asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Wiltshire Insurance Committee at Trowbridge have received an application from over 150 members of various friendly societies resident in the villages of Box and Colerne, in Wiltshire, requesting that they might be allowed to make their own arrangements in the choice of doctors for medical attendance during illness; and on what grounds, if any, the application has been refused?

I am informed by the Wiltshire Insurance Committee that between the 13th January and the end of March they received applications from about 100 insured persons (mostly from the neighbourhoods of Colerne and Box) for permission to make their own arrangements for medical attendance and treatment. These applications were on identical printed forms, and gave no reasons and no indication of what arrangements the applicants proposed to make. The committee were of opinion that there was an organised attempt to break down the panel system, and accordingly decided not to grant the applications. Wherever the committee have received genuine applications, and the reason given and the arrangements proposed have in their opinion been satisfactory, they have given permission.

asked whether the contracts between insurance committees and practitioners approved by the Insurance Commissioners provide that a sum of not less than 1s. 9d. per quarter shall be paid to every practitioner in respect of each insured person on his list at the end of each quarter, or of not less than 7s. per year, for each person on his list during the year, as the case may be; under what Clause in any agreement between insurance committees and practitioners approved by the Insurance Commissioners is a deduction from the capitation fee guaranteed to such practitioners under such agreements for the purposes of treatment of persons temporarily absent from the area of such committees authorised; whether the statements as to remuneration of practitioners set out in the explanatory statement issued to practitioners are binding on the insurance committees and the Commissioners or may be varied; and, if the latter be the case, under what Section of the National Insurance Act or Regulations it is proposed to vary such of those statements as apply to the remuneration of practitioners?

A doctor is entitled under his contract with the insurance committee to be credited with a sum of 7s. in respect of each insured person for whose treatment he is responsible during the whole year. It follows that a deduction must be made from this sum in respect of every insured person for whom he ceases to be responsible during any portion of that year, in order to pay the doctor who is in fact responsible for his treatment during that period.

asked whether the document showing the number of patients over a certain figure on the list of certain doctors on the panel for London issued by the London Insurance Committee was supposed confidential; and, if so, why?

I am informed by the London Insurance Committee that the document referred to was expressly marked "confidential," and that they caused it to be prepared solely for the information of the members of the committee. The use which has been made of it by other persons who misinterpreted the information it contains illustrates clearly why it should have been treated as confidential.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it appeared in the Press two or three days before the Debate in this House, and that copies of it were sent to Members of this House without any mark showing that it was private or confidential?

Then I think someone has behaved very badly in the matter. Personally I never saw any statement of any name in connection with the document until the hon. Gentleman gave the names to the House.

asked whether the assistants of doctors on the London Insurance Committee panel are responsible to anyone but their medical employers; and whether all such assistants are themselves on the panel?

Under the Regulations it is open to any duly qualified assistant to place his name on the panel, and if he joins the panel he is directly responsible to the insurance committee. If he does not join the panel he can only treat insured persons on behalf of his principal when the latter is precluded by urgency of other professional duties, absence from home, or other reasonable cause from giving personal attendance to the insured persons under his care; and in these exceptional cases his principal is responsible for him to the insurance committee.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it was quite fair of him when he spoke in the House last week to suppress the information that those partners have got private practice, and, further, was not the number on the list issued by the London Insurance Committee, therefore, a gross misstatement of the number of people they have to attend?

I am not aware of any attempt last week or at any other time to suppress information which ought to have been given to the House. The hon. Gentleman stated that those doctors have over 5,000 insured persons on the list. I said it was untrue.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire how many persons those doctors and their partners have in fact to attend to?

That has nothing to do with me, and nothing to do with the Insurance Act. I should regard such an inquiry as an impertinence, and I think they too would regard it so.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is intended to make this system of taking on assistants who take independent practice a permanent part of the system of working the Insurance Act?

I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means. If an assistant is on the panel, the Act and the Regulations give him the right to take patients, and I cannot alter that.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to those who are not on the panel, whether it is intended to keep them as a permanent part in the working of the Act?

Those not on the panel can only treat insured persons on behalf of their principals when the latter are themselves precluded from carrying out their professional duties by urgent reasons.

May I ask whether the House is to understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not consider it is important for him or the Insurance Commissioners to know whether these doctors have in addition to 6,000 insured patients a large number of other patients on the list, and whether he does not think——

That seems to me to be argumentative.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has been requested by the committee of the Friendly Societies' National Conference to consider the advisability of amalgamating the various Insurance Commissions into one?

The answer is in the affirmative. Separate Commissions are established by the express provisions of the Insurance Act, which I have no power to override.

asked whether, as a result of the National Insurance Act, the North London district of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows have found it necessary, in order to continue medical benefit for members not falling under the Act, to form a special medical fund, the contributions to which are 8s. 8d. a year, or double the amount charged to members for medical benefit prior to the passing of the National Insurance Act?

I am not informed of the arrangements which particular societies, or local branches of societies, make for the medical attendance of those of their members who are not insured under the Insurance Act. As I have often stated, I cannot understand why the fact that doctors are receiving an additional Grant in respect of insured members should make them demand not only the increase of about 50 per cent. (which societies are generally prepared to give), but an increase of 100 per cent. in the rates they have hitherto been receiving for those of their old patients who are not insured, and whose medical attendance is therefore a charge falling either upon the private funds of their societies at the expense of their other benefits or directly upon themselves.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if an agreement has been arrived at by the doctors in the Salford district for the provision of medical benefit under the National Insurance Act, by which all the qualified medical men in the district are on the panel, the insurance funds being distributed through a committee of doctors on the basis of medical services actually rendered; if this arrangement is working satisfactorily, both as regards the insured persons and the doctors themselves; and if he will consider as to extending the Salford system to other districts where at present there are not sufficient capable doctors properly to look after the health of the large number of patients allotted to them?

The Salford Insurance Committee have adopted a method of payment by attendance, which is one of the alternative methods of remuneration prescribed by the Regulations. I am informed that the arrangement is working satisfactorily. It is open to any insurance committee to adopt this method of payment, but except in one or two areas the doctors, who were in all cases consulted by the insurance committees, have prepared a system of payment either in whole or in part by capitation.

asked whether, in view of the large meetings of friendly societies which are to take place all over the country during the Whitsuntide recess, the Prime Minister will give some indication of the amendments which the Government propose to introduce into the National Insurance Act, in order that these conferences may have an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the general effectiveness of the amending Bill?

I am not prepared to give any such indication.

asked whether the Government intend to apply the machinery of the closure and guillotine to the new National Insurance Act Amending Bill?

This question is obviously premature, and I can make no statement on the subject.

Before the right hon. Gentleman makes up his mind, may I ask whether it would be possible for him to take the opinion of the friendly societies in the matter?

I am told we are doing that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the joint committee of approved societies or any kindred organisation has asked him to consider the advisability of increasing the administration allowance of approved societies from 3s. 8d. to 4s. a year per insured person, such income to be granted from Parliamentary funds?

Some representations have been received on the subject referred to, but I have received as yet no proof that societies cannot be efficiently administered with the sums available under the present Regulations.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has made any representations to the Treasury authorities as to the urgency for a further substantial loan to carry on the work of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; and whether he has pointed out to them that the beneficent work of housing the rural labourers in Ireland is at present absolutely suspended for want of further moneys on the same terms as they have been advanced under the Acts of 1906 and 1911?

My right hon. Friend has on several occasions represented to the Treasury that if the work referred to in the question is not very shortly to be stopped a further loan of money on Land Purchase terms must be provided. The best opportunity will be offered when the financial provisions of the proposed Land Bill are under consideration.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will obtain from the Comptroller and Auditor-General for this House a Report on the expenditure incurred in connection with the illegal retention of the seat in this House for Whitechapel, in circumstances in which Members had until then been accustomed to resign; what fact that official relies upon to justify the expenditure by differen- tiating the case from previous cases; and whether an application involving public expenditure is held by the auditor to be validly acceded to when made by one of the Treasury's own officials under its direction?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Comptroller and Auditor-General will make such report, as he deems fit, when the matter comes before him in due course, as prescribed by the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act. As I have already pointed out to the hon. Member, the expenditure was incurred to carry out the desire of a Select Committee of this House.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will say what members of the Board of Treasury were present on the 10th July, 1912, and concurred in giving authority to the Bank of England to resist the Bowles claim; whether the Comptroller and Auditor-General has been furnished with their names; whether that official's attention has been directed to the fact that the authority was to resist what was then known to be, and what the Court held to be, the law; and if he will obtain from the Comptroller and Auditor-General for this House a report on this expenditure and an explanation of how he differentiates the case of the Board of Treasury from that of local authorities, who are in every instance surcharged for expenditure incurred on their authority in resistance to the law?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Tuesday last. The action was taken on the collective responsibility of the Board of Treasury. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. The Comptroller and Auditor-General will make such report in due course as he thinks fit.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered whether the Comptroller and Auditor-General has got the names of the members of the Board of Treasury who were present on that occasion.

I could not answer that. The action of the Board of Treasury is always collective responsibility.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House now how the Comptroller and Auditor-General can surcharge Members of the Board of Treasury if he has not got their names?

I have no legal knowledge of the facts, but if any surcharge was to be made on the Board, I suppose it would be made on the Board as a whole.

May I ask whether it is a fact that the Treasury exercise a check upon local authorities for irregular payments, and whether there is no check by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Treasury as a spending Department?

The Comptroller and Auditor-General reports to this House, through the Public Accounts Committee, irregularities, if any, which the Treasury may have carried on, and then it is for this House to decide what action they will take in the matter.

Irregularities have been discovered——

The hon. Member is not entitled to make a statement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what occasions the Comptroller and Auditor-General has reported the irregularities he has found?

The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

I shall do so.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Nottingham education committee has approved estimates of no less than £199,046 for the ensuing year, of which sum £111,319 will be required from the rates; that this is £6,047 over the amount received last year, while the estimated expenditure is £5,147 more than the actual expenditure of 1912–13; that only ten years ago the cost of education was £156,000; that the chairman of the finance committee doubts whether the children leaving the schools to-day are better educated than they were when the expenditure was so much smaller in amount; that if the Board of Education contributed in the same proportion as in 1905 Government Grants would be £109,344 and the draft upon the rates would be £84,517, or upwards of £26,000 less than it now is; that the education committee is helpless and not master in its own house, while charge after charge is piled up for it, able or unable, willing or unwilling, to meet; that, owing to the higher cost of living and innumerable exactions, depreciation of property and shrinkage of income, resulting from recent legislation, there are 6,000 empty houses in Nottingham, which are unsaleable, or saleable only at heavy loss; and whether, in the face of these facts, the Government proposes to force further educational burdens on this already over-burdened community?

The estimates of education committees are not submitted to the Board of Education, and the accounts for 1912–13 have not yet reached the Board. Out of all the statements made in this question the only one that I have any means of verifying refers to the sum of £156,000 stated in the question to be the cost of education ten years ago. This agrees with the total shown in the financial statement for the year 1904–5. The proposals of the Government will in due course be made known.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the owners of ground values contribute nothing towards the local rates, and whether the Government will take steps to see that they make a contribution for education purposes?

May I also ask whether all those evils enumerated in the question do not directly arise out of the Education Act of 1902?

That is a matter for argument.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the expressed intention to reform our education from the top downwards, it is the intention, in the forthcoming Education Bill, to abolish tests for degrees in the older universities as well as tests for teachers in elementary schools?

I must ask the hon. Member to wait for the introduction of the Bill.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the last published volume of statistics of his Board shows that a large number of schools have been habitually overcrowded contrary to Article 19 of the Code for elementary schools; whether the authorities controlling and maintaining such overcrowded schools are warned of overcrowding; and whether it is the policy of the Board to enforce its own Code or allow it to become a dead letter?

The hon. Member cannot expect me to assent to a proposition stated in such general terms as that contained in the first part of the question. In all cases of breaches of the Code which come to the Board's notice warning is given to the local authority and a deduction from the Grant is made if the Board are satisfied that, after warning has been given, no sufficient effort has been made by the local education authority to conform with their Regulations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of accidents, fatal and non-fatal, which were reported to have occurred on public works in course of construction or repair during 1910, 1911, and 1912?

