asked the President of the Board of Agriculture how soon it will be possible to provide out of Grants from the Development Fund suitable bulls of a good milking strain for use in dairy districts, and thus provide an additional inducement to dairy farmers to abstain from the slaughter of immature heifer calves?

My right hon. Friend hopes that the scheme for the improvement of live stock will be in active operation very shortly. Two expert inspectors will be appointed within the next few weeks, and detailed regulations will then be issued without delay.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received a resolution from the Central Chamber of Agriculture to the effect that an opportunity should be given to agriculturists, through the medium of their leading organisations, to consider schemes for the improvement of live stock before they are brought into operation;. and, if so, whether he proposes to comply with its terms?

A resolution from the Central Chamber of Agriculture was received by my right hon. Friend on the 17th July last. It was substantially in the terms recited by the hon. Member, but did not contain the words "through the medium of their leading organisations." My right hon. Friend concurs generally in the views expressed in the resolution sent to him, and every opportunity has been taken, and will continue to be taken, by the Board to invite suggestions on the scheme for the improvement of live stock from the provincial councils and their live-stock committees, which are thoroughly representative of agricultural opinion in all parts of the country.

asked the Secretary for Scotland what is the total number of public intermediate and secondary schools in Scotland for the year 1912; the number of students attending; the number who receive free education; the general fee charged; the total annual cost of maintaining those schools; and the salaries paid to the head and assistant masters?

I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to his question of 2nd July. In addition to the 176 higher grade and 35 secondary schools therein referred to as being under the management of school boards there were, at the end of the year 1911–12, 21 secondary and 18 higher grade schools not under school boards but in receipt of Grants from the Scotch Education Department, making a total of 250 in all. The number of intermediate and secondary scholars on the roll was about 38,000. The number of free scholars in all the higher grade schools was about 21,500, but, as already stated, I have no information as to the number of free scholars in the secondary schools. I am unable to supply the other particulars asked for.

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that it was proposed to spend £900 on Ballyhack Harbour, the Wexford County Council agreeing to pay half this sum and the Department of Agriculture agreeing to pay the other half and to send their engineer to prepare plans and superintend the work; is he aware that the fishermen's boats will be in danger during the coming winter if the breakwater is not built and the other suggested improvements carried out; and can he say if the plans and specifications have been prepared and tenders advertised for and accepted, or if any progress whatever has been made?

It is fact that preliminary plans were prepared by the Department's engineer for the improvement of the harbour at Ballyhack at an estimated cost of £900, half of which was to be provided by the Wexford County Council. Difficulties have since arisen in connection with the carrying out of the work. The Waterford harbour authority, within whose jurisdiction Ballyhack is situated, have suggested that the fairway to Waterford might be endangered unless the proposed breakwater were constructed in a much more expensive manner than appeared necessary for merely local requirements. It has not been found possible to arrange for the disposal of the dredged material without towing it a long distance to sea. The Department are endeavouring to find a way out of these difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any intention to increase the medical staff of the Factory Department to deal with industrial diseases; whether he will consider the necessity of appointing medical referees to diagnose and report upon injuries, serious and otherwise, in cases where the victims of accidents are too poor to pay legal and medical costs; and whether he can state the number of qualified practitioners appointed in conjunction with the administration of the Factories Act and the regulations under the same?

One medical inspector is being added to the staff, making three medical inspectors in all. Medical men are also appointed under the Act and regulations throughout the country for the purpose of examining children and young persons, inquiring into accidents and poisoning cases and examining workmen in certain dangerous industries; the number of these medical men is 2,118. I do not quite understand the second part of my hon. Friend's question. If he is referring to proceedings under the Compensation Act, a worker injured by accident is not required by that Act to obtain any medical certificate for the pur- pose of making a claim for compensation. A worker suffering from an industrial disease has to obtain a certificate from the certifying surgeon, but the fee is only 1s. in cases where the certifying surgeon gives the certificate on the result of the examination made by him in pursuance of his duties under the Factory Act, and 5s. in other cases; and if the worker is refused a certificate and appeals to the medical referee, the referee's fee is paid by the State. I have no evidence before me to show the need for any change in the system.

asked the Home Secretary what procedure is adopted in the appointment of the new inspectors under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and with whom he consults as to the choice of the said inspectors?

Applications have been invited by advertisement in the public Press. The Advisory Committee appointed, in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission, to assist me in the administration of the Act have the names of all applicants referred to them to report and advise me in the selection of the best candidates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can see his way to afford the special protection which is now given to horses, asses, and mules to dogs and cats, as recommended by the majority of the recent Royal Commission; whether the recommendation of the Commission as to pithing has been carried out; and whether special records of experiments are now required, as recommended by the Commission?

I have given my best consideration to the remarks of the Commission on the first subject—they are so qualified that they can hardly be described as a "recommendation." I am advised that legislation would be necessary to require a special certificate for experiments on dogs and cats in cases where the experiments are carried out wholly under anæsthetics, where the experiments are not wholly under anæsthetics a certificate is now required. I have accepted the recommendations of the Commission as to pithing and special records of experiments, and they are being carried out.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the existence of a society known as the British Federation for the Emancipation of Sweated Women; whether he is aware that Mr. Belcher, director of the said society, has been involved in many building speculations and has been twice bankrupt, and that he has admitted that of the £3,000 received in contributions from the charitable public £1,200 has been spent in newspaper appeals for money and much of the remainder in salaries to so-called commissioners; whether he is aware that the headquarters of the federation has been the office of certain patent medicines, of which also Mr. Belcher is the proprietor, and that the federation has been repudiated by all the organisations that have to do with questions of women's employment; and, if so, whether, having regard to all the facts of the case, he will instruct the Public Prosecutor to take action with regard to the federation?

No, Sir, I had not heard of this society until my hon. Friend's question appeared on the Paper. It has not come under the notice of the Home Office or of the Metropolitan Police, but I will make inquiries.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make inquiries into the allegation of Miss Mary Richardson that, while on hunger strike in Holloway, she was told by Dr. Pearson that next time she would be kept for fourteen days until she was a skeleton and a nervous and mental wreck, and then she would be sent to an institution where they look after mental wrecks; whether there is any truth in this allegation; and, if so, whether Dr. Pearson has any authority for making the statement, and does it indicate a change of policy in respect of the treatment of hunger strikers?

No, Sir, the statements quoted in the question are wholly inaccurate. Dr. Pearson did not tell Miss Richardson that she would be kept for fourteen days, or threaten her in any way, but he did seriously warn her of the mischief she might do to herself, physically and mentally, by refusing food, and this warning was the more necessary as the prisoner appeared to be under the impression that a period of starvation in prison would be beneficial as a rest to her brain. It is perfectly right that any doctor, if a patient under his charge is refusing to take food, should warn her of the injury she is inflicting on herself.

There has been no new departure at all?

None at all.

My right hon. Friend is aware that Miss Richardson has sworn an affidavit?

Yes, I am afraid it is a case of conflict of evidence.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, as the result of his further inquiries, it has been decided to take any action arising out of the sale at public meetings of a pamphlet by ex-Inspector Syme, in which the gravest charges are made against the heads of the Metropolitan Police Force and the Home Secretary; and if the Scotland Yard authorities have issued permits to ex-Inspector Syme to hold meetings at which it was known these charges would be made?

The reply to the first question is in the negative. Permits to hold meetings are not issued; written notice of the meeting has to be sent to the Scotland Yard authorities, whose action is confined to seeing that the Regulations made by the Commissioner of Works are complied with, and that order is preserved at such meetings.

Are we to infer from that reply that this man is going on with these meetings?

Well, Sir, I understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions has been consulted upon the point, and the conclusion to which the authorities have come is that it would not be possible to bring any action?

Is the Home Secretary aware that the obvious construction is that these charges are true, and that the Home Office dare not prosecute?

My hon. Friend must understand that inquiries have been held more than once, and there has been a case in the Courts in which Inspector Syme's charges have been proved to be untrue.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say how many resignations have taken place from the Metropolitan Police Force since the beginning of 1912; what was the strength of the constable force in December, 1912; how many constables had less than eight years' service; and how many less than four?

The effective strength of constables on the 31st December, 1912, was 17,036. Of these, 8,973 had less than eight, and 5,128 less than four years' service. Since the 1st January, 1912, the resignations have been:—

On pension or gratuity: Four superintendents, 91 inspectors, 139 sergeants, 628 constables.

Voluntarily, without being entitled to pension or gratuity: One inspector, 9 sergeants, 291 constables. In addition, 23 police-constables with less than three years' service resigned as being unfit.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the case of Mr. Hawkins, a Government employé, Portsmouth Gunwharf, who was certified as suffering from lead poisoning by the factory inspector, and whose diagnosis was not upheld by the medical referee, will be reopened and reconsidered; if Mr. Hawkins will receive compensation, seeing that there is now no doubt as to the cause of his ill-health; and whether the registrar had the right to send Mr. Hawkins before a non-specialist doctor, however able?

The procedure prescribed by the Workmen's Compensation Act has been followed, and Mr. Hawkins has been declared not to be suffering from any disease entitling him to compensation under that Act. The Secretary of State for War has no power to reopen consideration of the case. As regards the last part of the question, the registrar has to act in accordance with the law, and it is not for the Secretary of State for War to express any opinion on the matter. I may add that Mr. Hawkins has received a gratuity on discharge under the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1887.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received Petitions from the light keepers asking for increased pay; when such Petitions were received; and what is the reason of the delay in dealing with their requests?

