asked what is the number of casualties to date among the Egyptian population and our own troops in connection with the present disorder in Egypt?

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Rothwell on 11th November, which contains all the information received concerning casualties in Egypt up to 3rd November. Demonstrations of a minor character took place on 13th November in Cairo and Alexandria, and were dispersed by the police and Egyptian troops, who inflicted a few casualties among the rioters.

On 16th November more serious riots occurred in Cairo, and the police and Egyptian troops were compelled to use their rifles. Finally, it was found necessary to call for the assistance of British troops in order to restore order. The total casualties are reported as thirteen Egyptians killed and eighty-seven wounded, most of which occurred before the intervention of British troops.

Minor disturbances occurred in Cairo on 18th November and in Alexandria on 19th November, when a few casualties occurred among the crowds. On 22nd November Captain Cohen, of the Egyptian Labour Corps, was shot from behind, near Shoubra Hospital, in Cairo, and subsequently died, and on the following day four shots were fired at five British soldiers, wounding one of them slightly.

On 26th November six shots were fired at two British soldiers in Cairo, wounding both of them, and also a Greek girl who was with them.

On two other occasions British officers have been fired at in Cairo, but have escaped unhurt.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether Captain Kristich has formed a regiment of Serbian volunteers to help General Denikin; whether the Serbian Government is financing the expedition;

(2) whether, in addition to a regiment already formed by Captain Kristich, two Serbian regiments will shortly be embarked at Salonika and dispatched to South Russia to help the volunteer army, as is stated in a Reuter message; and whether this country is financing the expedition?

I have no information regarding the dispatch of Serbian volunteers to assist General Denikin. The British Government is not financing any such expedition.

What business is it of ours whether the Serbians enlist or not?

I do not think we have any interest in the matter.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether 15,000 Galician troops are now aiding General Denikin; and whether this country is financing or supplying munitions to these troops?

I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part it will be open to General Denikin to make use of the general supplies furnished to him.

asked whether any passports have been issued, or will be issued in the near future to persons desirous to enter Soviet Russian territory for trade or other purposes?

No passports have been issued for British subjects to travel to Soviet Russian territory, and there is no present intention of altering the Regulations under which all such applications are refused.

Is it not a fact that the blockade has been raised, and, if so, why are passports being refused?

I do not think that point arises out of this question.

asked whether financial support is still being given to the person or persons occupying the former Russian Embassy in London; whether that support is to be indefinitely continued; and whether he will arrange with the Prime Minister for the opinion of the House being taken on the present arrangement?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second and third parts do not therefore arise.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the extensive preparations made by foreign merchants to open up trade with Soviet Russia as soon as communications with that country are open; and will steps be taken to see that British merchants have a fair opportunity of sharing in the export and import trade with Soviet Russia, in view of the likelihood of the present Government in Moscow surviving?

I have been asked to answer this question. The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the possibilities of resuming trade with Central Russia, when relations with that country are resumed, are not being lost sight of.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether four Russian subjects from Alexandria, among whom were Wager and Kaletsky, joined the 1/9th Hants, formerly in Siberia, as volunteers, and served with our troops in Siberia as privates; whether these men were brought to Vladivostok in charge of Captain M'Cormick and there handed over to the Russian authorities; what has been their subsequent fate; and whether the War Office will instruct the British Military Mission in Siberia to see that these men, who have served with a British regiment, are treated with consideration?

Inquiries are already being made, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for War when Private Fryer, No. 85981, 11th Company, Royal Army Medical Corps, Military Hospital, Canterbury, who has been in the Army since November, 1916, will be released, so that arrangements can be made for the resumption of his studies at college as a student of pharmacy?

Private Fryer has been retained owing to the difficulty of finding a suitable substitute and because his services were essential at the Military Hospital, Canterbury. Instructions have now been issued for his immediate demobilisation.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private William Pechstone, Royal Army Ordnance Corps, No. 0/50932, Regimental Records Office, Red Barracks, Woolwich, was demobilised on 31st August and received his official discharge paper some weeks later, and that as yet he has not been paid the credits and gratuity due to him and can receive no satisfactory reply to his inquiries in relation thereto; whether this unsatisfactory state of affairs arises from faulty records regarding this man's transfer from the Royal Garrison Artillery while serving with the Army of the Rhine; and will he state how long a discharged soldier has to wait before his gratuity is paid to him?

Private Pechstone, Royal Army Ordnance Corps, received two payments on account of the sums due to him and has now received a final payment including war gratuity. Delay occurred in effecting a final settlement with him owing to the failure to report certain information as to the payments made to him abroad.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a large number of British soldiers at Basrah, Mesopotamia, are employed as clerks keeping Indian records, many of whom joined the Army under the Derby scheme, between 1st January and 1st July, 1916, and were with their units in the field until April, 1919; and whether he will issue orders for men of the class stated to be demobilised at the earliest possible date?

The instructions at present in force provide for the dispatch from the port of embarkation of the men referred to by the hon. Member to be completed by 1st November, 1919, subject to the necessary transport being available. Instructions have already been sent by cable to Mesopotamia that men whose release is overdue are to be sent home by the first available ships.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any difficulty in obtaining transports to bring home these men, who are long overdue?