I am informed by the Board of Trade that the number of reported accidents in connection with the construction or repair of works to which the Notice of Accidents Act, 1894, applies was as follows in each of the years mentioned: In 1910, 18 fatal and 415 non-fatal; in 1911, 8 fatal, 437 non-fatal; in 1912, 9 fatal, 420 non-fatal.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the inquest held at Henley on 4th February on Mr. Green, who died from cocaine poisoning following upon a dental operation, the drug having been administered by an unqualified person who was severely censured by the jury; to the inquest held on 4th March on Mrs. Petersen, in whose case also cocaine was administered by an unqualified person under similar circumstances; whether he is aware that there are in the United Kingdom 20,000 persons practising as dentists who have not yet qualified; that any layman can administer chloroform or cocaine, ether, and other anæsthetics; and whether it is proposed that, under the National Insurance Act, arrangements with any unqualified person who may succeed in imposing on any insured person shall be officially recognised?

I cannot add anything to the answers given by me to the question of the hon. Member for the Brentford Division on the 26th March, and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member's question of Monday last, except to point out that my Department is not concerned with the administration of the National Insurance Act.

May I ask if there is no law relating to dentists in this respect, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is not concerned with that matter?

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give notice of that question.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the number of dental surgeons in this country is quite insufficient to attend to the needs of the public, and will he see that no monopoly is established?

I think that question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend.

asked the rates of pay of police-constables in the Metropolitan Police, the City of London police, and in Bradford, Sheffield, and Bristol respectively?

The pay of a police-constable in the Metropolitan Police commences at 27s. a week and rises by annual increments of 1s. to 35s. a week; in addition to this there is a rent aid of 1s. 6d., 2s., or 2s. 6d. a week, and coal money; and an extra 1s. 6d. a week as reserve pay for a large proportion of the older constables, and 7s. a week for officers serving in public Departments. In the City of London the scale runs from 28s. 6d. to 41s. 6d. In Bradford the scale has just been increased and is now from 28s. to 39s., but the last figure is given only after twenty years' service. In Sheffield the scale is from 27s. to 36s., and in Bristol from 27s. to 35s. In comparing the scales it is important to note that a Metropolitan police-constable reaches his maximum after eight years' service, while in the provincial forces mentioned it takes fifteen or twenty years to reach the maximum.

Is the minimum period fifteen years in the provinces for the maximum amount to be arrived at?

I could not say whether it is the minimum, but the ordinary period is fifteen to twenty years before the maximum is reached.

Is there any reason why 2s. 6d. is allowed in aid of rent on the north side and only 1s. 6d. to 2s. on the south side of the river?

It depends on the amount paid for rent.

That means that rent on the south side is cheaper than rent on the north side?

I believe that to be the case, but I could not say.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to the question in order to correct the amount in aid of the rent?

The hon. Member should give notice. His question has been answered fully.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will consider as to arranging for such increases in pay of the members of the Metropolitan Police force as will bring the rates up to the level of the best rates obtaining in the provinces; and (2) if, as the result of conferences of local authorities in different parts of the country, the rates of pay of policemen in the provinces have been increased to rates exceeding those obtaining in the case of the Metropolitan Police force, although the cost of living in the London area is considerably higher; and if he has under consideration any proposal to improve the rate of pay of the Metropolitan Police correspondingly, particularly in view of the arduous and special character of the duties falling upon the London force?

The pay of the Metropolitan Police was increased less than two years ago, and following on this increase in the Metropolis there has been a similar improvement in the rates of pay of a large number of provincial police forces. The Metropolitan Police have also just obtained the weekly rest day, which is equivalent to a further increase of pay, and has entailed a heavy charge on the Metropolitan ratepayer. I am the last person to overlook the claims and needs of the Metropolitan Police, and I should be sorry to reduce their pay and privileges to the level of even the best of the provincial forces.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that eight years is a good term of service in which to reach the maximum, and one which is apt to make the men content?

That does not arise out of this question. The hon. Member should have related that supplementary question to the last answer.

In view of the action of the militant suffragettes, which has the result that so many constables do not get their rest on Sundays, will it be made up to them later on?

That does not arise out of the question.

Do all the police officers now get one day's rest in seven?

That does not arise. If the hon. Member attaches importance to a question of the sort, the least he can do is to put it down on the Paper.

asked whether the four women remanded without bail on Monday are in a fit state to take their trial to-day or whether they have been on hunger strike since the remand; and if they are not in a fit state to be tried, will the Crown Prosecutor be instructed to postpone the trial till they have recovered?

The four women mentioned are attending the proceedings at Bow Street this morning. The medical officer reports that they were in a fit condition to attend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the fatal crane accident in High Holborn and the recommendation of the coroner's jury that an inspector should be appointed to examine chains that are used on cranes for lifting purposes; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

I have seen a report of the proceedings at the adjourned inquest in this case and of the verdict of the coroner's jury. The whole question of the safety of chains in processes coming within the Factory Act is under the consideration of the Department.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the Manx House of Keys has passed a conscience clause applying to the Vaccination Acts, and that the Upper Chamber has rejected it; and whether he can make arrangements with the Lieutenant-Governor of the Isle of Man, as chief of the police, to prevent prosecutions for non-vaccination pending the settlement of the question by the two Houses?

I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings. The matter is settled by the rejection of the Bill; and I fear I could not properly take the action suggested.

Under the constitution of the Isle of Man is it still open to the two Houses to meet together and settle the matter definitely, and meantime can the right hon. Gentleman arrange that no prosecutions shall take place?

I am afraid not. If the Bill has been rejected it is not law.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sum the Royal Commission in whom are vested the funds derived from the Great Exhibition of 1851 received in respect of the fabric and materials of the exhibition buildings, etc., from the persons to whom they were sold; and if, in view of the educational and other advantages which would result from the acquisition of the Crystal Palace and grounds for the public, he will consider the possibility of arranging for at least that amount to be diverted as a contribution to the purchase of the property?

I am informed by the Royal Commission that nothing was received in respect of the fabric and materials of the exhibition buildings. The second part of the question therefore does not arise.

asked the Secretary for Scotland the number of applications for small holdings and extensions of small holdings made from the parish of Castleton, in the county of Roxburgh; whether any of them have been granted; and if the stage of negotiations with the landlord has been reached in any case?

Eight applications have been received from this parish; no holdings have yet been formed; inquiries have been addressed to the proprietor regarding suitable land, and one of the Sub-commissioners of the Board of Agriculture has inspected certain farms, but no scheme has yet been matured.

asked the Secretary for Scotland when the Report of the Land Court will be published; and whether he will endeavour to ensure that it will be in the hands of Scottish Members before the discussion of Scottish Estimates?

I hope that it will be published very shortly, and that it will be available before the discussion on the Scottish Estimates.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the reason why the Labour Exchange managers were not made aware of the strike in the building trade at Letchworth until four days after the strike had been notified to the Labour Exchange officer in the Letchworth district?

I am informed that the strike referred to by my hon. Friend was notified to the Bedford Exchange on 1st May. As no workmen could be sent to take places at Letchworth except through the Bedford Exchange no further notification was necessary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no notification was sent to the Poplar Labour Exchange until four days after the strike, and that on the first day after a notification was sent through the Labour Exchange asking for carters and others who were wanted at Letchworth?

I have explained that it was only through the Bedford Exchange that men could be sent to Letchworth.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that application was made through the Poplar Exchange?

I do not understand the situation. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me details.

asked the number of hours per day or per week that constitute a full day's or week's work for the staff employed in the Labour Exchanges?

The normal daily hours of the staff employed in the Labour Exchanges are eight.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to place the clerks employed at Labour Exchanges on the establishment, or to make any arrangement whereby they may become entitled to pensions?

As I stated, in reply to the hon. Member for Warrington on 17th April, I am in communication with the Treasury, and hope to be able to make a statement on the subject shortly.

asked the Postmaster-General whether the large number of temporary clerks recently appointed to the national telephone service will eventually be replaced by permanent clerks; and, if so, when, and with what grade?

If the reference is to the recent temporary additions to the clerical staff of the London telephone service, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow on 28th April. The revision proposals there mentioned provide for additions to nearly all grades, and as soon as the approval of the Treasury is received, steps will be taken to fill the new appointments. The temporary force employed in the various provincial telephone districts is being replaced as quickly as possible by permanent staff where the work on which it is engaged is found to be of a permanent character.

asked the Postmaster-General when approximately he proposes to announce the revised scale of telephone rates?

My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make an announcement on the subject before the end of June.

asked the Postmaster-General whether the members of the advisory committee on wireless telegraphy have expressed any opinion for his guidance supplementing the cautious expression of opinion contained in their report; if so, will he inform the House of these supplementary opinions; and whether the advisory committee on wireless telegraphy collected any and, if so, what evidence as to the estimated cost of equipping stations for wireless telegraphy on the Marconi system, the Poulsen system, and the Goldschmidt system, and as to the relative cost of transmitting messages by each of these three systems?

My right hon. Friend is not aware whether it is the intention of the Select Committee on the Marconi Contract to call for evidence from the members of the advisory committee. The latter committee have not expressed any opinions for his guidance beyond those published in their report; but he has had some conversation with the chairman on one or two questions arising out of the report. There are no papers which he can lay before the House. The question of cost was not included in the terms of reference of the advisory committee, which were framed in conformity with the terms of the Select Committee's Special Report. So far as is known, they did not collect any evidence as to the cost of the various systems.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that hospitals under the Metropolitan Asylums Board have had to turn patients away because of the dearth of nurses and that difficulty has been found by many Poor Law guardians in securing nurses; and, if so, can he say what steps he proposes to take to increase the supply or to attract the best class of women to the profession?

The Metropolitan Asylums Board were, I understood, apprehensive that they might have to restrict the admission of certain classes of infectious cases owing to the difficulty in obtaining nurses, but I am glad to learn that it is now hoped that no such limitation will be necessary. The shortage of nurses which is, I believe, being generally experienced is due to causes that are beyond my control.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in those countries where they have established State administration of nurses it has had the effect of raising the status and dignity of the profession and attracting the best type of women?

I cannot believe that either registration or classification is a testimony as to character or fitness.

If a dearth of nurses exists, is it not likely to be increased by the sanatoria set up under the Insurance Act, and will the right hon. Gentleman take such steps as are open to him to deal with it?

The temporary dearth of nurses is due to the National Insurance Act, the demand for nurses in sanatoria, and the large increase in the number of nursing homes and similar institutions. I am very glad to say that the deficiency is being supplied.

Is not the object of registration to guarantee a certain amount of training?

The question on the Paper deals with the shortage of nurses and not registration.

asked the Prime Minister whether the composition of the Royal Commission on India Office Finance is final, or whether the further appointment of a distinguished and exceptionally qualified officer serving in India at the time of the publication of the names of the members will still be possible?

His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the provision made for representing the views of the Government of India on this Commission is fully adequate, and cannot usefully be increased having regard to the necessity for filling other responsible appointments.

asked whether arrangements are being made for an aeroplane flight from England to India in October; and whether His Majesty's Government or the Government of India, or both Governments, are in any way assisting this project?

The Secretary of State has seen an announcement in the Press regarding the proposed flight. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

asked whether inquiries have been made as to the number remaining of the sixteen Zeppelin airships built in Germany; and, if so, with what results?

As stated by my right hon. Friend the First Lord, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset on the 30th April last, it appears that of sixteen Zeppelin airships built in Germany only six remain.

asked whether the Prime Minister's attention has been called to the fact that the flag is flown on Empire Day throughout the self-governing Dominions; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will give instructions that this festival shall be kept in a similar fashion in the United Kingdom by flying the flag upon various Government buildings?

I can add nothing to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on this subject on 1st May.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the flag is also flown on the King's birthday throughout the whole Empire, and that this festival is regarded as of tremendous importance throughout His Majesty's Dominions?

This question has been most carefully considered by successive Governments, and they have all come to the same conclusion. I see no reason to alter the practice.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is Empire Day?