The Board of Trade received letters from the general lighthouse authorities in April last recommending an increase of pay and allowances to the light keepers in their services. The grounds on which the re-commendations were based were most carefully considered by the Board, but having regard to all the circumstances and especially to the fact that an increase of pay and other benefits was granted as recently as 1909 at an annual cost of £3,155, they came to the conclusion that they were not justified in sanctioning the further increases recently proposed. With regard to the last part of the question, I have no knowledge of any delay in dealing with the matter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Royal Mail steamship "Ophir" signed a crew at Tilbury in June last; that among the crew were a large number of firemen and trimmers who were signing for their first voyage and were without experience; if he can say how many firemen and trimmers were signed on without discharge books; did one of the seamen die when the vessel was in the Red Sea; were the trimmers compelled to work six-hour shifts instead of four-hour shifts; was this owing to the incompetence of the inexperienced firemen and trimmers; was the vessel twenty-four hours late in arriving at Colombo; was this also the result of incompetence on the part of men who were on their first voyage; and will he call the attention of the owners to the number of new hands taken on the ship?

Of the sixty-five firemen and trimmers engaged at Tilbury, five firemen and ten trimmers did not produce discharge books. The five firemen had served previously at sea, but the ten trimmers were taking their first voyage. I have no information with regard to the remaining points raised by my hon. Friend, but I am making inquiries and will communicate further with him.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will say whether the Irish Agricultural, Organisation Society have intimated their acceptance of the third condition in the Treasury letter of the 1st April, 1913; and, if not, whether this condition is being further considered by the society, or have the Treasury placed any modifications of this condition before the society for their consideration?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth District on 10th July.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what is the reason for delay in constructing the proposed railway from Blantyre to the Nyassa, in British Central Africa; and, if he can say when the work will be undertaken?

It has not yet been found possible to arrange for the construction of the line in question, and I am unable to say when the work will be undertaken.

asked the President of the Board of Education if he can say whether and, if so, to what extent cinematograph films are now being used in the teaching of history, geography, or other school subjects in elementary, secondary, technical, or continuation schools; and whether, failing such present use, and considering the educational value of such pictorial representations, the Board is prepared to authorise local education authorities to employ such methods of instruction within their administrative areas?

The use of the cinematograph for purposes of class instruction is very rare in those schools which come within the cognisance of the Board, though one or two instances are known to them. Its adoption by local education authorities does not require the Board's authorisation. The Board are marking inquiries into the subject, but until further evidence is forthcoming they are not prepared to express any opinion on the value of this method of instruction, which, as the hon. Member is probably aware, is still a matter of controversy among educationists.

Does that reply mean that the Board of Education would not approve of the local education authorities themselves advocating the use of such films?

The local education authorities do not require the Board's authorisation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the inadequacy of the steamers on the Victoria Nyanza and the railway in British East Africa to deal with the existing traffic; that the order already on hand for new boats and rolling stock is insufficient; that the existing state of affairs is so unsatisfactory that the Germans are now contemplating constructing a railway of their own to the lake; and that, if this is done, it will divert into German hands an enormous amount of carrying trade which we can retain by a forward policy at the present time; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

I understand that the recent congestion at the lake ports and on the railway has been relieved. One of the new cargo steamers for the lake is expected to be launched very shortly, and the material for a second steamer is already on the spot. The new lighter-tug which is to be employed in the Kavirondo Gulf will also be launched shortly. With these new boats and the considerable amount of new rolling stock which is coming forward for delivery. I trust that it will be possible to deal temporarily with the expansion of trade. I am now considering, as I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for East Nottingham on the 18th June, what further action it is desirable and practicable to take, and I hope next year to be able to commence a considerable further expenditure for these purposes.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the new rolling stock will be delivered?

No, I cannot say the date. It is going forward very rapidly.

postponed the following question, of which he had given notice: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to his statement in Parliament on 23rd July, 1912, that the Government had come to the conclusion that it would be necessary to deal in the immediate future with the problem of the settlement of trade disputes, and that it was an imperative necessity for a great commercial country like ours that we should have some machinery which would prevent great trade disputes from developing to a point which would drive trade away from the country, whether His Majesty's Government has yet resolved on any legislative action for the purpose of giving effect to the determination announced by him; and whether he will be in a position at an early date to formulate legislative proposals with a view to definite action in course of the next Session of Parliament?

Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether a later day to put the question would be more convenient this Session or early next Session?

I do not like to answer that question, but, of course, it would be more convenient next Session?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the valuation for the purposes of Increment Duty in respect of the land at Bromley belonging to a working bricklayer named J. Dorling is less than the amount paid by him including interest on the purchase-money, which was paid in instalments; if so, whether, in the event of sale for the amount which the property has cost him, Dorling would be called upon to pay duty on the difference; and whether in these cases, where the interests of persons of the working class are affected, he will consider the possibility of taking special steps to explain their position clearly to them, particularly as regards the question of substituted site value, with a view to their being adequately safeguarded without recourse to legal proceedings beyond their means?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, if I may understand the hon. Member to refer to the assessable site value of the land as provisionally fixed. The answer to the second part is in the negative, while as regards the third part, the course indicated is one which the Revenue authorities have taken in Mr. Dorling's case and have sought, as far as possible, to follow in general.

:I would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks the tactics that have been adopted with regard to this valuation are likely to encourage thrift amongst the working classes, and does he think that many of them will understand the enormous number of documents which have been sent them to fill up?

The hon. Member must form his own opinion, and answer his own question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Committee stage of the Finance and Revenue Bills has been postponed until the last week of the Session, seeing that he stated that the Budget would this year be passed at the usual time?

I do not think there has been any unreasonable delay.

When is it necessary to pass the Finance Bill under what I may call the "Bowles Act"?

I cannot answer that question straight away. The hon. Member was in attendance when the Bill was discussed, and he knows as well as I do.

But it has to be within a certain time?

I know that, and I have to see that it is within the time. I have assured myself as to that and satisfied myself.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why this stage has been postponed to the middle of August, when June is the proper time for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill?

No. If the hon. Member will look up the precedents of his own party, he will find that it has been taken at a very much later period.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if on several occasions claims for the payment of Income Tax have been made upon Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, a married woman living with her husband; if distraints have been levied on her goods for the recovery of the taxes; if on one occasion the claim for the tax on her income was made on her husband, and if he was imprisoned for the non-payment of the same; if so, will he say by what legal authority the claims for the taxes were made upon Dr. Elizabeth Wilks and distraints made upon her property; and what reply does he intend to make to the claim lately submitted to him by her for the repayment of those sums exacted from her under these distraints?

The answers to the first, second, and third parts of the question are in the affirmative. It has been ascertained that the claims for taxes which were made on Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, and the action taken under the authority of the District Commissioners of Taxes in connection therewith without protest at the time on the part of Dr. Wilks, should have been made on and taken against her husband, who was liable for tax on her income. No sum has been received by the Revenue on account of Dr. Wilks' income which was not due, and it would not, therefore, appear that the last part of the question arises.

Are we to understand from that reply that the distraints were illegal?

No. What happened in this case was that before she allowed her husband to pay the taxes, and this year she has avoided them altogether.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will direct that an old age pension be given to Mrs. Kelly, living with her daughter within one mile of Portumna, as she is over seventy years of age, has no means, and dependent upon her daughter for support?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on 17th March last. The Local Government Board have no power to direct that a pension be given to any person.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, seeing that the Local Government Board for Ireland based their decision on the application of Mrs. O'Connor, Turbrin, Castlegregory, county Kerry, for an old age pension on information which was inaccurate, steps will be taken to have the case reopened and justice done to this applicant?

The Local Government Board have no power to reopen consideration of any case which has been decided by them, but it is open to the claimant, in the event of any change in her circumstances, to make a fresh claim for a pension.

If the Local Government Board Act in a case like this on information that is inaccurate can they not take steps to alter their decision?

If there is a change in the circumstances she can make a fresh claim.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Messrs. Scanlan, Walsh, and Allman were appointed trustees to administer, on behalf of the people of Bandon, county Cork, two fields adjoining that town; whether these trustees have rendered any account to any authority since these lands were given into their charge; what rent have they received; and what use have they put it to?

The Estates Commissioners cannot, from the particulars given, identify the case referred to.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the maps have been lodged of the Kylemore estate, Connemara, with the Congested Districts Board with a view of sale; whether the Congested Districts Board have yet made an offer of purchase for this estate; and, if not, when an offer is to be made?

The maps and other documents in connection with the estate referred to have been lodged with the Congested Districts Board, and the property will be inspected and a decision arrived at regarding purchase as soon as practicable. The Board cannot at present say when an offer will be made.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that agreements were signed some five or six years ago by the tenants on the Jacob estate, South Wexford, under the Act of 1903; can he say what has caused the delay in issuing a vesting order; is there any money available at present for payment to those landlords who sold for cash; and, if so, can he say when the sale of the Jacob property will be completed?

This estate is on the principal register of direct sales (all cash) and, having regard to the claims of other estates, the Estates Commissioners are unable to say at present when it will be reached. The money available for land purchase advances during the current financial year is allocated amongst the various classes of sales in the manner provided by the Regulations made under Section 23 (8) of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and Section 4 of the Irish Land Act, 1909.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the dates on which the purchase agreement forms for the purchase of the estate of II. J. B. Clements, at Manorhamilton, were lodged with the Estates Commissioners; and when will the estate be vested in its order of priority?

The purchase agreements referred to were lodged on 6th June, 1906. The Estates Commissioners cannot at present say when the holdings will be vested.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Michael McGowan, of Conwell North, Glenariffe, county Leitrim, an evicted tenant on the Johnston estate, whose name was listed for a Grant, has, through the mistake of another tenant getting his Grant, been deprived of a Grant; and whether, having regard to the insanitary condition of his dwelling house and the ill-health of his family, the Estates Commissioners would make him a Grant to enable him to repair his house and improve his position?

