to make it apply only to the settlement of religious matters in England, and to exclude from it the settlement of religious matters in Scotland? I would, even now, make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I am certain, notwithstanding what has been said, because I am sure there has been some misunderstanding, he would win very considerable gratitude in Scotland from public opinion, and perhaps even more, from public sentiment, and he would not be giving anything away. He would only be preserving in this Bill what I am told has been contained in previous Regency Bills, without exception, and he would only be giving equal treatment—I may describe it as equal historical treatment—to the religious settlement in Scotland and to the religious settlement in England. I therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter which he himself says he does not think of any great importance in the interests of public opinion and public sentiment in the North, to consider whether he would not be well advised to allow this Clause, so far as it deals with the settlement of the Presbyterian religion of Scotland, to remain as the Government originally proposed?

I cordially support the right hon. Gentleman opposite who has spoken in favour of this Instruction down in the Paper. I think it is very much to be regretted that the Government did not make up their minds fully on this question some considerable time ago. A reference to the Debate in the Committee shows that this Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Exeter in a speech of some considerable length, but no Scotch non-official Members took part in the Debate. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister certainly made a few remarks on the subject, not of very great importance as regards Scotland, but Scotch opinion, as far as we know, was entirely ignored. This is emphatically a Scotch question, and surely, after the ferment which has been going on all over Scotland during the last four or five weeks, it is at least very inadvisable of the Government to pour oil on the flame which is already burning sufficiently bright. We have got a Scotch Committee which is very rarely consulted about any matters of importance to Scotland, and surely we might have fought out this little family quarrel amongst ourselves. The hon. Gentleman who spoke just now from below the Gangway has it apparently fixed in his mind that if this Clause is reinstated in the Bill it will effectively bar the question of disestablishment.

I never said that.

I apologise, but that is really the only ground which was suggested for moving the Amendment of the hon. Member for Exeter, simply the question of the disestablishment of the Church of Scotland. That is all nonsense. If ever the feeling in Scotland is sufficiently strong and united to demand disestablishment, it will be perfectly easy for the House of Commons to repeal that portion of the Bill which prevents the Regent giving consent to such a Bill. There is absolutely no question whatever of disestablishment being connected even remotely or immediately with this question. The suggestion made by the Home Secretary was that this was struck out in deference to the general sense of the House of Commons. I most respectfully submit that that is to a great extent misleading. We know exactly what takes place on an occasion of this sort, and had I at the moment been having tea with my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Eugene Wason) I should not have been surprised if we had voted in the same Lobby without knowing what we were voting for. I hope the Government will either do as has been suggested, restore these words, or, as the Prime Minister suggested, omit the Clause altogether. There is a good deal of Scottish sentiment around this matter.

May I reply to the appeal which has been made to me? The discussion has shown a very considerable difference of opinion on this subject on both sides of the House, and the existence of a strong opinion. The Government have no strong opinions on the subject, and I am very anxious the House should decide this without the intervention of the Whips.

After what we have been delighted to hear from the Home Secretary we sincerely appeal to the House to allow these words to be reinserted. We are very grateful to the Home Secretary for the attitude he has taken up. Some hon. Members who have spoken have treated this as a trivial matter: if so, they can have no objection to the re-insertion of these words. We on our part attach a very considerable measure of importance to the words. There is a reason for re-inserting them rather than omitting the Clause altogether, and the reason is quite obvious. The positions of a Regent and of a reigning Sovereign are really essentially different. There is a freedom to the reigning Sovereign which quite rightly cannot be permitted to a Regent, and for that reason it is desirable, seeing the essential difference in their positions, that there should be some restriction on the position of the Regent which is not necessary in connection with that of a Sovereign. Also ex hypothesi there really is some value in an oath. The Sovereign takes an Oath to observe the establishment of the Church in Scotland before he is declared King. He takes this Oath before the Privy Council. If the Sovereign is a minor the Regency Bill comes into operation, and therefore it is only rational that the Regent should be debarred, if by that hypothesis there is value in the Oath from influencing the Sovereign in one way or another to act contrary to his Oath while the Regent is not in a position to do so. I really do urge the House most strongly upon this point. With the exception of one other hon. Gentleman, I happen to be the only member of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland who is a Member of this House, and I can assure the House that there are a very large number of the members of the Church of Scotland who are exceedingly anxious that the course should not be taken here which was taken in Committee on this Bill, and they are anxious that these words should be reinserted, as it is proposed to do in the Amendment. The hon. Member for Sheffield has said that the matter was not really carefully reflected upon when it was considered in Committee. It is considered trivial by some of those who object, therefore I appeal to the House that if those are the only objectors to the words, while we on this side of the House attach considerable importance to them, that they should allow these words to be reinserted and support that course if we go to a Division.