It is the 24th of May I think.

asked (1) whether, in the event of war, it is proposed to protect the safety of our oversea food supply, seeing that if that is carried out the fighting strength of our Fleet as a whole will thereby be scattered and weakened; whether the Government has any intention of releasing the Fleet from these distant protective duties by providing a six months' supply of food-stuffs in these Islands at all periods of the year, and thus enabling the Fleet, if necessary, to concentrate the whole of its forces in Home waters for offensive action at the outset of hostilities; and (2) whether the Government have obtained any estimate of the cost of providing national or other State-controlled granaries capable of storing a six months' supply of corn for the population of these Islands, in the event of war, at all seasons of the year; if it has been suggested to the Government by their advisers that by adopting the most modern systems of storage, such granaries could be built and equipped with modern machinery for a sum of two million pounds or thereabouts, and that the cost of maintenance and distribution, including the periodical movements of the supply, would not exceed £50,000 or £60,000 per annum; and, if so, or even if the estimated cost were found to be greater, whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to appoint an impartial Committee to investigate the whole question of wheat storage in this connection and afterwards make a Report to this House?

The whole question of food supply in time of war is being examined by the Committee of Imperial Defence. Investigations are still being made with regard to various aspects of the matter. The subject of grain storage is intimately connected with the larger question, and no decision can be come to with regard to it till these investigations are concluded. I am not prepared to deal by question and answer with the other matters referred to.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the circumstances under which the Housing Bill was withdrawn, he will state the proposals of the Government for dealing with this question; and whether a Bill dealing with the matter and providing for increased financial assistance from the Imperial Government, to meet one of the principal objections of the President of the Local Government Board, will be introduced this Session?

As I have already stated, this question has been and is receiving close consideration, but it is not possible for the Government to introduce proposals in the present Session.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if a Bill is introduced to increase the financial aid, whether he will give facilities for it?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means.

It is with reference to the reply made by the President of the Local Government Board that he considered £500,000 was totally inadequate.

Will the Government keep in mind, in framing proposals, that there is a large body of opinion on this side which objects to doles and subsidies, and thinks that the solution of the housing problem lies in the land?

All these things will be kept in mind; but I think it would be very undesirable to make any statement on the subject at present.

asked whether the Prime Minister intends to introduce legislation to prevent the London Hospital from sending out nurses one year before the expiry of the normal course of training required by every other great Metropolitan hospital at the rate of 11s. 6d. per week while they earn £2 2s. per week for their hospital?

Before the Prime Minister answers this question, may I ask him whether he is aware that Mr. Sydney Holland, chairman of the London Hospital, flatly contradicted the first part of the statement when it was first made; whether he knows that the London Hospital trains its nurses free of charge or premium for two years, and makes a large loss on the whole transaction; and whether, when the nurses are properly equipped, they are able to earn a livelihood for themselves at the expense of the hospital?

I have not heard, and, with all respect to my hon. Friend I rather deprecate questions of this kind, relating to a great London hospital, to which the Metropolitan community is under a deep debt of gratitude. I am not aware of any grounds for legislation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Sydney Holland has admitted that nurses are sent out from the London Hospital one year before the expiry of the time ratified by other hospitals?

He denies it absolutely.

Is the right hon. Gentleman, or is he not, aware that Mr. Holland admitted as a fact that they are sent out at the end of two years, which is one year less than the curriculum of all the other London hospitals?

I am not aware of that as a matter of fact. The management of the hospital is a domestic matter. There is no ground whatsoever for the suggestion.

asked whether, in view of the Prime Minister's promise to consider the question of allocating two days to the Post Office Vote and of the fact that only one day was allotted and the Debate was interrupted by a Private Bill, allowing only four hours for the discussion of the Post Office Vote, and in view of the fact that many Members who desired to speak on the telephone service were in consequence prevented, he will allocate a day early on the reassembling of Parliament for the discussion of the telephone service?

No, Sir, I am not prepared to give a special day for the discussion of this service, but as I have already stated, if there is general desire of the House, expressed through the usual channels, that a further day should be given to the Post Office Vote, I will see what arrangements can be made.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the partner of a medical man, who is a member of the Bermondsey board of guardians, holds the position of district medical officer to the same board; and whether he proposes to take steps to prevent guardians allowing persons to sit on a board whose partners are under contract with it?

The situation is, I believe, as described in the question. It is no doubt open to criticism, but is not illegal, and I have no authority to take the course suggested.

Considering the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, will he be good enough to communicate with the Bermondsey board of guardians?

I am quite sure that they will see the question and answer.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the inquiry into the alleged violation of the Fair-Wages Clause by the British Portland Cement Manufacturers and the Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers has yet been completed; and, if so, will he state the result?

Some preliminary inquiries have been made, but the investigations are not yet complete. I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) whether Mr. Alfred Gavin M'Clelland, whose profession is that of deep-well driller, of 2, Claremont Terrace, South Shields, has been appointed to the post of assistant-inspector of animals; and, if so, seeing that his age is thirty-five years, whether an Order in Council was obtained prior to his appointment; and (2) if any Report has been received from Mr. Alfred Gavin M'Clelland's superior officer as to his fitness for the position of assistant-inspector of animals; if so, whether that Report was favourable to his appointment; and, if so, if the Report may be laid upon the Table of the House?

For six years Mr. M'Clelland was engaged in practical farming, particularly in the rearing and management of cattle, horses, and sheep. He was a pupil at Guelph Agricultural College. During the time he was deep-well drilling he found time and opportunity for enlarging his experience of livestock. No special authority or Order in Council was needed for his appointment as an assistant-inspector under the Diseases of Animals Acts. He was appointed as from 2nd April last, and is on probation for two years in accordance with the usual custom. No Report upon him has yet been received by the Board from his superior officer.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the dates for training of the Leicestershire Royal Horse Artillery, namely, practice camp on Salisbury Plain, 18th to 27th May, and Army manœuvres, 21st to 27th September, were approved by the Northern Command early in April; whether on 5th May a communication was received by the officer commanding the Leicestershire Royal Horse Artillery informing him that the battery should not arrive on Salisbury Plain until 20th May; and whether, in view of the fact that all arrangements have been made for the training as first approved, contracts made and men notified, and in further view of the fact that the new dates afford only one day for preparation for practice, he will cause the former arrangements to be adhered to?

I hope to be able to restore the original arrangements in this case.

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether it is proposed to supply to the Army three days of fresh beef and four days of frozen beef a week, instead of four days of fresh beef, two days of frozen beef, and one day of frozen mutton, as has been the practice heretofore; and (2) whether it is proposed in the near future to set up depots for meat supplies, instead of obtaining these supplies through contractors as heretofore; and, if so, whether contractors will be invited to tender for supplies to these depots, or whether it is proposed to get the supplies of frozen meats direct from the importers?

I will reply at the same time to Question 64^*. The system of purchase and supply of meat for the Army is under consideration, but it is not at present possible to state what arrangements may be finally decided upon.

asked whether the Secretary for War is now able to state if a chapel is to be built at the Redford Barracks, in response to the deputation which waited upon him at the War Office, and was introduced by the Lord High Commissioner?

The matter is still under consideration.

asked whether the Secretary for War's attention has been called to the unsatisfactory character of the Malleny rifle range, near Edinburgh, which is traversed by two rights of way and, owing to its elevated and exposed position, occasionally buried in mist; and whether he will consider the desirability of providing a safer and more satisfactory range?

I have under consideration arrangements in this neighbourhood which I hope will remedy any defect that may exist.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can state what were the proposals for medical treatment of Indian women by means of travelling dispensaries made by Mrs. Emanuel, wife of Mr. Emanuel, Indian Civil Service, collector of Larkhana, in Sind; and whether any, and what, action was taken thereupon by the Government of Bombay?

The proposal was that in each district there should be a travelling dispensary, fully equipped with a lady doctor and a nurse, to bring medical aid within the reach of villagers, particularly women and children. The Bombay Government were unable to accept the scheme on financial and other grounds. But they have offered to aid the establishment of stationary dispensaries under women doctors for the treatment of women and children.

asked whether, considering the fact that a joint annuity of £300 has been granted to the mother and sisters of Captain Scott in addition to the pension and annuity to Lady Scott and her son, that a joint annuity of £300 a year has been granted to the widow and sister-in-law of Dr. Wilson, and that a pension and annuity amounting to £67 12s. per annum, in addition to 3s. a week for each child, has been granted to the widow of Petty-officer Evans, the Under-Secretary for India will take the necessary steps to secure more generous treatment for the widow and sisters of Lieutenant Bower, of the Royal Indian Marine, who have only been granted by the Government of India pensions amounting in all to £100 per annum, a sum hardly more than what Lieutenant Bower himself would have been entitled to had he been simply invalided out of the Service?

The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken in thinking that Lieutenant Bower left a widow. The pensions have been granted to his mother and sisters. They are in excess of what would have been admissible under either Naval or Indian Regulations in the case of an officer of his standing killed in action; and they more than satisfy the Prime Minister's promise regarding the provision to be made from public revenues for dependent relatives.

May I ask whether this £100 has been granted to the mother and sisters conjointly or in equal shares, and will the whole sum be continued to the last survivor or what?

It is given conjointly.

Will the whole £100 be continued to the last survivor?

I am not quite sure now, but I will let the hon. Gentleman know in the course of the day.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is prepared to grant the Return standing on the Order Paper for this day, which is a continuation, in slightly altered form, of similar Returns granted in former years?

The hon. Member may have forgotten that in May last year he asked if a similar Return could be prepared for 1911. In August he was advised that the Return had been obtained from India and would be laid if moved for. If he will move for the Return, I shall be happy to lay it. Its preparation entailed considerable work, and the Secretary of State is not disposed to call upon the Government of India for a further Return for 1912.

I make no apology for referring to Imperial questions, for I think when we remember the title of this Parliament it is desirable that Imperial questions should sometimes have consideration. I cannot help thinking that the question of Imperial organisation is likely to be of such importance in the next ten years that it is our duty when we have time to consider all those various great questions which unfortunately, I think everybody will admit, receive too little attention owing to the fierce party questions which are now before us. I know that it is frequently urged by some that sentiment is quite sufficient where the British Empire is concerned, and that there is no need for the Government to depart from the policy of laissez faire. I do not minimise in any way the value of sentiment in the British Empire, because without that sentiment, I think it can hardly be denied that we should not be as unified and as united even as we are to-day in the absence of good organisation. But I would remind the Government that those who base their contention on allowing sentiment alone to hold the British Empire do not do very much in order even to increase the sentimental value of the British Empire. We only have in that connection, although it may appear a small thing, the fact that the Government refuse to fly the flag on Government buildings on Empire Day. Though it is only a small question, it is at the same time one of far reaching importance throughout the whole of the British Dominions and the Crown Colonies, and when the Secretary of State for War has received such wonderful assistance from the Dominions beyond the Seas in the formation of universal service, freeing him from a great many cares and troubles with regard to the defence of those Dominions, and when he remembers that in every one of those Dominions that sentimental idea of the flag is one which is regarded as of the utmost importance, I really think we might have been spared the suggestion of the Secretary of State for War that he did not know what Empire Day was. I think, too, that the Government might give instructions, and it would not be very costly, that the flag should be hoisted on all Government buildings on Empire Day.

I think it will hardly be denied that sentiment is not sufficient in future if we are really to give attention to the British Empire. Sentiment is a very valuable thing in many cases. A mother may have a great deal of sentiment for her children, but unless she is able to wash them and feed them and clothe them and put them out in the world it is not of very great value. When once the children are out in the world no one will deny that a pennyworth of practical help is worth a bucketful of tears of either joy or sorrow. We must look at Imperial affairs from more than a sentimental point of view if we are to keep those great countries to hold together working out common purposes of civilisation in the days to come. The British Empire, I think we can say, is the greatest business concern that the world has ever known. At the present time it is worked and run by a dozen boards of directors, and when I realise that in this House there are very many business men I think they will not deny that such an arrangement with regard to those affairs which are necessary for the Empire as a whole is not conducive to economy or to efficiency of working, and, what is more, that it but leads to friction and misunderstanding. I therefore submit, in the interests of cohesion and well-directed energy, it is time that the Government of the British Empire should come together and should establish a permanent Council in order that the best brains of the Empire may come together to co-ordinate their schemes of defence, and acquaint themselves with the motives of our foreign policy, and to discuss questions of trade which affect all parts. How is the vast machinery of the British Empire run? Once in every four years an Imperial Conference is called together, and for a few weeks the statesmen of the Empire sit round a table and offer suggestions, after which the shop is practically closed down for another four years, and the result is that the Empire is not kept in touch in the intermediate time except to a very small extent.