There was no mistake in this case such as suggested in the question. Michael McGowan's application was considered by the Estates Commissioners, and, in the exercise of their discretion, they refused to make him any Grant.

asked whether the tenants of the Kildina estate of Lord de Freyne, that portion situate in Clooloo, rural district of Boyle (No. 2), county Sligo, so long ago as November, 1904, signed purchase agreements to the effect that in lieu of turbary the rent of every tenant would be reduced by 5 per cent., the purchase money to be calculated on the basis of the reduced rent; that interest on purchase price be charged at 3½ per cent. for a period of five years, thereafter to be at the reduced rate of 3½ per cent.; whether the Congested Districts Board, in whose hands the administration of the estate now rests, have ignored this agreement duly entered into, and are still pressing for the 3½ per cent. calculated on the old rent; and, if so, what steps will be taken with a view to securing for these tenants the terms to which they are justly entitled?

Under the agreement signed by the majority of the tenants on the Sligo section of this estate in November, 1904, no reference appears to a reduction of 5 per cent. off the tenants' rents in lieu of turbary in calculating the purchase price of the holdings, nor was any limit fixed for the payment of interest. The tenants agreed to pay interest at 3½ per cent. until the holdings became vested in them. The Congested Districts Board, however, hope to provide turbary for all the tenants.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the cause of the delay in publishing the Report of the Land Commission which was due on the 31st of March last; and if it will be laid upon the Table of the House before the end of the Session?

The Report referred to was presented to Parliament on the 1st instant, and will, I understand, be circulated in a day or two.

asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the causes and treatment of venereal diseases?

asked the Prime Minister whether, during his consideration of the question of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire and report on the public health aspect of venereal disease, he will consider how far it would be possible and advantageous to get other Governments to join in making such a Commission international?

The Government have agreed to institute an inquiry. Its precise terms and scope, and the character and composition of the body to be set up are still under consideration.

asked the Prime Minister if the proposals put forward by the Lord Advocate for dealing with the land problem in England in the speech made by him at Brislington on the 19th July represented the views of the Government as a whole or only his own individual opinions; if the latter, whether the Government is considering any suggestion for raising agricultural wages at the expense of landowners by a compulsory reduction of farm rents to counterbalance such rise; and what course it is proposed to adopt in cases in which the rents now obtaining show a bare profit, if any, to the landlord?

I understand that any suggestions which the Lord Advocate may have offered in the speech referred to, expressed only his own opinions. As regards the last part of the question, I am not prepared to anticipate the proposals of the Government on the subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of introducing a Bill to disendow landowners on the same basis as the Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill?

Is the hon. Member aware that if this land only pays a bare profit now if it is disendowed he will get nothing?

asked the Prime Minister whether the delay in proceeding with the Education (No. 2) Bill has been due to the notices for the rejection of the measure appearing under the names of three Members of the Opposition; and whether he has taken, or will take, steps through the usual channels to ascertain whether the Opposition will consent to the measure being taken after eleven o'clock as an uncontroversial Bill and thus permit the £100,000 voted by the House to be distributed among local education authorities in relief of the burden arising from loan charges, including those in respect of elementary education?

One reason for not proceeding with the measure is that, in addition to the notices appearing on the Paper, we understand that it is regarded by the Opposition as controversial. In these circumstances, I regret that it will be impossible for the Government to attempt to press it into law this Session.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why the Local Government Board for Ireland have not yet fixed the date of the local inquiry into the housing scheme, under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, promoted by the Slievmargy Rural District Council, and embracing the erection of sixty badly needed houses in the district; and when the Local Government Board will hold the inquiry and allow the scheme to be proceeded with?

The Local Government Board cannot consider the question of holding an inquiry into this scheme until they have dealt with the schemes lodged with them for other districts where the need for labourers' cottages is greater.

Is it not a fact that the majority of the labourers in the Slievmargy district are living in houses that have been condemned as unfit for human habitation and is this not sufficient to show the urgency of the inquiry?

I will bring the facts stated by the hon. Gentleman before my right hon. Friend's attention.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the arrangements being made by or on behalf of the managers of St. Joseph's Girls' Orphanage, Mountjoy Street, Dublin, for the holding of a public lottery to raise funds for that institution; whether more than 50,000 notices of the lottery have been issued broadcast to the public through the post describing a large number of prizes to be drawn, of which several consist of sums of money, and intimating that cheques and Post Office orders for the purchase of tickets should be made payable to Mrs. Farrell, superioress of the institution and that the winning numbers will be published in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 12th September, 1913; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?

The attention of my right hon. Friend has been called to this matter. The facts appear to be as stated in the question. In accordance with the advice of successive Law Officers in Ireland that lotteries held for charitable or religious purposes should not be interfered with it is not proposed to take any action in this case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Mr. W. Worby Beaumont, who acts as adviser to the Commissioner of Police in regard to the construction of licensed motor vehicles, is also consulting engineer to any omnibus company running licensed vehicles in the Metropolitan Police area; if so, the dates when he took up these respective positions; what are the duties he performs in regard to motor vehicles, and do these duties include the supervision of tramcar design; if Mr. Beaumont has expressed any opinion as to the advantages or disadvantages of tramways as a means of urban street transit; and, if so, whether this opinion was expressed in his capacity as adviser to the police or adviser to the omnibus companies?

Mr. Worby Beaumont has been adviser to the Commissioner of Police in regard to the construction of licensed motor vehicles since December, 1905. His duties, which are advisory only, do not include the supervision of tramcar or of omnibus or cab design; but he is consulted on technical engineering points affecting the construction of cabs and omnibuses, and occasionally of tramcars. I believe that Mr. Beaumont has for many years given public expression to his personal views as to the advantages or disadvantages of various means of street transit, but these are his personal views only, and he has not been asked to express any opinion in an official capacity. Mr. Beaumont at the time of his appointment as adviser to the Commissioner of Police was, I believe, already consulting engineer to all the motor omnibus companies then plying in London, and also to various tramway undertakings in London and elsewhere.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks it advisable in the interests of the travelling public that a gentleman who is a consulting officer of an omnibus company should be appointed as adviser to the Commissioner of Police?

The gentleman in question was consultant to an omnibus company, a tramway company and various companies, but, if you are to have an expert who is a master of his subject, it is inevitable that he should be a person employed by companies.

Would it not be possible to have an altogether independent authority at the Police Office?

You could only have an independent authority, not employed by omnibus and tramway companies, if you had someone whom it was not considered expedient by the outside public to employ. He would not otherwise acquire his knowledge.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether an official refusal has been given to the invitation to participate in the Panama Exhibition at San Francisco; and, if so, the reasons for withholding official recognition; and whether, in view of the importance attached to this exhibition by the American people, the Board will reconsider its decision in this matter?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 5th instant by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of which I am sending him a copy. My right hon. Friend asks me to say that, through a mistake, the answer supplied to and reported in the Press was incomplete. The full answer, as given, will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the 5th instant, column 1246.

May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take late to-night?

We proposed to take the two Orders dealing with the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill; the Telegraph (Money) Bill, Third Reading; and the two Orders with regard to the Public Works Loans Bill. Then we hope it may be possible by arrangement to pass the Second Reading of the seven Charity Bills on the Paper.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether there is any truth in the statement which has appeared in the Press that the Government contemplate dropping the Revenue Bill or any Clause of the Revenue Bill?

The Bill is coming on later, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deal with it.

With regard to the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. Dundas White) and others to postpone Clause 8 till after Clause 11, I ought to point out that a Motion to postpone a Clause ought to be to postpone it to the end of the other Clauses and not till a particular place in the Bill. I apprehend, however, that its purpose is to ask the Government for a statement with regard to the further Clauses of the Bill. That would not be in order on a Motion to postpone the Clause, and I would suggest that the hon. Member should substitute for it a Motion to report Progress.

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I make this Motion in order to ascertain the position in which we stand. I may say that my hon. Friends and I have put down the Motion which stands on the Paper in order to raise at the earliest moment the question of the attitude which hon. Members of the Opposition in particular are taking upon Clause 11. Our position has been plain and simple from the outset. We have made it perfectly clear that we hold strong views in favour of Clause 11. We regard it as the most important Clause in the Bill, and it is the only one for which we have any desire. It was in view of the importance of Clause 11 from our point of view that we raised no objection on the Second Reading and that the Second Reading was obtained very easily. When the measure came up for the Committee stage the same thing happened. We raised practically no objection to it. I took the opportunity of pointing out that we regarded Clause 11 as an extremely important Clause, and, owing to the impression we received from what was said on both those occasions, we practically raised no objection to the other Clauses, and not only was the Second Reading passed, but Clauses 1 to 7 were also obtained. I think our impressions were quite justified by what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). It will be within the recollection of the House that when the Bill came up for Second Reading, instead of the Speaker calling upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he called upon the hon. and gallant Member, who raised no point of Order till after he had spoken eleven or twelve columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He then raised a point of Order with reference to Clause 6. On that Mr. Speaker pointed out that, when he called on the hon. Member, he thought he had intended to raise a point of Order, and it was obviously inconvenient to raise a point of Order in the middle of a speech. The point of Order that had been raised was with reference to Clause 6. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said:—

"That is my point. My hope was that it would not affect the existence of the Bill or the Clause."

Thereupon Mr. Speaker again said:—

"It is not desirable to introduce points of Order like this. It will be better for the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the hon. Gentleman in the course of his later reply."

Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman again said:—

"There is also a point of Order on Clause 11. I do not know whether or not it will be proper to raise it now."