I understand that the Government have no settled convictions on this matter, therefore we may be allowed to decide it in a straightforward manner. I hope the House will agree with respect to putting Scotland as it was before a portion of the Clause was struck out. I was not here, but no notice was given that it was going to be struck out. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] I did not happen to see it, or I should have been here to oppose it. My Constituents take a very strong view with regard to this case altogether, and all over Scotland there is a very strong opinion always against tampering with a Treaty. I am aware that the Treaty has been tampered with once or twice, and once it was by stealth, but I should advise this House strongly to leave Scotland alone in this matter. Do as the Scottish people want, and you will find yourselves right.

I want to point out the reason why the Prime Minister accepted the deletion of a portion of the Clause. There were three things in the Clause originally. First of all, this provision in regard to varying the order or course of Succession. Then there were two portions which dealt with the question of religion in Scotland under that measure of Queen Anne and the parallel measure, the Act of Uniformity, for England. It was felt by the Noble Lord for one reason, and by some of us for other reasons, that it was not desirable to make it impossible, by a kind of specially written Constitution, for the Regent to give the Royal assent to a measure for a change in the religion or for disestablishment for Wales. That was the difficulty we had. Therefore we struck out Scotland and England. I am not going to interfere in the Scotch question at all—it is a purely local one—except that I very much hope it will be quite clear that we are not establishing any sort of principle or anything else that is going to affect the English question. I hope the Committee will bear in mind that we struck the two out on a question of principle, and we were not going to make it impossible for the Regent, even though Parliament passed a measure, to give assent to a violation of the Establishment in any way whatsoever.

I cordially support the position of the hon. Member who has just spoken. I thought the Government before took a wise and prudent step when they distinctly stated that they would support the Amendment. It was putting Scotland in the same position as England. It was on the lines of tolerance and of Catholicism. I trust the House will vote as we voted before, with a clear issue before us. Those who heard the discussion clearly understood that what we are now fighting for was on the side of toleration and to put Scotland in the same position as England.

If they knew the strength of feeling in Scotland in favour of the Amendment, I am quite satisfied that every Scotch Member here would vote for it. I have had very large and very long experience, but I have had more communications on this matter than I have ever had before in such a short time. I hope and trust that all Scottish Members will vote for this Clause in its reconstructed and amended form.

I rise to support the Amendment, for the reason that I voted against the deletion of these words from the Bill when the Bill was in Committee, and now intend to vote that they be re-inserted. The Home Secretary has

highly distinguished himself by his courtesy in debate to-day by the brilliant, long, and closely-reasoned speech which he did me the honour to make in refusing, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amendment which I proposed to Clause (2) of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have gained little knowledge by his Parliamentary experience as apparently he is unable to distinguish the difference between a Bill that has passed its First Reading and one that has become the law of the land. This is another instance of the Government rushing legislation through the House. If they had only taken proper time to consider the measure, we should not have got into the tangle we are in to-day. They are so anxious not to get the opinion of the electorate that they are trying to rush this Bill through as well as the Declaration Bill. They have torn up the Constitution, or endeavoured to, and they have broken the Treaty between England and Scotland. I really think, for the credit of the Government, they would do very well to adjourn the Bill and allow it to be brought forward again for Debate after the Royal Declaration Bill has been passed.

Question putt, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 61; Noes, 61.

I think I ought to vote for the Bill as it originally stood. I will vote with the Ayes. The figures are: Ayes, 62; Noes, 61.

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Down has evidently been put down in a spirit of mockery.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Five minutes before Seven o'clock, till Monday next, 25th July.