I think everyone will agree that the Imperial Conference—or Colonial Conference, as it was called originally—was admirable in its inception, but I think no one will deny also that things have moved at such a pace that that machinery is no longer adequate to fulfil the functions required. I venture respectfully to suggest that the time has come when the Imperial Conference should be turned into a permanent advisory Council for the British Empire as a whole. In this connection I think, if I may say so, that the Government made a tremendous step in the right direction with regard to the Committee of Imperial Defence. I think that was a great move, and in future, at all events, the representatives of the Dominions are to be invited to sit upon the Imperial Committee of Defence, and, with regard to that vast subject, there is going to be some consultation between the various parts. But defence alone is not sufficient. The force of circumstances are far too strong, for we find in the last two or three years there have been two or three things happening of the utmost moment to the whole British position, both in regard to defence and in various affairs. Canada, in the last few years, has practically taken to herself the power of making separate trade treaties. The Secretary of State for the Colonies will not deny that there is in that the possibility of grave difficulties in regard to our treaties with foreign countries, and that the whole network of those treaties might possibly be snapped by some individual work on the part of Canada. That I think proves the necessity for continual consultation upon foreign affairs; then there need be no difficulty. Again, in Australia, you have the question of the Australian Navigation Laws. Nobody who has studied that question will deny that it contains elements of grave international difficulty, unless there is frequent consultation between the Home and the Commonwealth Governments. More important still is the movement in the direction of separate Fleet units. From time to time the Fleet may be called upon at a moment's notice to fulfil some diplomatic mission. I am not criticising the determination of the Dominions, but the Australian Fleet unit might suddenly have to be used by the Government of Australia. At once you get questions involving foreign affairs and the need for closer consultation.

Lastly, in this connection, I would mention the present impasse in the Canadian Parliament. I am not going to take sides on that question. I regret that anyone in this House should have seen fit to do so, when we know perfectly well that both parties in Canada have one object, and one object alone, that of contributing their share to Imperial defence. At the same time, it cannot be denied that if there had been some machinery by which the Dominion representatives were in closer consultation with the Home authorities, we should have had a succession of Governments in Canada, Liberal and Conservative, who understood the general policy of the Empire, and we probably should not have had what is distressing to every man in this country, the present intense party feeling in the Canadian Parliament over an Imperial question. As an instance of how difficulties occur, I might refer to the difficulty which arose over the Declaration of London. Here we had a question more or less rushed through without any real consultation, although a vigorous protest was made by Australia. Is it not grotesque that such a question; involving every single citizen of the Dominions Overseas, should be rushed through Parliament here without deliberate and frequent consultation between the various parts of the Empire? No one is very much to blame, because the machinery does not exist; but I think it proves the necessity of having such machinery in the future. I am one of those who look forward to the day when we shall have a great Imperial Parliament, which will deal solely with questions common to the Empire as a whole, and relieve those questions from the stress of party politics. At the same time I fully recognise that it is a question which ought not to be in any way hurried. But I do not believe it is so distant as many people think. Opinion in the Dominions has changed. Especially in Canada I found a wonderful change in the direction of some closer community in the matter of consultation between the various parts of the Empire. But for immediate purposes it seems to me that the time has come when an Advisory body should be permanently established, in order that there may be continual consultation between Ministers of the Home Government and Ministers of the Dominions Overseas.

I turn now to the question of emigration. Since the present Government came into power in 1906 and the Chancellor of the Exchequer shed the sunshine of his hopes into the cottages of the country, 1,400,000 of our citizens have emigrated. One in every thirty-one of the population has left our shores. I have reached that stage of opinion where I do not greatly regret a man's moving from one country to another, provided he is going to get better wages and continuous work, and remains under the British flag. But I think the time has come when the Government should take some steps to keep emigrants as far as possible within the British Empire, rather than allowing them to go to foreign countries. During each of the last two years 50,000 emigrants have gone to the United States of America. Every one of those people had cost this country something like £200, in education, clothing, housing, food and insurance. The elder men had cost considerably more. If an emigrant goes to the United States or any other foreign country, he goes to build up the trade of that country, to lend it the skill which he has learnt in this country, to use the brains which have been developed here, to pay for the "Dreadnoughts" of that country, and possibly to serve in that country's Army against this country; whereas every emigrant who goes to another country within the British Empire goes to build up the trade of the British Empire, to buy from us in pounds, as compared with shillings, to build "Dreadnoughts" for Imperial defence, and, in the case of Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand, to serve in the Home Defence Army. His advent to the Dominion is of great value, not only to the Dominion itself, but also to this country; whereas, if he goes to a foreign country, he becomes our competitor.

1.0 P.M.

I am afraid that the suggestion I am about to make may startle one or two of my hon. Friends, but I believe it is the only way in which my object can be secured. Every emigrant having cost this country £200, is it unreasonable that we should ask emigrants, when going to foreign countries, taking that capital with them, to contribute £5 to the Home Government? I know that some people say that a man is free to move where he likes. But if that man has had all this money poured out upon him by this country, I do not think it is unreasonable that he should make a small contribution when he is leaving the British Empire. The money so realised might be devoted to judicious expenditure in connection with emigration under the British flag. The amount raised would be about £250,000 a year, and my belief is that you could not do a greater service, either to this country or to the Dominions, than by employing that money in giving assisted or even free passages to British women who desire to emigrate to Canada and the other Dominions. We are all impressed with the fact that, owing to the great excess of women in this country, there is a certain irritability in many parts of the land. It is all owing to emigration that you have this vast number of women who have been left behind when the men have gone abroad. The consequence is that women are being employed in directions where they ought never to be employed. You have exactly the opposite picture in Canada. In the West of Canada there are five men to every woman. This constitutes a grave question for the Canadian people. Here you have women ready to emigrate. Surely the country can look beyond its nose and assist the emigration of deserving women who desire to go to the West of Canada, where they might make good mothers of future British citizens, and where they are sadly needed in every respect. In fact the present position is absolutely unnatural, and the Government might do something to relieve the situation.

I wish to say a word, in conclusion, with regard to the organisation of the trade of the British Empire. No one will deny that the British Empire really came into existence from the desire to trade. The people of this country went out to various parts and built up with the Old Country an enormous trade, which is undoubtedly saving us from a great deal of distress which would otherwise exist. I think, in this connection, that the figures that the President of the Board of Trade gave me only a week or two ago are of extreme interest. You will find there that, whereas the population of the United States only buy 6s. 4d. per head from this country each year, Germany 12s. 2d., France only 12s. 11d., Canada buys £3 3s. 4d. per head, South Africa £3 10s. 4d., Australia, £7 10s. 2d., and New Zealand £9 5s. 5d. I think that is a wonderful tribute to the fact that these Dominions are doing their very best to encourage the trade of this country. At the same time we see that Australia alone, with 4½ millions of people, is buying more manufactures from this country than Germany with her 65 millions; Canada, with her 7½ millions, is now buying more manufactures than France, just across the Channel, with her 45 millions; and New Zealand, 13,000 miles away, is buying more than Belgium with her dense population. These facts are of great interest, and I think it should be a matter of anxiety to everybody to make certain that we are going to keep these markets, which are worth trying for in an industrial sense. If these markets were really organised on the true basis, and we made great efforts to keep them, by Consular agents and so on, if we did everything in our power—whether you employed preference or subsidy or whatever means—we ought to see that we get our share of that expanding trade in the near future. Surely the system of this country is not such that we cannot consider any great alteration of trade? We heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day and his rosy Budget. The Chancellor congratulated himself, but I think nobody called the attention of the House to the fact of the really distressing and awful condition of the working classes which existed even in this greatest boom year of 1912! There were half a million of people—I think that is not an exaggeration figure—permanently out of work.

We had over a quarter of a million who last year emigrated from this country. In other words, we had 750 daily, or 5,000 per week, leaving this country as if there were a blight upon the land. They fled to other countries where there is some other system. One in every forty-five of the population was in receipt of relief—700,000 persons for England alone. Two million four hundred thousand persons in this boom year applied through the Labour Exchanges for work. Is it surprising that wages are stationary and that food is going up in price? What I suggest is this, that there must be two or three main principles which we ought to keep ever before us. First, we ought to try and find constant wages; secondly, cheap food; thirdly, we should endeavour to keep intact the united man-power of the British Empire. In regard to constant wages, we should attend to that if we are going to keep our comparative position in the British Empire in the next thirty years, and if there is to be sufficient work for everyone in this country who is willing to work. I will only give one more instance—though I have a good many—and that is in regard to India. In 1886 this country imported into India 82 per cent. of its imports; in 1912 India only bought 64 per cent. from the Old Country. In 1886 foreign countries sent to India 8 per cent. of the total imports; in 1912 they sent 30 per cent. I think the House will agree that that is an extraordinary fact; that we are losing to an enormous degree our hold on the total trade of the Indian market, even though with other countries we may be increasing a little at the present time. It is for this reason that I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to consider whether all is being done by the Government in order to hold which I think I have shown is of very great value to this country — the comparative position that we are in? The first point that I said we should aim at is constant wages. The second point is cheap food. We know that this latter is one of the most important questions that we have to consider. It is a question which has been made a great party cry between the two sides of the House for many a long year. But after all it is the crux of the whole question. You want the real wages of the working classes of this country to go up; otherwise we know that the country will stand still. I would submit that it is time that the Government considered how they can cheapen the food of this country. Within the British Empire you have got sufficient food-producing land to feed not only this country, but all Europe, and in fact the world.

Can nothing be done to stimulate the production of food in the British Empire? You have given £1,000,000 to spend upon the Soudan in order to please the electors of Lancashire. Why should not you give something equally satisfactory in the way of reduction of railway rates or shipping of something or other, in order to encourage the production of more food, which is far more important than even raw cotton for the people of this country. Lastly, I referred to the united man-power of the nation. When we see the extraordinary world movements of recent years we must all be impressed by the fact that we in this island with 45,000,000 of people are a man-power that cannot in the end resist the economic and military pressure of vast Empires like the German Empire and the United States, of the Far East, and Russia. Surely we must take greater steps in order to see that we do not stand alone. We see on every hand at the present time the desire of the Dominions to co-operate with us, but you are never going to get that co-operation really effective until you have brought them into your common councils, and until they feel that they are having a hand in running the show. Therefore, I say, that for these main reasons: for consultation, for controlled emigration, for trade organisation, the time has come that we must take some steps at least forward in the direction of having a Permanent Council of the Empire, so that we can really look upon this question from the view point, not only of the people of this country, but from the point of view of the Canadian, of the Australian, of the New Zealander, and of the South African, who is just indeed as much concerned as the people of this country in the future destiny of the Empire.

I envy the all-pervasive knowledge of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and his cosmopolitan curiosity. He has ranged over topics which might well be sufficient for debate extending over a Parliamentary week, and which might seem excessive for a morning sitting on the day of adjournment. I tremble with happy anticipation of what his speech will be a few years hence when he is standing at this box, having added omnipotence to omniscience. I have listened with much interest to his observations and comprehensive survey, and I hope I shall not be accused of any discourtesy if I endeavour to be more concise than discursive. The hon. Member has offered information rather than sought it. I shall therefore doubly profit by the process, for I am excused from replying, whilst at the same time having acquired knowledge. He has referred to the encouragement of trade and commerce throughout the Empire. That is a matter which has been specially and specifically referred to the Dominions Royal Commission. That Commission has taken a good deal of evidence in London and New Zealand; and it is at the present moment engaged in collecting evidence in Australia. I think it is necessary that a Minister of the Crown should await the facts which may be collected and the conclusions which may be arrived at by the Royal Commission. But I do not in the least complain of the discussion of the whole subject here to-day or of the manner in which it has been opened up by the hon. Gentleman. Some steps have been taken of late years to provide statistics, and there has been a great advance in securing a greater uniformity of statistics. Then quite recently we have taken a step which, I think, is not sufficiently appreciated by the British public. The British Consular service is now placed at the disposal of the Dominions, and Canada, Australia, and South Africa have already availed themselves of that arrangement. In another direction the Pacific Cable Board is now running direct cables between New Zealand and Australia. We have taken steps for the cheapening of the cable rates; we may not have attained all we wish, but we have secured much lower rates, and I can assure the House we have not come to the end of our activities in that direction.