I ask the House to remember that the hon. and gallant Gentleman said this after he had already spoken ten or twelve columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. Mr. Speaker thereupon added: —

"It is more convenient, as I indicated just now, not to have points of Order put in the middle of a speech, but at the beginning. I waited for some little time when the hon. and gallant Gentleman rose to see whether he was going to raise his points, but he did not. Preliminary objections of this sort should be taken before the Debate proceeds.

Then Mr. Pretyman rejoined:—

"I thought, Sir, it was better to raise it when I came to the Clause."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 20th July, 1913, col. 320.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with Clause 11, later on, with the question of what I may call the retrospective period in the matter of improvements, indicated that it might be possible to give an extension from thirty years to fifty years. In these circumstances we, on these benches, had no doubt about the Clause being safe. A similar course was taken when we came to the beginning of the Committee stage. There, again, the hon. and gallant Gentleman moved to report Progress in order to put himself in order to deal with various points. He asked about Clause 11 and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on coming to that Clause, in view of the criticisms passed during the Second Reading Discussion, it might pos- sibly be it was not a fair limit, more especially so far as drainage was concerned, and their present view was that they might extend it to fifty years. To that the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir George Younger) said, "Not enough." My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked that that was all he had to say at present, but he gave an indication that there must be a record made of the improvements for fifty years. There is one other point to which I would like to, call the attention of the House and it was the concluding observation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in which he said he only desired to indicate to the House and to ask whether the Clause was within the scope of the Bill. We understood naturally that the Clause might be considered safe subject to the Amendments foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend, but in view of what has happened since then on this Clause, it seems not improbable that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends will ask that it be dropped. In these circumstances it is only right to raise the question at the outset, and while I have no authority to speak for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, the Chairman of the Land Values Group, I do say for myself, and I think I can say it for him and his Friends, that we regard this Clause as a very important Clause and as, indeed, a Clause which is the saving of the Bill. We can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends, if they think that by taking the course they are taking they are going to get the particular Clause they want and to drop the particular Clause we want—

A question of this sort is only allowable to draw a statement from the Government, and not to raise questions of general controversy. We cannot allow a Second Reading Debate.

I bow to your ruling. I will put the matter in this way: We really want to know what the intentions of the Government are in regard to this Clause. We have all along regarded it as an integral part of the Bill, and if it is the desire of this House that this Bill should pass, our desire is that Clause 11 should be in it. We should like to be assured that the Government are prepared to regard Clause 11 as an integral part of the Bill and to insist upon it as well as on the other Clauses. That is the question my hon. Friend and I wish to raise. We see breakers ahead, and we consider ourselves bound to take those steps which any Members of this House naturally would take to frustrate a proposal such as would appear from the Opposition Press to be contemplated in certain quarters. Our object is to secure Clause 11 being retained in this Bill. We want the Government to regard it as part and parcel of the measure, and if they will do that we see no difficulty in the Bill passing very shortly.

Not with the Clause as it now stands.

I do not say necessarily as it stands, because my right hon. Friend has foreshadowed an extension from thirty years to fifty years, but I would suggest that it be passed subject to certain small and not unreasonable Amendments which have been indicated. We want to know whether or not we can have the Clause in substance. It is because of rumours that we have heard on this point that I am rising to give my right hon. Friend an opportunity of telling the Committee exactly how matters stand at the earliest posible moment.

My hon. Friend has asked me a number of questions. I think it is rather for the Government to ask him and his Friends what their intentions are with regard to this Bill. It is perfectly clear the Bill can only pass as a non-contentious measure. Anyone looking at the Order Paper, and seeing about thirty pages of Amendments, must realise that if hon. Members who have put the Amendments down intend to persist in them it will be quite impossible to carry the Bill. The Prime Minister three weeks ago, in making his statement with regard to the business it was intended to proceed with, made it quite clear to the House that this Bill could only be treated as a non-contentious measure. There was a great deal of pressure brought to bear by both sides of the House upon him to get the Bill through, but the right hon. Gentleman, while promising to find some little time, indicated on that occasion that he could not find time for a Parliamentary struggle to be prolonged over several days. The Revenue Bill is a Bill which lends itself to such a struggle. You can move Amendments to every part, and to every law which affects the collection of the revenue of this country, and you could cover the Order Paper with even more Amendments that the ingenuity of my hon. Friends has enabled them to devise. What I would like to elicit before this Debate goes on is whether it is intended to treat Clause 11, on the one hand, as contentious or, on the other hand, to treat its omission as contentious. I had some discussion with the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I told him quite clearly that the Bill cannot go through if there is any opposition to any part. I do not mean to say if there are Amendments which can be discussed shortly, but if any part of the Bill is to be treated as really contentious we cannot possibly get it through. The hon. and gallant Gentleman intimated that, if Clause 11 were dropped, he would not regard the remainder of the Bill as contentious, subject to certain Amendments being made in other parts.

I understood from my hon. Friends sitting below the Gangway that they did not consider Clause 11 as satisfying their requirements at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) bears me out in that view. As a matter of fact, a letter appeared from the United Committee for the Taxation of Land Values, which criticised the Clause and showed that, from their point of view, it was not regarded as satisfactory at all. Seeing that hon. Members on this side of the House who pressed the Government were not satisfied with the Clause, and seeing that hon. Gentlemen opposite opposed the Clause, 1 thought there would be the most perfect unanimity about dropping it. When the first intimation was given that the Clause was to be dropped, at once its merits were appreciated. It is a little belated to discover merits in the Clause. I entered into an arrangement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I took it that it was a Clause which did not commend itself to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends, and that it was not a Clause the beauties of which were appreciated by my hon. Friends below the Gangway. Inasmuch as I discovered that the rest of the Bill commended itself to the vast majority of the Members of the House, I thought the best thing to do was to carry the Bill through seeing that it was late in the Session without the Clause, I will not call it the obnoxious Clause, but the Clause which was not acceptable to anyone. That was the arrangement I made. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman holds me to it, I shall stand by it. I regard it as a Parliamentray arrangement, and I must stand by it. I could not go back upon it. Therefore, the position is this: If Clause 11 is regarded as contentious by the Opposition, the Bill cannot go through, and if the dropping of Clause 11 is regarded as contentious by my hon. Friends, there again the Bill must be dropped. My suggestion is this. I do not despair, even now of passing the Bill, seeing that the bulk of it commends itself to every section in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] At any rate, I think I can say that the bulk of the Bill commends itself to the vast majority. I think that is true of both sides. I know that certain of my hon. Friends rather protest against parts of the Bill, because they think I have gone too far in the direction of concessions. I promised Clause 11, or something of this sort, earlier in the Session, and definitely promised it. I thought I had redeemed that promise. My hon. Friends do not think I have done so. I never thought it possible to carry through a contentious Revenue Bill late in the Session. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite think it ought to have been introduced earlier in the Session. That is a criticism which hon. Gentlemen are perfectly entitled to put forward. That is another matter, which raises issues of a very different character, that do not appear to be in order upon this particular Motion. What I suggest is this: That the Motion to report Progress should be assented to. Unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman can see his way to reconsider his decision with regard to Clause 11, I must be held to the arrangement I made with him, and I stand by it. Therefore, it rests with him, so far as I understand it. [HON. MEMBERS: "And with your hon. Friends."] I have so put it to them. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I have put it before them. I suggest that Progress should be reported and that we should go on with the next business, and during the next twenty-four hours—

Will you take this Bill to-morrow?

I do not think it will be easy to take it to-morrow. For the moment we will put it down for tomorrow in the hope that during the next twenty-four hours reason will prevail on both sides, and that we may be able to arrive at some decision. I do not want to tie the hon. and gallant Gentleman at this point. I am sure he is quite prepared—

The right hon. Gentleman does not mean to suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend has not been reasonable. The right hon. Gentleman made that agreement himself.

No, no. The right hon. Gentleman is a little too sharp there, if I may say so. I do not think he has been reasonable in regard to Clause 11, but I do not want to discuss that. I am in the hands of the Opposition. They were in a position to dictate terms so far as the Bill was concerned, and I accepted them. I do not think I can say that the attitude of the Opposition is a reasonable one. I cannot discuss that now, because it is not relevant to the Motion. For the moment; I can do nothing except to assent to the Motion, because it is unreasonable to go on ploughing through the Amendments. I suppose most of them are in order, and it would be possible to move an interminable series of Amendments which would be in order. We should only be wasting time to proceed at this stage. Therefore I assent, on behalf of the Government, to the Motion to report Progress.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly put his finger on the Government's weak place when he remarked that these difficulties were largely due to the time of the Session at which the Revenue Bill has now been introduced. This is what we always contended would occur. The real difficulty with which we are faced is not the difficulty raised by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, nor the difficulty raised from this side of the House; it is the difficulty of time. For that the Government are wholly responsible, and they cannot divest themselves of their responsibility. I want to make that point perfectly clear. As to the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman who spoke before him, the right hon. Gentleman, most unjustly, as he knows perfectly well, has not put the case fairly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I do not wish to put it higher than that he has not put the case fairly when he indicates to the House, as I think he did indicate, that the whole of the opposition to Clause 11 proceeds from this side of the House. He is perfectly well aware that there is a large section of hon. Gentlemen opposite who object to Clause 11 just as strongly as we do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer deny that? He does not deny it.

If I did not say so, I meant to say so. I was under the impression that I had said so. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did say so."]

I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer most carefully, and if he did say so I do not think the House understood it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer threw the whole onus as to the opposition to Clause 11 upon me personally, and upon the Opposition.

I am perfectly certain that I said it was a Clause which did not seem to be acceptable in any quarter of the House.

You laid all the blame upon us.

No. On the contrary, I said that my hon. Friends below the Gangway objected to it, and I quoted a letter about which the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows something, and I said it did not appear to me that it was acceptable in any quarter of the House.