There are a considerable number of ships on the way, and they may arrive any day.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether men who enlisted in 1914 and 1915 are still serving in Mesopotamia and in India; and whether he will cable instructions for their immediate release?

Instructions have already been cabled to Mesopotamia that men whose release is overdue are to be sent home by the first available ships. With regard to India, all 1914 men have been warned for embarkation en route for the United Kingdom, and the majority have embarked. All 1915 men have now proceeded to camps and should have embarked for the United Kingdom by third week of November.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the result of his inquiries into the case of Corporal Charles F. Field, No. 124562, Royal Army Medical Corps, Military Hospital, Galway, Ireland, who has applied for release on compassionate grounds on account of the serious state of his wife's health?

A preliminary report on this case has been received, and instructions have already been issued for Corporal Field to be demobilised as expeditiously as possible, having regard to the Regulations and Orders at present in force. A further report is awaited, and I will write to the hon. Member later.

asked how many lorries there are still in use between the Channel and Cologne; whether any of them are not needed by the Army; and, if so, how many, and when, in that case, it will be possible to re-ship these to alleviate the transport congestion in this country?

Two thousand two hundred and fifty-two lorries are still in use between the Channel and Cologne. They are all needed at present, but reductions will be made as rapidly as the needs of the Service permit. I may add that up to the present the Army has been able to dispense with lorries more rapidly than they can be shipped to this country, and I understand that this state of affairs is likely to continue for some time to come. Lorries that are dispensed with are handed over to the Disposal Board, and any inquiry regarding them should be addressed to the Ministry of Munitions.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the number of British railway wagons still in France, the number sent back since the Armistice, and the present rate of reshipment; and if, in view of the shortage of rolling stock in Great Britain, he will endeavour to expedite the return of these wagons?

There are at present in France nearly 18,200 railway wagons lent to the War Department by British railway companies, and about 4,700 wagons belonging to the Depart- ment, all of which are being returned for use in this country. Besides the above there are about 20,900 wagons belonging to the War Department which are being sold locally, as they are unsuitable for use on British railways. The total number of wagons (railway-owned and Department-owned) which have been returned since the Armistice is 11,677. The latest weekly shipment of wagons is 605. The temporary priority accorded to motor vehicles at the time of the railway strike has now ceased, and the full capacity of the train ferry service to Richborough is allocated to wagons.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when all these wagons will be returned to this country, as there is a great shortage?

I certainly could not. I have stated the rate, but I cannot say when they will all be returned.

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to a petition which was forwarded recently to the President of the Board of Trade with reference to the reopening of the Basingstoke and Alton Light Railway, and which was signed by many of the residents in that neighbourhood; whether he is aware of the great inconvenience caused by the closing of this line to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood as well as to the general public; and whether, in view of the promise made by responsible Ministers at the last General Election to develop transport in rural districts, he will take immediate steps to have the line relaid and worked as formerly?

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the great inconvenience which is caused to the public by the delay in the reopening of the, Basingstoke and Alton Light Railway; and whether he will take steps to reopen it as soon as possible?

asked the Minister of Transport if it is proposed to re-lay the Basingstoke and Alton Light Railway; and, if not, if he can give a reason?

asked whether it is intended to reopen the Alton-Basingstoke Light Railway; and, if so, when?

The question of reopening the Basingstoke and Alton Light Railway is now under consideration, and I hope that a decision will be arrived at shortly.

asked whether the Army, in view of the extreme shortage of hay, can take steps to reduce waste in feeding stuffs to a far greater extent than at present?

I am not aware of any waste in the Army in this respect. If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish particulars of any specific instances I will have inquiries made immediately.

asked the Secretary of State for War if soldiers under twenty years of age and under nineteen years of age, respectively, are being sent, or have recently been sent, to Egypt or India; and, if so, when it may be expected that they will be relieved by older men who are volunteers for the Regular Army?

The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the affirmative, but I would explain that all troops now being sent abroad are voluntarily enlisted Regular soldiers.

Might I have an answer to the last part of my question?

It, is not proposed to renew the Conscription Act.

When will these men be relieved?

They must be relieved before 30th April, when the Act expires.

Will that apply to India and Egypt?

In regard to men who are not conscripts, but volunteers, we shall relieve them as soon as our recruiting situation is sufficiently favourable to enable us to do so.

May I ask whether the young men under twenty recently sent to India will be relieved?

Of course, as time passes they will cease to be under that age.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many men of the 5th Dragoon Guards from the Curragh were sentenced to imprisonment for asking to be demobilised; whether the sentences have been revised; and when clemency can be extended to those still in prison?

I am making inquiries.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that it is under consideration to select the Scots Greys as a home-service regiment, in order to give satisfaction to Scottish national sentiment, he will state what other three regiments are being considered, with a view to their stopping at home, to give satisfaction to the national sentiment of England, Ireland, and Wales, respectively?

I am afraid I can add nothing to the replies which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend a week ago on this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for War for what reason twenty-three deputy-assistant directors of remounts, serving at home, are at present employed, in view of the fact that the same number were employed on the 11th November, 1916, and the number of horses in charge of the Army is very much less than it was then?