The Dominions Royal Commission has received representations from many Chambers of Commerce—London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and Newcastle, I think—for what they call more complete organisation of the trade and commerce of the Empire. The conclusions of the Dominions Royal Commission will be submitted to us in time for the next Imperial Conference, which is due before the life of the present Parliament necessarily expires. The subjects which the Chambers of Commerce have been considering and have submitted to the Commission are such things as the assimilation of the mercantile laws of shipping, of bankruptcy, of joint stock companies, and the uniformity of the patent laws throughout the Empire. It has been suggested to the Dominions Royal Commission that there might be something set up here in the nature of a central statistical office for the whole Empire which might attend to the publication of figures with as little delay as we have now in the publication of our own trade returns. I am not expressing any opinion on that, but they say such an office will enable us to keep our fingers very constantly on the Imperial pulse. An Imperial Development Fund has been suggested, I am not sure whether by the Chambers of Commerce, and it is being considered by the Commission now. It seems at first sight to raise the question whether there should be voluntary or compulsory contributions to such a fund, and hon. Members will know how difficult such a question as that would be throughout our Dominions. I therefore propose to await the judgment of the Royal Commission on that matter.

Unless the Council was established.

I will deal with that. The suggestion has also been made as to greater uniformity of weights and measures and coinage throughout the Empire. I do not wish by mentioning that to bring up the advocates of decimal coinage to-day, nor do I propose to enforce our ancient and respectable tables on those who have improved on them. We have been doing a great deal in the last few years in the way of scientific research as to the possibilities of soil and climate and labour throughout the Dominions, for the further production of commodities required throughout the Empire. A great deal has been done in this direction, by the Imperial Institute and also by the Commercial Intelligence Department. Some years ago an Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence was set up at the Board of Trade on which the Dominions have now representatives. It has already done admirable work. The Dominion Com- missioners, ever since they began to sit not long ago in London, have already been acting as a sort of ambassadors of the Imperial Conference. Some traders here made representations to the Royal Commission as to the difficulty they experienced in pushing their trade in Canada. Mr. Foster, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is a member of that Commission, immediately dealt with this complaint and had prompt inquiry made, and promised to introduce a swift remedy. It is of great satisfaction to the traders in England, and I doubt not that that sort of action will be taken by the Commissioners throughout the Empire. I think that, for the moment, we may safely leave in the hands of the Commissioners the consideration as to what are the remedies that may be found for evils which it may be found possible to cure.

I should like to mention, in connection with this recent institution of British Trade Commissioners throughout the Dominions, that we have now, in addition to the Commissioners in the self-governing Dominions, twenty-three Imperial Trade correspondents also in the Dominions. It is their duty to advise merchants and manufacturers in the Home country what trade openings there are for them in the Dominions, and especially to watch the movements of foreign competition. They reply, as it is their duty to do, to inquiries they may receive from British firms, and he Trade Commissioners are also instructed to travel about the Dominions in order to observe the various circumstances which may be useful to British trade. Recently a new arrangement has been made, which is very valuable. These Trade Commissioners are ordered to return home at regular intervals in order to have personal consultation with, and personally to convey information to, British firms who have business with the Dominions, or wish to have. The Trade Commissioners of Canada, Australia, and South Africa, have already done this. The Trade correspondents, who, as I said, are twenty-three in number, are actively engaged in or acquainted with trade in the localities in which they live. They keep the Commissioners and the traders at home constantly informed of business movements. Both the Commissioners and the correspondents send home to the Commercial Intelligence Department of the Board of Trade lists of dealers in the principal classes of goods in their localities. They send home information if necessary by cable—they have special instructions to that end—of any contracts open to tender or any projected work such as railways, tramways, electric lighting, power installation, mines, waterworks, harbour works, irrigation, in order that our merchants here may be kept informed of what openings are available for them. Then it is especially their duty to report upon the nature of foreign competition. We have gone further, because we have instructed them to collect samples of foreign goods which compete with British goods in their Dominion. They made a short time ago a special collection of hardware, tools, hollow-ware, and sent them home. They sent home a collection of these from South Africa some months ago, and they have already been exhibited in the industrial centres of the United Kingdom. We have now a new collection from New Zealand, and further collections are coming from Canada and Australia. I think that is very useful work which will yield good results, and I am quite certain that the institution of the Trade Commissioners and correspondents is an admirable and a remunerative new departure.

Then the hon. Gentleman touched upon emigration. This also is a subject of consideration by the Dominions Royal Commission, and I personally cannot anticipate their report. I would like to say that we do direct the stream of emigration to our Dominions and Colonies rather than to foreign countries. We have the Emigrants' Information Office, which is a very valuable department, for giving reliable information to intending emigrants. We do not want either to encourage or discourage emigration. What that office does is to try to divert the stream of emigration to British Possessions, rather than to foreign countries, by pointing out to them the similarity of institutions, of blood, and of language in our Dominions and the large area of land available, making there a better opening for the British emigrant than he will find in foreign countries. The applications to the Emigrants' Information Office for its publications are more numerous in relation to the Dominions and Colonies than to any foreign country, and the applicants are told of the greater advantages that they will find within the Empire, although we do give accurate information to them, whatever part of the world they may determine to go to. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what has been the course of emigration during the lifetime of this Government, say during the last seven years. It may be surprising to him, but I can assure him that we have done more than our predecessors did to divert this stream. As in other matters, I think we have done more effective work here than they did; we have been more effective in our practical Imperialism. In 1905 the emigration from this country to all the countries in the world was 139,000 persons, of whom only 77,000 or 55 per cent. went to the British Empire. Last year the emigrants from this country were 268,000, of whom 220,000 went to the British Empire, or 82 per cent. of the whole. The emigrants to foreign countries in 1905 were 62,000. Last year they were only 48,000, although the number of emigrants had greatly increased in that time. I certainly cannot encourage the hon. Member that we shall adopt his suggestion of putting a fine of £5 per head upon those who, for special reasons, may seek their home on other shores than those over which we rule. A very interesting question is that of the emigration of women. He said—I do not wish to adopt his language—that the excessive number of women presented a problem here. Well, we have done something to contribute to the greater emigration of women. In 1905 the number of women emigrants from these countries represented 33 per cent. of the adult emigration; in 1912 they represented 46 per cent. From 1902 to 1911 the women emigrants increased by 156 per cent. Now that means that there are going to be more decent homes in the Dominions, and it means also that they are attracted to go there because they find better conditions of life than they used to find some years ago in these Dominions. That is a more fertile type of emigration. It is a type which the Dominions and Colonies needed,, because they wanted more population. On the general question of emigration, let me put these questions: Can we do more? Ought we to do more? The fact is that to-day there are practically no unemployed in the great staple trades of this country except those who are unemployable. I am informed that in the cotton, wool, engineering, and shipbuilding trades they cannot get extra hands when they want them. Some very interesting evidence was given before the Dominions Royal Commission by the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. John Burns) a short time ago. He pointed out that Ireland for many years past, and Scotland quite recently, had been emigrating more of their people than the natural increase of the population. That is a serious situation.

I think I took special care not to advocate more emigration, but the diversion of emigration, where possible, from foreign countries to the Empire. I only recommended assistance for women where I thought they were more needed.

As to diversion, I have given the hon. Member the figures, but I would like also to draw the attention of the House to the seriousness of the point about emigration with which I was dealing. Ireland between the years 1901 and 1911 emigrated 336,000 people, or 130 per cent. of the natural increase of the population. Many of us have our own views as to what was the cause of that emigration from Ireland. In 1911 the natural increase of the population in Ireland was 1,000 less than the number of emigrants. Scotland unhappily is now undergoing the same process, for the first time in 100 years. In 1910 the natural increase of population in Scotland was 51,000, and the emigrants numbered 55,000, a loss of 4,000. In 1911 the departures from Scotland exceeded the natural increase by 7,000, and in 1912 by 8,000. In fact, England alone maintains an increase of population beyond her emigration. In 1911 the natural increase of population in the United Kingdom was 432,000, but 152,000 of that was due to life-saving by the decreased death rate. That number may be regarded as very satisfactory. But for this saving the natural increase would have been only 280,000, whilst the emigration was 262,000, so that without this life-saving, due to the decrease of the death rate, there would only have been a margin of 18,000 increase of the population left over the emigration which has taken place. On these grounds I am inclined to think that up to the present we have done all we ought to do, and I propose to await the conclusions of the Royal Commission in order to see what are the requirements of the Dominions, and what are the possible and justifiable sacrifices which the Mother-country may be called upon to make. The hon. Gentleman also dealt with the question of the Imperial Council. I wonder that he was not warned by the fate of the Imperial Federation League some years ago. There were some people who thought that that League was right, but I think almost everyone thought they were right too soon. They went into possible plans with meticulous detail, with the result that they aroused resentment both by their reserves and their concessions. I should have been glad if the hon. Member had given us a little more information as to what his Imperial Council means. Is it to be on an elective basis? If it is, is it to be based upon population, or area, or wealth? Is it to be only on a white basis? If so, Great Britain in that Council would have a commanding majority. Is it to have supreme legislative powers over the Empire, and that by a simple majority? Is it to have supreme taxing powers, as against a dissenting minority, for instance; and if so, how are these taxing powers to be enforced, and by whom are the taxes to be collected? The tea chests in Boston Harbour would be a joke compared with the situation that would be produced by such a Council as that.

I particularly said it was advisory.

I was dealing with the Council he proposes. Would it be supreme over the British Parliament and Cabinet? He spoke of what he called a purely Imperial Parliament. If your purely Imperial Parliament is to be properly constituted, is it to represent all British subjects in all Continents? If so, what about the British Indians who amount to something like 315,000,000 souls? Are they to control the rest of the Empire by their superior numbers, and, if not, why? I do not think that you would consolidate the Empire by enacting a colour bar or by imposing the compulsory admission of coloured races to Canada, Australia, or South Africa. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite at some future date will let us know what they mean exactly and how they propose to carry it out. Some hon. Members opposite may think that these doubts are merely the hesitations and reflections of a Little Englander. Let me remind them that the humble bricklayer does more in Empire building than the eternal layer of foundation stones. The had is very often more effective than the silver trowel. If I am suspect on this subject, and I do not know why I should be, I am sure hon. Members will listen to the views of some big Imperialists on their plan. No one, for instance, would call Sir George Reid, the High Commissioner of Australia, an anti-Imperialist or a Little Englander. He carried the Australian Federation when he was Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, and he studied these problems from the standpoint of his own countrymen. What did he say in a speech which he made at the Imperial Institute only on 11th March this year? It is a long extract, but it is very important as coming from the representative of Australia, and, if the House will forgive me, I will read it:—

"I think it is really time that someone should point out some of the difficulties in the way of proposals for a closer political union. These may disappear in the course of time, but they appear to be insuperable at present. Take, for instance, the fascinating project of bringing into existence a truly Imperial Parliament. In theory how absolutely necessary it seems! In practice how wonderfully well we manage without it! In point of fact, how immensely difficult the proposal becomes when we attempt to translate it into even the barest outline of a scheme! If the great divisions of the Empire were all self-governed and inhabited by men of British origin, the attempt to construct a new Imperial Constitution would be a task of immense difficulty. But I cannot forget, as so many writers and speakers do. the fact that six-sevenths of the Imperial population are neither in the United Kingdom nor in the self-governing Dominions.

How could we assemble an Imperial Parliament, properly so-called, if 360,000,000 of the coloured people of the Empire were wholly shut out? A Parliament in which the 60,000,000 white citizens were represented and not the 360,000,000 of the coloured races might be called a British Federal Parliament, but it would not be a truly Imperial Parliament. Indeed, the present sort of Imperial Parliament and Executive have some striking advantages. How convenient in real life it is that the advanced legislation of the self-governing Dominions does not fix responsibility upon the shoulders of the Imperial Government as directly as it would do in the other event. When a Colonial Parliament takes an extreme step, vitally necessary perhaps to its welfare but most irritating to some other nations, and even to large bodies of His Majesty's subjects, the Imperial Government is in a more enviable position now than it would be then. Could Dominion representatives sit in an Imperial Parliament with any sense of comfort or equity to deal with the affairs of several hundreds of millions of human beings against whom they feel compelled at present to shut their doors? Even if they could, would the new situation tend to promote the harmony of the Empire."