Up to that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech I have no quarrel with him, but in the last phrase he used he repeated two or three times words which were intended to throw the whole onus of the opposition to Clause 11 upon this side of the House. I will therefore bring him back to what be said in the earlier part of his speech, in which he stated that on both sides of the House there was serious objection to Clause 11. Let us put it on that ground, which is fairer to everyone in the House. So far as the rest of the Revenue Bill is concerned, it deals with particular hardships, which are recognised as hardships on both sides of the House, arising out of particular cases under the Land Taxes of the Finance Act, 1909–10. Amendments have been agreed between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hon. Gentlemen which meet with almost universal approval on both sides of the House. These Amendments are uncontroversial in this sense, that we have undertaken on this side of the House that where an Amendment is not accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however desirable we may think it, we will confine ourselves to shortly stating our case; we shall not press them, and we shall do nothing, in regard to our desire for further concessions, to restrict or in any way to obstruct the passage of the Bill in its present form as agreed to between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ourselves. The only point, therefore, which arises is Clause 11. Clause 11 raised the whole vexed question of valuation. I think it extremely doubtful whether it is in order at all. Our objection to Clause 11 is not an objection to the objects which Clause 11 purports to be framed to carry out, but is an objection to the Clause as it stands, an objection to passing a sixth value upon five values, already difficult to ascertain, on agricultural land. It must open up the whole question, and it is quite obvious that, taking the views of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway as they have been stated here, taking our views and the views of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway representing agriculture on the other side, it is perfectly clear that two or three days of acute discussion would be required to frame a satisfactory Clause.

When I suggest that Clause 11 should be dropped, my attitude is simply this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has definitely undertaken to introduce a Revenue Bill and to carry it through its further stages fairly early next Session. I have also in mind the Prime Minister's statement that this Bill could not possibly pass if controversial matter were introduced into it. Clause 11 is, and must be, highly controversial, and therefore, in the interests of the rest of the Bill, my suggestion is that both sides—we taking one view of Clause 11 and hon. Gentlemen opposite taking the opposite view—should be content to postpone our differences upon that question till next Session and not to drop the Clause in the sense that it is dropped entirely, but postpone it till next Session, when the Government will be bound to give us the necessary time to discuss this very difficult question of valuation. Surely we can agree to drop tins controversial Clause, which it is hopeless to come to an agreement upon in the time at our disposal, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite persist in the course they have adopted, litigation will continue to fall upon thou sands of innocent people. We, on this side of the House, are bound to the country to look to this question of valuation carefully, and we cannot allow a slipshod Clause to go through the House without proper discussion on that question of agricultural valuation, which is of enormous importance, without discussion, and we ask that the Clause should be postponed and that the Bill should be allowed now to go through in its uncontroversial form, and relief should be afforded to these small owners and builders from one end of the country to the other. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on behalf of these people—there is no concession in the Bill to big owners particularly; it is a concession to small people under £160—whether they cannot postpone their desire to discuss valuation until next year, and allow the uncontroversial Bill to go through. Of course, if hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway refuse to modify the attitude which they have taken up we can do nothing but assent to the proposal that Progress should be reported for one more day, but the matter should certainly be settled. It is a very great inconvenience for hon. Gentlemen on both sides to be kept here, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to make up his mind before this time to-morrow what attitude he proposes to take, but our attitude cannot be modified.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has very truly declared that this Bill, when it was first introduced, was looked upon as a non-controversial measure. We assented to it, and we still assent. The first six or seven Clauses contain matters which many of us did not like; we thought we were giving away a great deal more than we need, but we were quite content to let that pass, because we had Clause 11 which we were assured would pass. If, abstaining from doing anything to interfere with the Government or to interfere with what the hon. Gentleman and his friends and some of those on this side of the House wanted, we allowed this Clause to pass, we should have practically a non - contentious measure. It has now been intimated that Clause 11 is to be dropped. If Clause 11 is dropped it will be a contentious measure. The reason it was non-contentious was because it contained that very valuable Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared that when we first saw that Clause, we declared our dissatisfaction with it. That is perfectly true. I understand some of my Friends wrote to the Chancellor of Exchequer, stating that they did not agree with that Clause at all.

I said a letter appeared in the papers.

They said the Clause was not quite what they wanted. I myself said it was not a satisfactory Clause, and the right hon. Gentleman intimated that the Clause was substantially what we wanted. After reflection and consultation we came to the conclusion that it was better to accept the Clause as it was, even though it was not quite all that we wanted. I think that is a fair statement of the case.

I do not want my hon. Friend to give an impression that he does not want to give. He never intimated this decision to me.

I made use of the ordinary channels. I saw the Chief Whip. If Clause 11 is dropped the Clause would be very strongly opposed. The hon. Member for Chelmsford intimated that things had gone very smoothly until we came to this Clause. That is perfectly true. The hon. Member was getting all he wanted, and he had nothing to complain of, but he will have much to complain of if we do not get our part of the Bill. The measure was treated from the beginning as non-controversial, because we had Clause 11 it. Now the hon. Member wants to proceed with the Bill without that Clause. The Bill was well balanced between contending parties, but if in the middle of carrying out the contract you alter the Bill, I say it is unfair. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says. "We have got all we want, and you will get what you want next year." What guarantee have we that we will? It is not quite fair after six or seven Clauses have been passed to intimate that the bargain that was entered into is to be departed from. On behalf of my Friends and myself I say that unless we get Clause 11, we shall not look upon the Bill as non-contentious.

The hon. Member (Mr. Price) has thrown some light on the various Clauses of the Bill which is valuable. Clause 11 was submitted at an earlier stage by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a concession to the Opposition. It appears that it was not a concession to the Opposition, but a bribe to the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Gentleman speaks of the Bill as it stands as a well-balanced measure. I am not quite certain, but I think I understand what he means. There is a great deal he objects to in the earlier Clauses on the ground that it is unjust. He says that more is given away than ought to be given Away—I presume, therefore, more than justice demands. Does the hon. Gentleman object to my inference?

My point was this: When you have a measure which gives something to hon. Members on the other side of the House, and something to hon. Members on this side, and when it is asked that the measure should be treated as non-contentious, it is not for an hon. Member on the other side to get up and say that it is a non-contentious measure while asking that Clause 11 should be dropped.

The hon. Gentleman speaks as if the only people affected by the Bill were the hon. Member himself and my hon. Friends. That is not a useful basis on which to proceed, nor does it tend to the best interests of the country. Hon. Members' view is that they may give up a great deal of what is just and fair, if only my hon. and gallant Friend will in the name of other people submit to what he considers a grave injustice. Some barrister, I forget who it was, defended trial by jury by stating that although he had lost a great, many cases which he ought to have won, still he had won a great many cases which he ought to have lost, and therefore on the whole justice had been done. I have never heard any principle of reasoning quite comparable to that of the hon. Gentleman. I will leave to hon. Members that special point, and turn to the position, not of this or that Member, but of the House at large in regard to this matter. I think the House is in a position of some difficulty, and in danger of no little discredit. If hon. Members will permit me, speaking not merely for the Opposition, but for the House at large, I will say that hon. Members accepted with goodwill, and, I think, with eagerness, wherever they were sitting. seven Clauses of the amended provisions intended to remove hardships from which various classes of the community are suffering, or to remove obstacles which impede the provision of small houses, and the whole of this work is now in jeopardy because a small group in this House refuse to assent to the arrangement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made with my; hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman), because the Bill is only proceeded with at a time of the Session when any small minority can wreck it, if they are not satisfied.

Under what circumstances did this Revenue Bill take its rise? The Chan- cellor of the Exchequer explained that they had to proceed rapidly with the taxing provisions of the Finance Bill, under the provisions of the Collection of Taxes Act, and that he could not give time earlier for this Bill. It is a curious commentary on that, that here we are now in the last week of the Session, I presume, and we have not yet got through Committee the Taxing Bill. The whole object of the Collection of Taxes Act was to have the Taxing Bill earlier, but we have not discussed it yet. The Revenue Bill was to give us the opportunity for full and free discussion of those points which the urgency in passing the Finance Bill prevented our having in connection with it. Now what is the position? Here is this Bill, in the main an agreed Bill, giving relief to large numbers of people in this country, and the whole is to be dropped, not because the sense of the majority of Members, on whichever side they sit, is not perfectly clear, but only because the Government have held off the discussion until a time, when they cannot afford to give it free discussion. It is to be dropped because it cannot be discussed, unless the House at large pays blackmail to a small number on the opposite side.

Is the phrase which the right hon. Gentleman has just used in order?

The phrase, I am afraid, has more than once before been used metaphorically, and applied to a number of hon. Members; if applied to an individual it would be out of order.

I think I was right in saying that the House is in a position of great difficulty, and in danger of not a little discredit. The opinion of an overwhelming majority is to be overruled by a small group. The only way in which that can be avoided is by the Government giving time. I do not say that any of us are fit, Government or Opposition, to prolong the Session now, and, Heaven knows, it is the last thing I desire, but I do say that we were entitled to expect that this Bill would have been introduced earlier, and that more time, before the last week of the Session, would have been allowed for its consideration. I do say that it is not only essential, but that there is an obligation on the Government to reintroduce the Bill early next Session.

I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not pay too much attention to the small, aggressive, and very articulate group of the party who sit below the Gangway. If the Bill had been brought in earlier in the Session, I am sure that a very large number of Liberal Members would have been very glad if Clause 11 had been dropped. I will not use the word blackmail, but I do say it is a grossly selfish thing for a small body of. Members to try to prevent the alleviation of an injustice from which thousands of people are suffering in order that they may get in a small minor principle by a side wind on Clause 11. I have been in this House a good many years, and I have never myself seen anything so grossly selfish as the way in which a small party are behaving in this matter. They think only of themselves, and they think at the same time that they may get some advantage by the inconvenience which so many people are suffering from. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will press forward this Bill, and drop Clause 11.