I should like to read more, because it is very apposite to the discussion, but I do not think I ought to detain the House. There spoke the man who knows the Empire which he has helped to make. I think the hon. Member might take warning by the experience of Sir Joseph Ward. At the Imperial Conference of 1911 he produced a plan which was large in conception but not very definite in structure, but he obtained no support from any other of the Dominions represented there, and at present I am not sure that he would obtain any support for those proposals from his own Dominion. At that conference I myself, being most anxious to meet the desire, of which I was well aware, for closer co-operation with the Mother-country, proposed a consultative and advisory council of the Dominions to meet within the Colonial Office, so as to be in constant contact and communication with the British Government, but that proposal was unanimously rejected by all the Dominions. I, however, during the Imperial Conference, carried out my original scheme which the hon. Member will remember I had announced to this House in debate long before the Imperial Conference ever assembled—that is, the participation of the Dominions in the Committee of Imperial Defence. I am obliged for the hon. Member's recognition to-day of the great advance there has been. We have called them to our counsels the most intimate and secret. It may be objected in some quarters that the plan is loose, illogical, and indefinite. Well, so is the British Constitution, and, after all, this plan has been up to the present both satisfactory and satisfying. The Dominions may have continuous, occasional, or sporadic representation on that Committee. There are no priggish limitations of federal dilettanti. We offer them now and always the hand and tongue of friendship and of brotherhood, of mutual interests, and a common cause. It may lead to more rigorous ties in the future, but I doubt if it can possibly lead to closer communion. At least, for the present, I am confident that it has already secured the solidarity of Imperial confidence, and has greatly contributed to the unity of the British race.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of the Commission reporting favourably, the Government will take some real and practical steps to aid and facilitate emigration to the Dominions?

I could not possibly commit myself as to the action the Government would take on recommendations which have not yet been made.

The right hon. Gentleman, in his able and interesting speech, touched on one matter very significant and very interesting to Irishmen. He referred to emigration from Ireland, but said he would not go into the cause of it, though he might have his own opinions on the subject. I am going to refer to-day to one of those causes, namely, the excessive taxation of the country. I only do so this afternoon, when we should, probably most of us, wish to be away, because the Government, either by inadvertence or by design, have hitherto refused to reply to the definite charges which we have made against them, charges probably as serious as have ever been levied against any Finance Minister. I do not now bring these charges forward merely for the purpose or at all for the purpose of recrimination. I do so because there has been promised to us what the Prime Minister calls an interval for suggestion in the Home Rule Bill. He stated yesterday that an interval would be given in which suggestions could be made for the improvement of the Bill. Of course, I do not intend to touch upon a measure which has only just been introduced, but I do say that what we regard as a vital portion of that measure is its finance. I wish to call the attention of this House to the pledges again and again given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the Home Secretary, by the Postmaster-General, and by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—by, in fact, four Cabinet Ministers—in reference to the Budget of 1910. I wish to ask whether any Member of this House thinks it right that a State Paper should have been issued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which had no other result, and could have no other result, than to deceive the people of Ireland and their representatives? I gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer notice yesterday that I was going to bring this subject forward, but he has not given the advantage of his presence. I do not complain of that for the moment, but I have discharged my duty, at any rate, in giving notice.

I hold in my hand a State Paper issued by the British Government at the instance of a prominent Irish Member—the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon)—and signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That paper secured the Budget of 1910, and there under was also secured the Insurance Act and many other measures. That State Paper I denounce as a fraud and a public scandal. It was a document issued by the Government, and it has been the foundation stone of a multitude of subsequent statements made by Ministers and by prominent Irish leaders. There have been under investigation upstairs, for the last six months, some very important matters by the Committee on Putumayo and the Committee on Marconi. I really think it would be better that there should be some Committee of investigation as to the conduct of the British Treasury as to the conduct of its officials and as to the system they adopt in dealing with Irish transactions, whereby a Minister is maintained in office year after year, and the votes of Irish Members are reversed—because they voted against the Budget in 1909 and they voted for it in 1910—on these public pledges and statements of Ministries, which statements were afterwards put into black and white, and were signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is a serious charge to make. Let me make it good. This State Paper was issued at the instance of the Member for East Mayo. The Budget passed its Third Reading on the 27th April, 1910. On the same day the contents of this State Paper were given to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In order that the matter might not depend upon mere verbiage used in the House, the Member for East Mayo made this request of the Government. He said:—

"This Budget, in my opinion, passing as it now will pass, will lay upon Ireland the charge this year of about £480,000.

Mr. Lloyd George: £435,000.

Mr. Dillon: I quite agree that Treasury figures should be scrutinised, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, at the earliest possible moment, to lay upon the Table of the House a White Paper containing the Treasury Estimates of these figures showing exactly what Ireland is paying. Then let these Gentlemen who talk about £2,000,000 produce their calculations to show that the Budget does, in fact, lay a burden of £2,000,000 a year upon Ireland. That is n fair challenge, and let them face the Irish people upon the issue, and, if they are proved to be wrong. I hope they will withdraw and apologise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1910, cols. 2112–13, Vol. XVI.]

It is sometimes extremely difficult for us to get from the Government Papers dealing with Ireland, and this year, although we are now in the month of May, we have not been able to get the figures for last year. Both in April, 1912, and in April, 1910, the Treasury were able to produce figures without any difficulty, yet now, when we wish to discuss the Budget of the present year, the right hon. Gentleman tells us we can have no figures until the month of July! He produced them for the Budget Bill, and he produced them last year for the Home Rule Bill, in order to defraud us by his fraudulent finance, for his finance is nothing else than fraudulent. This year, when they are wanted for the purposes of criticism, the right hon. Gentleman says he is unable to produce his figures until July. Before I analyse these figures, let me say what that State Paper was. It is divided into two parts. It gives for the Budget year—that is to say, the first year of its being in operation—an analysis of what the taxation would probably be for that year, and then it gives an estimate for all time. I am going to quote from the Home Secretary, who was then the chief financial expert in the Government, as well as other Ministers, what the Member for East Mayo told the Irish public was a pledge—a public pledge from the Minister—that that figure would never be exceeded as regards Ireland. When we come to the Home Rule Bill, they will refuse to give us even one-tenth of the extra taxation which this Budget of 1910 wrings from the people. Here is the Return "A," divided into two heads: "Estimated Irish contribution to the true revenue of the year 1909–10, in respect of new and additional taxation imposed by the Finance Act, 1910, £438,000." That is the figure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon two occasions announced as the true figures for that year, and in order that we might not be astonished at his moderation there is this note:—

"The increased duties have thus proved actually less productive than the former rates."

That notice is put by the right hon. Gentleman who, when bringing in his Budget, rejoiced that at one and the same time he had benefited morality and had increased the yield for the Exchequer. That was the Estimate for that year. I come to the other portion of the Return—that is, the Estimate of the Government for the future. I will then read the pledge the Government gave, that that would be substantially a constant demand upon Ireland, and I will show what the political results from that state of things are:—

"(B). Estimated annual Irish contribution to the Revenue to be derived from the new and additional taxation imposed by the Finance Act when the duties have become fully productive."

That is to say, for all time. When these duties have become fully productive, this is going to be the result. This is the State Paper issued by the Government upon which men reversed their votes. They voted against the Budget in 1909, and on the strength of these stories they voted for the Budget in 1910—the same men and the same Budget, but the men voting in different Lobbies. Here it is:—

"Irish proportion, £518,000—"

—that is the existing duties—

"Proceeds of the new duties imposed by the Act, £84,000; total, £602,000."

That is to say, that the proceeds of the new duties imposed by the Budget should only be £84,000. There may be some doubt and question as to that, therefore I will only rely on the total, namely, £602,000. The House is not dealing with children. This is not a gamble; this is a solemn State Paper issued to the nation to justify the national representatives of Ireland in swallowing their own words and in reversing their own votes. Before I give the actual facts, let me quote what the Ministers said. I take the Postmaster-General, who spoke on 25th April, 1910. The importance of any speech by the Postmaster-General is that he was the man who was specially put in charge of the finance of the Home Rule Bill. We all admire his ability; nobody admires it more than I do. What I want to show is that the Government brought forward in turn each of their financial experts to justify their statements—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Postmaster-General, the Home Secretary, and the Chancellor of the Duchy, who are their four big financial men. The Postmaster-General, replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Cork City (Mr. William O'Brien), said:—

"He declared that the additional burden cast upon Ireland by this Budget amounts to £2,000,000 per year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given the House another estimate. His estimate is £435,000 a year. There is this difference between the two; that while the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is supported by published figures showing in detail precisely how——

Mr. T. M. Healy: Is it supported by unpublished figures?

Mr. Herbert Samuel: The figures have been laid before the House, and each item that makes up the £435,000 has been declared, and that is the difference between the estimate of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the estimate of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork. While the particulars of this £435,000 are given in all detail, the figure of £2,000,000 of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork is a peroration and nothing more, and is unsupported by one single fact or figure."

2.0 P.M.

Then he goes in for the old ninepence for fourpence dodge, and says to us that we are getting £2,800,000 for old age pensions, and he says:—

"In exchange for this £2,800,000 receipts, she is asked to make an expenditure of £435,000."

That is ninepence for about twopence, I suppose. He goes on:—

"In any other part of the United Kingdom, or part of the world except Cork, it would indeed be thought to be a good bargain to pay £400,000 odd and receive £2,800,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1910, col. 76, Vol. XVII.]

It would be a good bargain. Let us see what the other Ministers said. Here is the Home Secretary, The importance of the statement which I am now going to read is that it was publicly availed of in Ireland by the hon. Member for East Mayo in order to show the Irish people that a distinct pledge had been given that only this small sum would ever be exacted in the future. The speech of the Home Secretary will be found in the OFFICIAL REPOET, Vol. XVI., 20th April, 1910, Cols. 2124 to 2135. Strange to say, it is not included in the volume, which is always published, called "Irish Debates." I suppose it is left out because it is so important:—

"Mr. McKenna: I am endeavouring to deal with the argument that this Budget is costing the Irish taxpayers £2,000,000, and I am endeavouring to show that, so far from that being true, for last year the cost of the Budget for Ireland was well under £450,000, and we do not anticipate that ever in the future it will exceed half a million—a quarter of the alleged charge which it is supposed we are imposing upon the Irish taxpayers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1910, col. 2132, Vol. XVI.]

As we know from the White Paper issued at the instance of the hon. Member for East Mayo, it is not too much to say that that is a speech made by a Minister handling finance with skill—I will not say it was made by arrangement, but, at all events, it is remarkable that it had scarcely been uttered when the Bill of which he spoke was endorsed by the hon. Member for East Mayo. Here is what the Irish people were told on the speech I have just read. The hon. Member referred to Mr. McKenna's speech on the 30th May, 1910. The speech was only then practically three weeks old. He said:—

"This country has been deluged with lies about the Budget, and he held Mr. McKenna's speech as a distinct pledge given to the Irish party that at no future period would Ireland be called on to contribute more than half a million under the Budget,"

A pledge given to the Irish party is a very sacred thing. It is a pledge-bound party. I myself wrote out the pledge and made it as stringent as I possibly could. I never understood why I was not allowed the benefit of that pledge myself as the author. At all events we may well ask whether the pledge-bound party is going to insist on justice from a pledge-bound Ministry, which pledge-bound Ministry they hold in the hollow of their hands. You are never tired of hearing that.

Let us now see the remaining Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy. The great position that the Chancellor of the Duchy has on finance we recognise. At first, when he was appointed, we were not all aware of his ability. I confess that his appointment, when he was on the Indian Ocean, to the position of Secretary to the Treasury, came upon me by surprise, but I wish to say, with all humility, that I think he has entirely justified his position, and that it would be difficult to find in the Ministry, modest as he often is, a man of greater ability. He was therefore made Secretary to the Treasury, and a year after- wards, when they had had the experience of twelve months' working of the Budget, the right hon. Gentleman spoke on a Debate which I raised. He was extremely courteous and extremely conciliatory. The extraordinary thing about it is that he was so skilful and conciliatory that I believed him. He said:—

"In confirmation of what I have said, if the hon. Member for Cork had referred to another Return—"

That is this fraudulent State Paper. I want to link up and show the House how, right through the history of this business, this document figures like a sort of Dreyfus dossier. He goes back to the year after it was issued, and he endorses it in this way:—

"In confirmation of what I have said, if the hon Member for Cork had referred to another Return, which was issued by myself on 28th April, 1910, he would have seen that the amount to be collected in excess from Ireland in a full year—that is, when the Land Value Duties have reached their maximum—in respect of the new duties imposed by that Act, will amount to £84,000, and in respect to the existing duties will amount to about £518,000, or somewhere thereabout. That is, of course, subject to adjustments to be made. But the total excess revenue to be collected from Ireland in a full year, when all the duties have come to full fruition, will be £600,000, or a very close approximation to the figure named by the hon. Member for East Mayo."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th August, 1911, col. 1297, Vol. XXIX.]

The hon. Member seemed at that time to live in the Treasury and to be their exponent. He boasted in that Debate that he always spoke the truth.

"No matter how great the indignation of the hon. Member (Mr. William O'Brien) I shall never be ashamed or afraid to tell the truth about Ireland's affairs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th August, 1911, col. 1202, Vol. XXIX.]

There I have shown, by a series of quotations from Ministers, by a State Paper, by the endorsement of Ministers' speeches by leading Irish Members, a pledge by the Government as far as language can extend. Of course, it is not stamped or sealed at Somerset House. It is not a legal document. It is nothing in the nature of a contract note, but it is, so far as Parliamentary institutions go, a document which Members of Parliament are entitled to rely upon and for which the Government have had value received. Now let us come to the facts. Let us now take the Returns issued last year and I maintain that, if we had been honoured by the Returns for the present year instead of their being delayed, the pitiful story that I am now going to tell would be much deepened and darkened. That Return which we should have is kept back from us and therefore I can only go upon a comparison of the Return of 1910 with the Return of 1912. I take the four chief taxes affected by the Budget. With this Return staring them in the face, hon. Members who boast that they are not afraid to tell the truth about Ireland, have not only remained silent, but have endeavoured by every expedient to boycott exposure and have even gone the unparalleled length of placing Parliamentary pickets at that door to keep out any of their followers who might wish to come in to hear the truth. I take the first increase—tobacco, a poor man's luxury, if ever there was one. The right hon. Gentleman's pledged, signed Paper gave the increase of the tobacco Returns at £213,000. Last year's Paper gives us the real money collected—£490,000—more than double what we get under the Home Rule Bill to run Ireland with. We get £200,000 to run Ireland with under the Home Rule Bill and the increase on tobacco smoke alone is £490,000. That is to say, that the right hon. Gentleman and his experts, whom we are always told to rely upon, have budgeted for more than twice what they should. Supposing I had a deficit of £7,000,000 and put it down at only £3,500,000; suppose I budgeted on English beer for £10,000,000 and I exacted £20,000,000 from the British working man, what would the English say?

I now come to Estate Duty. Of course, the Treasury may state that it would affect dukes and millionaires. It does not affect them entirely. It affects them, too, but it affects humble people as well. If there is any subject on which a careful estimate could be made, I think it is Estate Duty. I humbly submit that there is no excuse for such an estimate when dealing with Estate Duty. The right hon. Gentleman's estimate for that duty was £133,000. The exact revenue from it was £220,000—nearly double the Estimate. As to Income Tax, I suppose that, at all events, on that, too, a pretty exact figure could be estimated. The Estimate, according to the Return, was £124,000, but you got from the Irish people £246,000. Remember Ireland is a poor country. We do not think in billions; we think in bawbees, and when you budget for £190,000,000, why these little wretched figures of poor Ireland really sink into insignificance! It reminds me of a man who went bankrupt for £1,000,000, and his washerwoman asked him for 1s. for washing his shirts. He said that in large commercial transactions we cannot afford to deal with these trifling amounts.

Take even the Super-tax. I thought there was only one millionaire in Ireland. I thought Lord Iveagh, for whom I have great respect, and who has done so much for the country, was the only one. I remember, when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, now Lord St. Aldwyn, was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he asked me if I would hesitate to increase the Income Tax on a man like that. I said I would, because every time you put a tax on a rich man you have a gardener, a coachman, or a groom less; or he orders fewer changes and repairs to be made. You cannot tax a millionaire without hitting the working man, just as you could not throw out the Great Western Bill without having men down at Fishguard starving in a year or two. I thought that if there was anything you could make a fair estimate upon it was the Super-tax. The Estimate was £60,000, but you actually collected from our paltry group of millionaires in Ireland £104,000. On every head of estimate and expenditure the Government have acted—well, it really is impossible to find suitable Parliamentary words to characterise what they have done! If England, Scotland, or Wales had been treated like that, would hon. Members have sat silent on these benches, although the cold chain of silence rests upon Ireland's watchdogs? Take the very small item of motor spirit. You could not even make a decent estimate for Ireland about motor spirit. The Estimate was £12,000, and you actually got £21,000. Let us see what the main figures are. We were paying in the year before the Budget £9,250,500, and last year—remember the figures for this year are still unavailable—we paid £10,688,000, an increase of £1,437,500. There are nontax services, like telegraphs and telephones, which I have deducted. I put them at £104,500. The net increase is £1,333,000, and of that sum, on the confession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, £1,100,000 is the result of the Budget which he said was only to cost us from £400,000 to £500,000.

What is the inference from this? It is that those who were arranging the future of Ireland under the Home Rule Bill would at least have said last year, "Well, we will make no Jew's bargain with you. Give us for Ireland as a dowry in the future, and we will ask nothing else, the result of the extra taxation arising out of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which comes from Ireland." Would not any man of common sense have made that bargain with the Government? It would have been an irresistible position to take up, because they could have said, "We were against the Budget." I will not trouble the House with the speeches hon. Members for Ireland made in denouncing the Budget. They said that the taxes were unfairly imposed upon Ireland, and they made a number of other statements of that kind. Therefore, they were in a position to say to the Government, "By our votes we have kept you in office all these years, and we helped you to pass what was unwelcome and unwilling to ourselves. Give us, at all events, the fruits"—I will not say of our misconduct—"and the product of our tears." They never thought of that. While, of course, I quite admit the set-off as to old age pensions, and as to the other reserved services, I say that on that Budget the Irish party occupied a position of impregnable strength. If that was too much to ask of them, I would make this suggestion. We are told by the Prime Minister that there are to be suggestions to the House of Lords. The Government are going to appoint a Procedure Committee. It would be very interesting if there were recommendations by the Committee as to how procedure might be executed on suggestion day. On suggestion day we make a Motion and suggest to the House of Lords that they should keep Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to his promise, and not levy on Ireland under the Budget more than £500,000. I am sure we shall have the support of the Irish party for that suggestion. I am satisfied that the House of Lords would assent to the generosity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would be practically unanimous in saying that, instead of the miserable dole of £200,000, we should get the whole usufruct of this great and good Budget. I am almost sure that the House of Lords would be so pleased with this that it would pass the Home Rule Bill.

Therefore I have raised this question, no doubt on an inconvenient day, but, as I had the honour of pointing out earlier, the discrepancy which has been established in the practice of the Committee of Ways and Means and in the Report of the Resolution drove me thereto. I therefore thank the House for the way in which it has allowed me to make this statement, and I finish by asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer is it too much for an Irish Member to request the British Government to keep faith with Ireland? It will be no answer to me to say that we are getting old age pensions, insurance, and I do not know what else. We were getting all those when you promised us that our taxation would not exceed £500,000. Therefore let us go back to the position of 1910, and ask that as we are in the future to have in this House only forty-two Members, you will at least keep faith with the forty-two. It is upon this question, and on this question alone, that the representation of Ireland in the future gives me great concern. I gladly assented to the cutting down of the Members to forty-two under the Home Rule Bill, but in the future I confess to some' anxiety. That anxiety was first created when Ireland was treated as a foreign country in the matter of cattle, and Acts were applied which were passed on the statements of Ministers that they were to apply only to the Argentine, the United States, and other foreign countries, and would never apply to Ireland. On the faith of these statements our predecessors assented to these Acts, and now you have used them to convert Ireland into a foreign country. Simultaneously with the injury to our trade, which in the present year will amount at least to £1,000,000, we have the fact that your promises upon the Budget have all turned out to be false. Is it too much to ask of this House, when you have passed this Budget by a solemn statement endorsed by the representatives of Ireland, whose votes alone kept you in office, that you should make some slight redemption of your pledge to Ireland?

I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, arising out of the general interest felt in the progress of the inquiry of the Land Committee. Interest in this inquiry is not limited to the benches opposite. I do not raise this question with a view of proposing any legislative action, or any action under the Trade Boards Act, which does provide that any trade may be brought within the Schedules, but I wish to point out the increasing urgency of the question of agricultural wages and the position of the agricultural labourer. I refer to the increasing emigration, which is denuding the rural parts of England of their men, in many cases their best men. Very exact figures have been compiled by the National Agricultural Labourers' Union. We have only just heard from the hon. Member opposite of the stream of strong men pouring out of our country to the Colonies and elsewhere. Another reason for raising this question is that opinion is ripening, as the success of the Trade Boards Act has been confirmed by the passing of the Coal Mines Act, and people are beginning to feel that questions of wages are of interest to the Government. We are getting a little beyond the general assumption that wages are a mere matter of laissez-faire, and I submit that this class of wages is a fit subject for discussion in this House. Reviewing the general result of the Trade Boards Act, and the relation of agricultural wages to all other wages, the simple fact emerging is that agricultural wages are at the root of low wages in every part of the country.

It is very easy to arouse sympathy with the agricultural labourer by reference to his history. Everyone has read the very interesting revelations in Mr. Hammond's recent book on village labour. Merely to look into it is enough to arouse a certain emotional indignation. But I rather base myself on the firm ground of present-day economics. The Board of Trade has now put beyond dispute what are agricultural wages. It is not incorrect to say that they reveal the fact that agriculture is the sweated trade—in fact, agricultural wages are stated to average 17s. 6d., and that is including every form of remuneration. To compare with that we have the acknowledged subsistence standard elaborated by Mr. Rowntree and others a year or two ago, which was then 18s. 4d., but now, with the rise in prices, is considerably higher. In Norfolk the average of wages is 15s. 4d., and in Oxford it is considerably lower. But, in saying that, one must remember that a man may be employed for the larger part of the year and may be ill at harvest time, and his average for the year would then be an entirely different matter. On wet days, or where there is no fixity of tenure or wages, a man's weekly earning may be very much less than the so-called cash earnings of the winter. A very interesting statement has been compiled by Mr. Mann, which came out in his book on life in the English village. He points out that the labourer in his first stage is raised above the poverty line when he begins, or his brothers begin, to earn wages. He can then secure sufficient food, clothing, and shelter until he is a married man and has three children. After he has more than two children he again sinks below the line of subsistence, and does not rise again until some of his children leave school and begin to earn. But before all his children are provided for, old age comes on, and he sinks below the poverty line once more, probably never to rise above it again. That is simply a graphic way of expressing the life history of the agricultural labourer in the greater number of the counties of England.

Another interesting fact which is brought out is that in the case of a great many agricultural labourers, if you take their ordinary wages, apart from harvest remuneration, and you make a reasonable allowance for his club, etc., and his clothing, there is not more than enough, in the case of a man with a family of five, to allow for ¾d. per meal for each member of the family. That is sufficient to make one realise something of what the housekeepers' difficulties at all events are in farm labourers' houses of England. On the question of education, it is unnecessary to point out that owing to low wages the children of farm labourers are very often unfit to make the best of the lessons in school, and of course it is notorious that the housing problem is absolutely bound up with the wages question. No praise can be too great for the efforts which the rural districts are making to meet the housing difficulty, and progress has steadily been made, but not rapidly enough, and what economists can hope that the rural housing question will be solved until we solve the thing at the root of all others which is adequate remuneration, and which makes it possible for housing to be an economic investment. Then you have the incursion of the country labourer into the towns. Mr. Charles Booth pointed out that something like 30 per cent. of the employés in the large factories of the East-End are men country born. They continually keep wages down, and they notoriously undercut wages in the towns, and all this while prices have been rising to a certainly greater extent than wages have risen. The under-feeding of children is not merely as bad, but it is worse than it was, because the actual wage in many homes is certainly worse in point of purchasing power. Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer give us any assurance that inquiry is being made into these subjects, and also into the possible bearing of the Trade Board's system in its application to the economic difficulties of rural organisation.