May I suggest to my hon. Friend (Sir F. Cawley) that one way of preventing people from coming to an arrangement of any sort is to have speeches like that which he has delivered. Therefore, I really ask my hon. Friends to assent to the Motion to report. Progress and see what can be done within the next twenty-four hours. I make the appeal, whatever may be their opinions in the matter, that they should endeavour to restrain themselves for twenty-four hours so that something might be attempted in the meantime. It will be utterly impossible to come to an arrangement if mutual recriminations are to take place during this discussion. I have only to say a word in reply to the hon. and gallant Member opposite. I think when his attention was called to the facts he might have withdrawn the statement he made that I was deliberately unfair in what I said.

I withdraw that.

With regard to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), I have to say that he knows perfectly well what the conditions are. He raises an issue which, is a very large order. It is no fault of ours that two or three Bills had to be reintroduced this year. It was not the House of Commons that threw them out, and we were obliged to occupy a considerable amount of time.

The Chancellor of Exchequer quite rightly began his speech by deprecating the time being occupied in mutual recriminations. It is the custom of the Chair always to allow latitude on a Motion to report Progress, because it will facilitate business later on. But this is not an occasion for recriminations or anything of that sort.

I am very much obliged to you for pulling me up, for I do not think it would conduce to the harmonious conclusion of the Debate to pursue that line. May I appeal now to hon. Members who have an interest in Clause 11, or any other part of the Bill, to assent to report Progress and see what can be done later on.

I wish to say that we on this side regret the necessity of proposing that this Bill should be postponed until to-morrow. The right hon. Gentleman, on the Second Reading Debate, placed upon myself the responsibility of doing something to remedy the injustice which was done last year. I have come here at great inconvenience to-day to deal with the matter, and it might not be possible to come later on.

It is not desirable to continue this discussion. It is out of order on a Motion to report Progress to go into matters that have been referred to. It is merely a business discussion of what the proposals of the Government are.

I would appeal to the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Price) and other hon. Members in that portion of the House to have regard to the nature of the Bill which is in jeopardy at this moment. I desire to repudiate the suggestion that the Bill is offered in any way as a sop to His Majesty's Opposition. There were quite as many representations made to my right hon. Friend front this side of the House as from the other side. It is a great pity that the small and dwindling group—

I cannot allow this sort of Debate to continue on a Motion for Adjournment.

What is in jeopardy is not a concession to the Opposition, but a concession to justice, and not only one concession to justice, but several, and concessions which affect not only hundreds or thousands, but hundreds of thousands.

Have I a right to reply to this?

That is just the point. It involves, as the hon. Member will now see, a discussion not only of further Clauses of the Bill, but also of the Clauses which have been dealt with That I cannot permit. I think that hon. Members ought to consent to allow the Question to be put now.

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

I beg to move, to leave out the words ["Tea, the pound—fivepence,"], and to insert instead thereof the words:—

Bread taxes.

No; by a tax on foreign manufactured goods. If the Members of the Labour party came into office they doubtless are of opinion that they could raise the money by some Socialistic proposal; but the question of where the revenue is to come from is not raised by this Amendment. The only question before the House is whether the House does desire the high Tea Duty to continue. Therefore I hope that I shall be fortunate enough to secure the support of very many hon. Members opposite. The Tea Duty, unlike a protective duty falls wholly upon the consumer. The imposition of 5d. on the pound does not help a single industry or a single individual in the whole of this country. It does nothing to stimulate production or to benefit trade. It is a pure unalloyed and unrelieved tax on the food of the people of this country. It is absurd to say that the Tea Tax is not a Food Tax. Unless you take the view that the food of the people should be confined to bread and water, tea is as much a food as any other commodity. It is an article of universal consumption. There is hardly a humble home in the country which does not have a tea bill that bears a considerable relation to its total budget, and tea is one of the most highly priced petty luxuries that the poor people of this country have. The tea consumed in this country comes mainly from two sources, India and Ceylon in the first place, and also from China. The Indian tea, generally speaking, is cheaper than the China tea. The Indian tea is the tea that is consumed by the poor of this country. The China tea is the luxury of the rich. For that reason a vastly greater amount of Indian tea than of China tea is imported into the country. Last year the net import of tea from India and Ceylon was over 265,000.000 lbs., and from China the import was over 10,000.000 lbs. Therefore, the Amendment would propose to reduce the taxation on more than nine-tenths of the tea consumed in this country. That can be justified both on the ground of Imperial Preference and also because the Indian and Ceylon tea is the tea that is consumed by the poor of this country.

The fact that I do not propose to remit taxation on China tea is no argument against remitting taxation on Indian and Ceylon tea, because the price of China tea cannot have any effect on the price of Indian tea. The Indian tea merchants who supply the poor classes in the community are not in direct competition with the China tea merchants. Therefore, if the price of Indian tea is reduced and the price of China tea is left as it is, it will be as if there were two different commodities altogether; and the fact that China tea is taxed to the extent of 2d. per pound more than Indian tea would not tend to raise the price of Indian tea in the slightest degree. Therefore, I submit that the effect of this Amendment would be to reduce the price of Indian tea by 2d. per pound. By the full 2d. it would be a direct gain to the working classes of this country; it would be a direct remission of taxation that falls on their shoulders at the present moment, and, as such, I hope that it will have the support of hon. Members opposite, or at least of the Labour party opposite. I do not think they should reject this Amendment, seeing that it proposes to continue a tax on the luxuries of the rich. This proposal is a step towards the free breakfast table of which we have heard speak so eloquently the Members of the Labour party opposite. Therefore, I cannot. doubt they will support us unanimously in the Lobby on this Amendment. I say that because the hon. Members of the Labour party have on more than one occasion, both in this Hoarse and in the country, expressed their abhorrence of the present food taxes and duties. The hon. Member for North-East Manchester (Mr. Clynes), in his election address at the General Election of 1906, said:—

"I am against existing taxes on the common necessaries of life."

The hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Charles Duncan) in his address said:—

"Any taxation of food will have in myself an inveterate enemy, whilst every effort to bring about a free breakfast table would command my earnest and diligent support."

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) in his address said:—

"I would abolish the Customs House altogether, and do away with all forms of indirect taxation, save the Excise Ditties upon spirits: repeal the Coal Tax, denounce the Sugar Convention, and make good the loss to the revenue by a special graduated tax on unearned incomes."

The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hudson) said:—

"As a means towards the solution of the social problem, I will press at the first opportunity for the removal of all taxes front the breakfast table."

The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. William Johnson) in his address said:—

"I am in favour of a breakfast table free of duties to be provided by removing existing taxation on tea sugar and other commodities."

The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. James Parker) in his address to the electors said:—

"I shall heartily advocate and do my utmost to carry into effect the abolition of indirect taxation."

The hon. Member for Hallamshire (Mr. John Wadsworth) said:—

"I would, if possible, abolish entirely taxes on tea coffee, and other foods of the people."

The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie) said:—

"I would support and press for tie abolition of all taxation on the food of the people."

The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. W. Tyson Wilson) said:—

"The poorer classes are too heavily taxed. The duties on tea, sugar, and other necessaries of life should be removed."

Therefore, I hope that those hon. Members, having had the opportunity of seeing this Amendment on the Order Paper for about five weeks, will be sufficiently true to their cause to go with us into the Division Lobby when the time comes There are one or two other remarks of hon. Members of the Labour party to which I wish to refer. A speech was made in this House on 26th July, 1912, by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), in which he said:—

"The Liberal party have always been saying they are in favour of the abolition of indirect taxation and in favour of the abolition of taxation upon the breakfast-table commodities. I am also in favour of the abolition of these taxes."

I hope the hon. Member for the Black-friars Division will be more true to his opinion than the Labour party have been. This year in this House, on May 7th, the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division said:—

"I look back on the last few years during which we have been promised the abolition of these indirect taxes, and I think the time has come to put some of these professions into practice. This—the Tea Duty—is one of the most iniquitous and unjust forms of indirect taxation, because this particular tax bears particularly hard on the poorest of the poor."

I sincerely trust the hon. Member will be of the same opinion on the question this afternoon, and, now that the opportunity is afforded, will put some of these professions into practice. The hon. Member for North-East Manchester (Mr. Clynes), on 11th June of this year, said:—

"This period of exceptional pressure and increased cost of living, resting so heavily upon the shoulders of the poor, commends itself to us as an exceptional reason for now proposing this frontal claim for the abolition of all these duties resting upon food."

The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson), on the same day of this year, said:—

"Taxes on food, especially on tea and sugar, are indefeasible."

He made that statement in speaking on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). The hon. Member for Blackburn regaled the House with some of the past declarations of Cabinet Ministers on the question of the Sugar Duty and other food taxes. He said that he was giving them the opportunity of redeeming some of the pledges that they had made at election time. Unfortunately, however, the hon. Member for Blackburn in his Amendment did not give the House an opportunity of voting on a clear issue. He proposed to remit the food taxes, and, for revenue, referred to various other forms of taxation. Therefore, there were two issues at stake before the House. As I have already said, there is only one issue before the House in this Amendment—that is to say, whether the present Tea Duty ought or ought not to be reduced, and, in the words of the hon. Member for Blackburn, it gives. Members of the Labour party some opportunity of redeeming their election pledges on this question. I would like to refer to one statement which was made on the occasion of the Second Reading by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, in which he asserted that the Conservative party when in power had raised the Tea Duty and other food taxes on the people of this country.

That statement, of course, if taken by itself, is substantially true, but he omitted to state that it was during the time of the South African War, and that the Unionist party at the same time enormously raised the Income Tax and other forms of direct taxation in order to provide the necessary money which had to be found for the war. Therefore it is not fair and it is not accurate to quote war taxes as the policy of any party in time of peace. The Unionist party have proposed this Amendment on several previous occasions, and their leaders have stated that the time has come when the present Tea Duty should be revised. It is a food tax which presses exceedingly heavily upon the poorest class of the community. Whatever may be the opinion of hon. Members as to what proportion of taxation the various classes of the community should bear, and whether they agree with the principles laid down by the Prime Minister on the Second Reading of this Bill or whether they do not, I think they must feel in their own minds that the present Tea Tax as it stands is indefensible. It is far too high a duty to place on this article of common consumption among the poor, and the Amendment I propose would not only have the effect of giving a substantial preference to our fellow subjects in India and in Ceylon, but it would also be a step towards a free breakfast table which hon. Members opposite heartily support.

The Noble Lord made a speech which was for the most part irrelevant to the subject of the Amendment, and instead of speaking only on the one issue as to the Tea Duty, he referred to sugar, coal, and other taxes. The Amendment is for a preferential tariff, but the speech of the Noble Lord was addressed to very different issues. The one question now raised, and it is a very important and very interesting one, is a question to which the Noble Lord hardly addressed himself at all, namely, the very important question of the preferential treatment of the Tea Duty against China. I suppose I must address myself to the Amendment, and not to the speech of the. Noble Lord. What does the Noble Lord propose to do by this Amendment? He proposes that about 36,000,000 lbs. of tea which comes from China and elsewhere should be charged 2d. more than the tea which comes from within the British Empire. We consumed in 1912 about 260,000,000 lbs. of tea grown within the British Empire and about 36,000,000 lbs. grown in China and other countries. The Noble Lord apparently assumes that the working man does not consume any China tea. There he is perfectly wrong. China tea, I suppose, is the most delicately flavoured tea on the whole. Those who believe in Indian tea have not got a good word to say of China tea, and those who believe in China tea rather despise Indian tea. At any rate some of the most delicately flavoured teas come from China. To assume that the working men drink cheap tea is quite erroneous. Very often the workman who pays a very good price for his tea likes to buy China tea, because he thinks it is better, and some of the blends which contain China tea are very popular in some parts of the country. In discriminating between the different kinds of tea in order to benefit the working classes I think the Noble Lord is under a complete misapprehension as to what the facts of the case are. If it is true that some of the best teas come from China, I should have thought that would be an argument in favour of reduction of the duty on those teas, instead of discriminating against them.

China is a very good customer of ours, one of our very best customers, and that is especially the case with regard to Lancashire. What does the Noble Lord propose to do? He proposes that one of the best customers of the county which he represents should have a preferential tariff raised against it. I should like to know what Lancashire would think about that, and I am not at all sure that most of the goods which go to China from this country are not Lancashire goods. Let us just consider what happens at the port of Hong Kong. The total imports from China to this country amount to £5,600,000, while the total exports to China, from this country come to over £15,000,000. Thus you have in China a country that buys £10,000,000 worth more from us than we buy from them. There is no doubt China is on the eve of opening up to an extent which will probably amaze the civilised world in the course of the next few years. When there comes to be a scramble for trade, as there will be, and as there is beginning to be now, what would happen if we passed this? We should be handicapped by having discriminated against China tea, China being a country we had discriminated against. Russia, Germany, and the United States of America at any rate trade with China exactly as with any other country, while we should be discriminating against a country that at the present moment is one of our best cus- tomers. On the whole, I think she buys more from us than from any other country in the world, and the Noble Lord, who represents a Lancashire constituency, is trying to encourage trade between his constituents and China by saying, "We are going to penalise you to the extent of 2d. in the pound on a commodity you sell. "I do not think that is quite the proposal that will commend itself there. The Noble Lord is not at all concerned about the workingman's tea, China or otherwise; but what he is concerned about is to get a rise out of the Labour party, and the whole of his speech was directed to that. At the same time, when he goes down to his constituency he can explain that his special method of scoring off the Labour Members is by picking a quarrel with their best customers.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has divided his reply into three parts, one part I need hardly refer to, and the second was as to the effect of this proposal on the domestic economy of our own people, and the other its effect on our foreign relations. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have done more justice to my Noble Friend's argument from every point of view, and would perhaps have made it more clear to the Committee as to the subject on which he was talking, if instead of describing this Amendment as an Amendment to specially tax China tea, he had more correctly described it as a Motion to relieve British teas, and there is all the difference in the world between the two. The right hon. Gentleman says a great deal of China tea is drunk by the British working classes, but that is nothing like the amount they take of Indian tea. A larger proportion of China tea is a luxury, an infinitely larger proportion than of the Indian tea. Where the China tea is cheap it comes into competition with Indian tea on account of the cheapness, but the lessening of the price of the Indian tea cannot hurt the working man. It might enable him to drink better Indian tea than he can now afford instead of the worst China tea, but very likely this would force China tea to drop in proportion to the lower-priced Indian, and whichever way it is, if these results are attained, either alone or in combination, it must be a benefit to the working classes. The hon. Baronet the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles)—

I am not a Baronet.

When the hon. Gentleman laughs—

I was not laughing at anything the right hon. Gentleman said, but at some observations from the other side by some hon. Gentleman behind me. I never laugh at the right hon. Gentleman.

I am greatly relieved. I hope I endeavour to address suitable arguments to the House, and the hon. Member, I am sure, is always ready to appreciate arguments of that kind. I look to the other observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He says this proposal is a proposal made by a Lancashire Member to penalise Lancashire's best customer, China. He says also there is no country in the world which is likely in the next few years to have so large a development as China. Did he think for a moment of India in either of those respects? Does he ever think of the British Empire in connection with fiscal questions? This is not a proposal to penalise China or to tax it. Chinese tea remains what it is, but it is a proposal to give a preference to India. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to lay down and invite foreign Governments to act on the principle, that if we choose to treat the Empire as one they have a grievance? That is the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. It would be just as reasonable to say if we choose to treat Lancashire and Yorkshire as one for the purpose of Customs, or England and Ireland which we have done hitherto, though apparently we are not to do it in the future, that China has the right to protest. That is a doctrine which strikes at any possible view of Imperial unity, Imperial combination, and Imperial defence, and, whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer does in his efforts to defend his present taxation and to relieve himself and his Friends from a disagreeable position, at least he should not put into the hands of foreign nations art argument so dangerous to the continued unity or the common action of the British Empire as that which he has used.

I venture to say again that he would come nearer to the truth if he would remember that this is not a proposal to tax China, but a proposal to extend a preference to British tea-growing countries, and amongst those tea-growing countries India is foremost. Is India less important to us as a market than China, or is India less capable of development than China? Indian potentialities of development are only limited by her power to raise capital to secure mechanical means for amt development, and she has made most extraordinary advances in her trade in recent years, and she may continue to make those advances. That is a market which it is just as well to cultivate as it is to cultivate the Chinese market, and it is a market better worth our while to cultivate, because it is a British market and part of the British Empire. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he is for ever going to be able to maintain the present fiscal system of India? Does he think that he can for ever insist that because we choose to adopt free imports here, that therefore the Indian Government and the Indian people are not to be allowed any protection against foreign competition for any of their goods. If the right hon. Gentleman has read—I do not know whether he has or not—the very important discussion that took place in the Viceroy's Legislative Council on the Motion of an Indian member of that Council a few months ago he would know, or he would at least see signs to doubt, he would know that the present system is unpopular with the people of India, and he would see good reason to doubt whether that system can be maintained. I do not believe it can be maintained, and I believe that the choice before the constituents of my Noble Friend in Lancashire and the other Lancashire Members is not whether they can maintain the present system or not, but whether they will see India drift into a policy of pure Protection or whether, while there is yet time, they will link her with this country by a policy of Imperial Preference. I have always supported this Amendment, and I shall support it to-day. I support it as one step in the creation of a common and, therefore, a united Empire, as one means by which we can show a greater interest in our own Dominions, and as one measure by which we can assert that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument denies, namely, the unity of the whole Empire.

I do not desire to be drawn into a Tariff Reform argument, which was initiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), or, if he will allow me to call him so, by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire. I desire to refer to the speech which introduced this Debate. There is an aspect of the question before the Committee which has apparently been entirely overlooked. I understood the Noble Lord to say at the outset that if his Amendment was adopted the cost of it would be about —2,000,000 of money—that is to say my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose business it is to provide for the Appropriation Bill which we are going to pass presently, would be about £2,000,000 or £2,250,000 short, and at this time I do not think we ought to deprive him of that. It might cost the country a "Dreadnought," and that I am sure the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) would be the last to desire. It is not for the first time that this financial question has cropped up, and in reference to it I use an illustration that I used before, for much as I may like the proposal I am not going to support the Noble Lord's Amendment, as I do not want to go into a trap. A mouse is very fond of toasted cheese, but it is a great fool if it goes into the trap to get it. I desire, as do my hon. Friends near me, a free breakfast table. That has been the desire of the Liberal party for a very long time. I am only disappointed that the present Government have not achieved it for us. Again, I should like to get rid of these indirect taxes, and to tax everybody as far as possible directly. There are many objections to indirect taxation, the most serious being that the people pay their taxes without knowing that they are paying them, and, therefore, without closely watching what becomes of the money raised thereby. Hence, Governments from either party are encouraged to squander the money obtained from indirect. taxes upon "Dreadnoughts" and other mischievous objects of expenditure. If the Noble Lord could induce any Chancellor of the Exchequer to put this money on to land values, I would be quite content to support him; but we have seen earlier in the afternoon how extremely reluctant the Noble Lord's party is to entertain the idea not only of Land Taxes, but even of land valuation, which might conceivably at some future time be the basis of Land Taxes. If we are to have taxation on food at all, and I suppose the Noble Lord desires taxes on food, tea is about as good an article as you could put it upon. Again, if the very poor are to pay their share of taxation, and there is no means of getting at them by direct taxation, there is a good deal to be said for tea taxation as a means of getting their share. I should like the poor to pay a great deal less than they do, although I do not think that any voters ought to be entirely relieved from taxation. The Noble Lord said that tea was an article of universal consumption. No doubt it is. Surely that is the very thing that recommends it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer! That is one of the virtues of tea taxation. The Noble Lord said that the Tea Tax was directly paid by the consumer. No doubt it is. That, again, is a recommendation.