Of course there are innumerable difficulties to be inquired into in the application of any such system, which bristles with complexities, and calls for very close inquiry, possibly a more detailed inquiry than a non-official body can carry out. It is certainly the case in rural England that the employer class is not at all taken with the idea of a rise in wages. I would submit one reflection upon that. You find in country life the strongest opposition expressed to the idea of a rise of wages, but sometimes you find that opposition is very inconsistent. You will hear a man inveigh generally against agitators who set class against class, and saying that it will ruin agriculture to demand a rise of wages. Or you will hear some farmer or landlord talk about appointing a gardener or a gamekeeper, and then the question of wages is viewed from another point of view, for they remark that of course they could not dream of paying a gardener or a gamekeeper less than 15s. a week, because they could not decently live on less. The opposition is very often not a reasoned opposition, and it might yield to inquiry. The same objection that we have now was experienced fifty years ago in regard to the fencing of machinery. John Bright himself said that the fencing of machinery would be the last straw to break the back of the manufacturer. We know what has happened. Again you have the fact that wages have very largely risen, and that agriculture and farming have not been in the least injured thereby. There is the farmer's point of view which I hope will be gone into very carefully. I think the farmers will be inconvenienced greatly by any disturbance, and I cannot help having sympathy with them. They cannot be expected to make allowance for economic friction or ultimate advantage, and the course of the first rearrangement would be very inconvenient to them.

I would like to point out, however, that the farmers in many cases have been raising wages, and are anxious to raise them further, but they are in great difficulty unless some general rise comes to their aid. Here is a very interesting illustration. In January of last year, Mr. Montague, of Linford Hall, one of the chief estates in Norfolk, paid his married labourers 17s. and his single labourers 15s. 6d., and the tradesmen in the adjoining towns and villages already feel the benefit of the increased custom. But mark the difficulty. Mr. Montague afterwards received a letter from a farmer who said he thought Mr. Montague might have met the labourers in some other way, so as not to make labourers on adjoining estates and farms dissatisfied. Unless there is a general levelling up, other employers are at a disadvantage. This is one of the chief difficulties in applying an agricultural rate. Perhaps the Chancellor will assure us that inquiry is being made into this subject. The variation in farm wages is so immense in England that it disposes of the theory that farm wages are based on value. The efficiency of work and labour is not in relation to the wages paid, and anybody who looks at the facts will not deny that. In general I would urge that this subject ought to be looked upon from a national point of view, and nobody can doubt that the wages now prevailing in many counties of England are a gigantic economic mistake. Everyone admits that in our rural machinery artificially low wages and artificially low rents are no public advantage, and almost prevent the solution of the housing question, which, while certainly being an economic, is also a moral and educational question. There are various remedies suggested, but they require very careful inquiry, and I do not know whether a private body is in a position to make it. I submit that the demand for better treatment for the agricultural labourer is a moderate and constitutional demand, and, if it is the aim of the Government to produce happiness and tranquillity, then the claim of the labourers should be very carefully considered. This is not merely a question which affects the largest body of men working in one industry in the country, but it is one the solution of which is at the very base of the national welfare and national health.

I will reply to my hon. Friend who has just sat down before I deal with the question of Irish finance. I could not possibly answer for the inquiry of an unofficial or private character which is being conducted. Although I am associated with that inquiry I am not associated with it as a Minister of the Crown, and the Government as a Government has nothing to do with it, though it is undertaken with their knowledge and sanction, and I have no doubt that they will benefit from the result of the inquiries which are being made. As my hon. Friend knows very well, the inquiry is of a very careful, systematic, and, I think I may say scientific character, by some of the ablest investigators in this country, men whose position as investigators is thoroughly established in this country; some of them have an international reputation as investigators. I am glad to think that the investigation is of a most impartial character into which the facts of the case are without any preconceived notions of what the remedies ought to be. My hon. Friend, I think, has rendered a service by calling attention to the very deplorable condition of the agricultural labourer in some parts of Great Britain—notably in some part of Great Britain. In fact, I am certain that there is no important industry in which those who are engaged in it are so miserably paid as that of the agricultural labourer. I think their wages and their housing conditions are a perfect scandal to this great country, and anybody who has taken the trouble to inquire for himself and to read up some of the reports which were prepared some time ago by Mr. Wilson Fox and others as to the condition of the agricultural labourer must come to that conclusion. My hon. Friend has also called attention to the fact that there has been a great deal of emigration, and, what is still more important, migration, from the rural districts during the last few years. Those who are acquainted with the facts will not be astonished at the numbers who have left those districts, and they must be surprised that many more have not left. When wages are so much better in the mining areas and other areas, it is marvellous that able-bodied men should be prepared to go on labouring at all seasons for that miserable reward which labour on the soil brings to them.

I also agree with my hon. Friend that there is no economic reason at all why wages should be so low in some of those areas. In fact, it always puzzles me why wages should be so very low in some districts, whereas in almost contiguous areas wages are very much higher. Take some of the districts, you might imagine it is because farming in certain districts is not as profitable a business as it is in districts where the wages are higher. There is no reason why it should not be, because the wages are lowest in some of the counties which are nearest to the biggest markets of the world. That is a most extraordinary phenomenon. If you go to Scotland, to even remote parts, and the North of England, though there are some good markets there, and to some parts of Wales which are completely removed from large markets, there you find that the wages in some cases amount to 20s. per week. Come to the Home Counties near London and the other great towns, where you have the biggest market for agricultural produce that the world can ever give any farmer, and the wages are less by a third at least than they are in the remotest parts of the mountains of Wales.

Not in the Home Counties.

Certainly in some of the Home Counties they are less by sometimes a third than they are in the part of the world I come from, which is a purely mountainous district, where the soil is not particularly good and difficult of cultivation, and where you have not got a big market nearer than Liverpool, which is over a hundred miles away. Yet in the Home Counties, within easy access of this great market here, the wages are not to be compared with the wages which we pay in some parts of my own country. That shows that there must be some reasons which have nothing whatever to do with the profitable character of agriculture, and they must be reasons either of a social or political character, or reasons which may be of a trade-union character, but they are reasons which ought to be looked into very carefully. I think this House has at any rate, some power to control, direct, and guide in that direction. I do not think any Government can abstain from taking cognisance of this question. We are losing our population in the rural areas, and in some respects the best part of our population. The land is under-cultivated in a good many districts for that very reason, owing to the scarcity of labour, because the conditions of labour are not sufficiently attractive to induce the men bred and born in those areas to remain there, apart from their not being sufficiently attractive to induce people from other districts to migrate to the rural areas. As a matter of fact, the natural attractions of country life ought to be so great that the migration ought to be from the towns to the country and not from the country to the towns. I am sure it is possible, by means which I am not in a position at the present moment to outline, and I am perfectly satisfied it is possible to divert the stream of migration and get your surplus population in the towns to that land, instead of getting, not the surplus population, but an inadequate population to migrate into the town.

My hon. Friend has said very truly that this is a national question, and I shall be very glad to see it treated from a national and not a partisan point of view, and I am sincere in that, because I do not know any question which more vitally affects the life of this country than the rural problem. I should be very glad to see real co-operation between the parties. I do not think it is a question of attacking any class or criticising any class. All classes have done their duty according to their own lights. I think it is a case for all parties to put their heads together and co-operate for the purpose of regenerating rural life in this country. You really cannot get a great country built up permanently on conditions which make rural life unpopular, putting it at its lowest, and that is really the case now. I am certain the landlord does not profit by that; I am sure he does not. I am equally certain that the farmer does not profit by that. I am sure the present system is a pecuniary loss to the landlord. It is certainly a pecuniary loss to the farmer who does not make the best of the land, and who does not make the best profit for himself, and who does not put himself in the position to pay even often an adequate rent for the land he has, and the agricultural labourer undoubtedly suffers. I do not want to disparage any agricultural labourer in any part of the country, but going about the country I noticed that there is a vast difference between the men in the well-paid districts and those in the underpaid districts. The man in the well paid districts has got the swing of life in every movement. He is full of vitality and go, well-built, strong, and vigorous. If you go to the underpaid districts the men look disheartened and discouraged, with no strength and no go, and no life in them. You cannot get any profit out of people under those conditions. I am quite sure it is to the profit of the farmer and of the landlord, and of the agricultural labourer too, and that it is for the profit of this country as a whole that you should get a thoroughly contented peasantry, well satisfied, because they are well fed and well clad, and well housed, and the conditions of life are pleasant for them.

I do hope no one will think that I am making any party appeal in the matter, but I do hope that all parties will just direct their minds to this, and, if necessary, make sacrifices, because each party has got its own sacrifices to make in this respect. One party can appeal to one class and another party to another class. It is well worth our while to appeal to all classes of the country in order to do something to recover the old position which rural life used to have, and which to a very large extent it has lost to-day. I was glad to see a Bill introduced yesterday by Unionist Members dealing with the matter, and I hope they will not be discouraged by Members on their own side. I was also glad to see in the Press recently some letters from prominent Unionists dealing with the subject. I am sure that if it is dealt with broadly in this way, without any party appeals, whichever party eventually has to deal with it, it will make an enormous difference in the course and destiny of the country. At the present moment that is all I can say in reply to my hon. Friend. The question is really receiving the attention of the Government. The facts are being collected. Those facts are very valuable. At any rate I hope that the reports will not be prejudged before they are seen. If it is found that they are purely partisan mutilated accounts of what happens in rural districts, let them be condemned then. For the moment I simply ask that they should receive fair consideration. I think it will be found that they are a very valuable contribution to the study of the problem, and that they will be of value, not merely to Members on this side of the House, but to those Members who are equally interested, equally zealous, and equally sincere on the other side.

I turn now to what has fallen from the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) about Irish finance. His speech was marked by that accuracy with respect to facts and figures, and I may add the high sense of chivalry which always characterises the hon. Member. What is his complaint? It is, as far as I can see, that we under-estimated the revenue that we should receive from Ireland under the Budget of 1909. It is perfectly true that we received more in respect of the new taxes than we expected to receive. That is true, not merely of Ireland, but of Great Britain as well. These taxes have yielded more than we thought they would yield. I am not here to apologise for that. It is a tribute to the wealth of the country. It is very difficult to estimate for a single year what a tax will yield. It is still more difficult to estimate the yield for two, three, or four years. The hon. Gentleman criticises us because we are not able to anticipate with accuracy what the taxes will yield three years ahead. If a tax is well and truly laid, if it is a sound tax, it is more likely to err on the side of exceeding the Estimate than on the other side. What has happened in Ireland? We have under-estimated the wealth of the country. Is that a thing for Irish Members to regret? I frankly admit that it has turned out that Ireland is more prosperous and wealthy than we thought she was. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his friends on that fact. But why does he attack the Treasury for that? If the Treasury are responsible for it, he ought to thank and not attack them. He says that the Death Duties have produced more than we expected. What does that mean? It means that people have more money than we thought they had. They have saved more money. They are wealthier. I am very glad of that. If the hon. Gentleman had said that we taxed Ireland differently from this country he would have had reason to complain; but the Death Duties, Tea Duty, Tobacco Duty, Spirit Duties are exactly the same in Ireland as in this country. It is said that we have taken more out of Ireland in respect of tobacco, spirits, and motor cars. I admit that I had no idea there were so many Irishmen with motor cars. I am glad that Ireland has so much more surplus wealth than I ever dreamt in 1909. Why do we not rejoice together instead of quarrelling about that? Instead of abusing me for that, the hon. Member ought to dance an Irish jig on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman said, "You estimated that you would get only £602,000. Here is the Paper;" and he dramatically flourished the Paper over his head. If he had taken as much time to read the Paper as he did to flourish it he would have known that he had not quoted the Paper at all. Will it be believed that the hon. Gentleman, while pretending to give the House the estimate of the yield of Irish revenue, actually overlooked the fact that it was stated in the Paper that the Estimate in respect of spirits was not there at all.

I never mentioned spirits.

That is exactly my complaint.

I dealt with that the other day, and you did not reply to it.

Oh, no. What happened to-day? The hon. Gentleman, flourishing a Paper, said, "Here is a Paper which says that you are going to get only £600,000 additional duties out of Ireland." It does not say so. The hon. Gentleman has not given the House an accurate account of the Paper which he was flourishing. The Paper says £602,000 from the duties there mentioned. What we were going to get out of spirits we could not tell. What we were going to get out of Liquor Licences we could not tell. What we were going to get out of Land Value Duties we could not tell. The Paper says so. The hon. Gentleman deliberately kept that from the House. Something was said about a fraudulent Paper. What about the fraudulent use of a Paper? It is not a fair way of treating the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Gentleman must have known it.