I did not say it was directly paid by the consumer. I said it was wholly paid by him.

I understood the Noble Lord to say that it was a tax which must fall directly upon the consumer.

Wholly, not directly.

Surely a great point in the taxation, as far as I understand the canons of taxation, is that a tax when levied should actually fall upon the person whom you want to pay, and not be paid by somebody else on his behalf. The Noble Lord said further that the tax does not benefit a single person. No, and ex hypothesi it does not injure a single person. There is no tea grown in this country, therefore the tax cannot put up rents as a tax upon foreign corn would. The fact that it neither benefits nor injures a single person, is another of the arguable virtues of tea taxation. The object of it is not to benefit people but to raise money for the Exchequer. I shall not vote for the Amendment; we blow perfectly well why it is trotted out. Our constituents will know perfectly well that, although we vote against the Noble Lord, we are opposed to indirect taxation and taxes on food.

I wish to comment on the very unfortunate and inaccurate statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the question of discrimination. The term "discrimination" is not correctly applied to preferential duties in this or any other Empire. No foreign country would dream of penalising the trade of the United States because the United States Government gives a preference to its Colonies. The late Lord Salisbury claimed in more than one dispatch that the system of preference initiated by Canada was not differentiation in the ordinary sense of the term, and on that ground prevented penal action on the part of Germany. Since then the controversy has raged everywhere in the world where preference is given, and that is everywhere where there are Colonies. I think I am right in saying that it is now generally admitted that the establishment of a preferential Duty is not differentiation within the ordinary meaning of the term, and does not disentitle a country to receive the benefits and advantages of most-favoured-nation treatment. The controversy arose in connection with the Canadian tariff and the relations of Canada to the United States, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the United States did not put into operation the maximum clause in her tariff, because Canada put on a preferential duty to our advantage, which is, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, differentiation. If it were really differentiation, Canada would at once become subject to the penal Clause in the United States Tariff. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the delicate state of international relations on this very question, should withdraw what he has said about the establishment of a preferential system being discrimination against a foreign country. That is a very dangerous statement for a Minister of the Crown to have made. The establishment of preference within an Empire is now universally regarded as a domestic question, and there is no reason why a preference should not be established between this country and India, or between this country and any of its Colonies, without violating any Treaty obligations of any kind whatever. Preference, according to the definition of the Resolution of the Imperial Conference, is simply that where you have duties you should take them off or reduce them in favour of your Colonies. It does not imply any great change of policy, according to the view of the great statesmen of our Dominions and Colonies.

The Tea Duty occupies a particularly objectionable position. I do not want to develop that argument, because we had a Debate on the question not very long ago when a great deal was said on one side of the other. But as a matter of fact very few countries impose a Tea Duty. They would rather raise their revenue in almost any other way than imposing a Tea Duty which unquestionably must, to a very large extent, come out of the pockets of the working classes. After the enormous ex- penditure which the Government have let us in for, we cannot hope to do away with all these objectionable duties at the present time. But surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer might advance a little in that direction by reducing the Tea Duty! That would certainly be an unmixed advantage to the working classes who now have to pay it. I was surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's statement in regard to our trade interests in China, and his omission to deal with India. Surely it is desirable that, before he makes a speech upon such a subject, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should acquaint himself with the extremely delicate situation in which these subjects are in our great Dominions! If he would read the important statement last March by Sir Fleetwood Wilson, Finance Minister in India, who, I suppose, represents the British Government, he world realise that at the present time in India this fiscal question is one of the most delicate and difficult with which you could possibly have to deal. There is undoubtedly a strong and growing disposition on the part of the natives of India to press for full-blooded Protection, and the councils which the Government have established are a means of giving expression to the aspirations of India in that regard.

As I read his statement, Sir Fleetwood Wilson's point is that he does not think it probable that the present fiscal system of India can be maintained, but that the pressure of various economic forces in competition in the market of India, the changes in the fiscal situation in the Far East, movements like that of the Japanese tariff, and all those other elements which he details, are bound to force upon India a change of policy, and that change of policy, if it is pushed forward under the guidance and inspiration of the natives, must have an enormously prejudicial effect upon India and the trade of Lancashire. The point of Sir Fleetwood Wilson's statement is that a possible way of warding off this danger is to direct the movement in India into a new channel—a new policy, as he calls it, a policy which differs from the previous policy, and a precedent for which has been set by our own great Dominions—a policy of directing these aspirations in the direction of a preferential tariff, and though he does not pledge the Government or himself, he throws down the subject for discussion and consideration. In view of that, I should have thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have dealt with the subject a little more sympathetically than he has done. He might have dealt with it more sympathetically in view of the precedents which he and his Government have set. The Government claim to have been returned to power to maintain Free Trade, but they have, under the pressure of forces which we all recognise, set numerous precedents for carrying a Tariff Reform policy. They have entered into negotiations with foreign countries; they have made trade treaties such as that in connection with the Japanese Tariff; they have restricted the autonomy of this country in fiscal matters; they are affecting the Most-Favoured Nation Clause all over the world; they have themselves been parties to a preferential arrangement between the West Indies and Canada; and on 24th May last, Empire Day, the Foreign Secretary wrote a dispatch in which he refused on what must be regarded as purely Protectionist lines to give an Excise—

On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member allowed to introduce a full-blooded debate on the question of Tariff Reform on this Amendment? I shall be delighted to follow the hon. Member, but, if he is allowed to proceed, I must certainly claim the same right.

I am not introducing a general Tariff Reform debate at all, and have not the least intention of doing so. I am simply cataloguing a few of the precedents which I say would cover any action which we desire the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take in regard to the Tea Duty.

The hon. Member says that he has no intention of proceeding further; otherwise, I am afraid I should have to call him to order.

That is so. I never had any intention of proceeding further. Obviously it would not be possible to raise a general Tariff Reform discussion in connection with this subject, but I submit I am perfectly entitled to point out to the Government that by their own action they have departed from the line of action and from the principles which stand in the way of the action suggested by the Noble Lord. In conclusion, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider more sympathetically the line of action embodied in this Amendment, which, from the point of view of the great statesmen of our Dominions, and from the character and precedents set by the Government, involves no revolutionary departure in policy. It is a domestic question; it reduces the cost of living, and the burden of taxation on the working classes. It does something to relieve the difficulty which Ministers feel in regard to India. It is easy enough to do. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to find the money. There is no difficulty about that. But I do beg of him to give a more sympathetic consideration to this matter. If he cannot do it in this last week of the Session, the Government, when they bring in their new Budget, can develop in a natural, orderly way the precedents that they themselves have set.

There are just one or two observations I wish to make in reference to the speech to which we have just listened. I venture to suggest that all the cases cited by the hon. Gentleman opposite as illustrations of a Free Trade Government falling away from the principles in which they are supposed to be identified, and which they were elected to support, are away from the point. The cases mentioned in the speech might be taken seriatim, but the order you have given, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, precludes me from going into detail to show that there is not in them the slightest opposition to the principles of Free Trade. I was expecting the hon. Member to go on to the Patents Act. That is the usual style of the Tariff Reform lecturer—to show that by making these restrictions we are doing the Tariff Reform business. The hon. Member did not follow that out, though he might easily have done so, because that is one of the standard notes that are circulated by Tariff Reform lecturers—

The hon. Member had a very nice sense of order as a listener, which his observations as a speaker do not seem to support.

I am sorry I was led away from the strict path of order and procedure by the hon. Member opposite. I will not follow the matter any further, for I have said what I wish to say in regard to these points. I am interested in this discussion because of the observations of the Noble Lord who introduced the subject. We are usually criticised when we suggest that if you impose duties either preferential or otherwise, as in the case of this Tea Duty, upon a commodity coming into this country, that it sometimes is possible that the foreigner might pay the duty. But I was particularly interested in the Noble Lord's statement, repeated again and again, when the absurdity of the opposite contention was pointed out, in his declaration, that unquestionably in the case of this Tea Duty that we are discussing now it is the consumer who pays.

I said particularly that that was because it was not a protective duty, and because tea cannot be produced in this country.

That is exactly the situation. The worst of it would be that supposing for a moment that tea could be produced in this country that this duty would be much more immoral than it is now; because not only would you be increasing the price and making the consumer pay upon the amount of tea that was brought into the country, but you would be raising the price of the tea grown in this country, and therefore making him pay for a thing he ought not to be called upon to pay. That is really, so far as we are concerned, the whole contention with regard to the subject. I want further to say this, that, for myself, I would have supported him certainly if it were possible under the rules of order, if the Noble Lord had put forward proposals or any scheme by which in a direct way or by a direct system this £2,000,000 could have been made up. For instance, if this had been a declaration that we should reduce the duty on tea coming from India by 2d. in the pound, and we should make that up by a 6d. higher Income Tax on incomes over £5,000 a year—