The appointments of deputy-assistant directors of remounts were created in 1912, their duties being mainly the administration and co-ordination of the arrangements for the purchase of horses on mobilisation. At the outbreak of War there were twenty-three deputy-assistant directors in charge of remount circles. During the War they were mainly concerned with the purchase of horses, the administration of remount depots, and the maintenance of units. They have now resumed their former duties with the addition of the administration of the boarding-out scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for War the number of officers and other ranks, respectively, of the British Army now in France?

According to the latest Returns, which are dated 15th November, the number of officers is 3,500, and of other ranks 50,000.

asked the number of officers and other ranks, respectively, of the British Army now stationed in the Paris area?

The present strength is twenty-five officers and 146 other ranks. It is expected that this will be reduced by the 31st December to twenty officers and twenty other ranks.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the terms of A.C.I. 1,280, of 1919, which states that the wages of civil subordinates of the War Office will be based on local conditions; whether he is aware, that the wages of the civil subordinates of the War Office at York are not based on local conditions and that the wages of the civilian clerks of the War Office at York are very considerably lower than those of the clerks employed by firms and companies in the locality; and whether he will take immediate steps to remedy this state of things?

The policy of the War Department is governed generally by the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons, which is reproduced in the instructions referred to. If the wages paid to any classes of employés at York are not in accord with the Fair Wages Resolution, I shall be happy to look into the matter on the receipt of particulars. The pay of the civilian clerks referred to is already under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether a Report of the proceedings of a meeting of civil subordinates of the War Office in York was forwarded to the War Office on 5th March, 1919, for consideration; whether any decision has yet been reached on the questions raised by that Report; if so, whether such decision has been communicated to the parties concerned; and, if no such decision has been reached, what is the cause of the delay and when a decision may be expected?

The report was received and dealt with, and my information is to the effect that the committee has long ago been informed of the contents of the War Office reply.

In view of the fact that my information with regard to this matter is different from that of the right hon. Gentleman, could he tell me when the decision was conveyed to the people in York?

I think my hon. and learned Friend and I had better exchange confidences afterwards.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether questions in dispute between the War Office and their civil subordinates can be referred to a conciliation and arbitration board for their decision; and, if so, what is the method and procedure by which such questions can be so referred?

If the classes in question fall within the terms of reference of the Civil Service Arbitration Board, they may refer differences to that board. The Secretary of the board will give any information as to procedure on application. For other classes certain machinery has been provided by the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, regarding which application should be made to the Ministry of Labour.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the organisation of the General Staff and of the War Office, adopted in 1904 upon the recommendation of the War Office (Reconstitution) Committee, was substantially altered during the War, e.g., as regards the General Staff, by the creation of a directorate of military intelligence, and, as regards the other military Departments, by the transfer of duties to improvised Departments, it would not be desirable to ascertain by inquiry from the officers concerned, while the facts are fresh in their memory, whether, in their opinion, the revised organisation was superior to that recommended by Lord Esher's Committee and in every respect adapted to the needs of modern war?

These matters are engaging my attention, and I will, of course, avail myself of any and every source of information that presents itself.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Captain T. Stanley Smith applied for a wound gratuity in February, 1919; that he received no acknowledgment of his application till 29th April; that he has himself written again to the War Office; that his solicitors have written three times; that up to date the War Office has taken no decisive action; and when it is likely that this claim will be settled?

I understand my right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. and gallant Member on Saturday last regarding this case.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the indications of a monarchist and militarist reaction in Germay, the Allies will do all in their power to strengthen the hands of the existing democratic German Government?

I do not know in what way the hon. Member would suggest that the Allies should intervene in such a matter.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether a service of dirigible airships is being maintained between Berlin and Friedrichshafen; how many airships are so employed; and will he say whether the establishment and maintenance of a fleet of airships in Germany, whether by the state or private individuals, was a matter laid down in the Peace Treaty?

I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative; to the second part, that, so far as is known, only one airship—the Bodensee—has been so employed. As regards the third part, I would suggest that the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller in what circumstances the contract for the repair of thirty-three German ships interned in South American waters has been given to German instead of Canadian firms tendering for the work; what were the prices of the contracts, respectively; what will be the cost of towing the vessels to Germany; and whether the present arrangement will involve a year's delay?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for Eastbourne on the 27th November. The vessels which could not be properly repaired on the spot are being towed to German yards to be repaired, the expenses of towage and of repair being met by Germany. With regard to the last paragraph of the question, no delay such as is suggested should be occasioned, on the contrary, the work should be expedited by this arrangement, as the majority of the ships were built in Germany and the German shipbuilding firms are in possession of the drawing patterns, etc., of the damaged parts. I must again point out that even if it had been possible for any British or Colonial firm to have undertaken the repairs, the cost would have amounted to a very large sum of money, which would have had to be financed in cash by the British Government.

The hon. Gentleman says the cost of these repairs is to be borne by Germany. Do I understand, therefore, that the ships are to go back to Germany, and, further, are these steamers or sailing vessels?

Steamers—about 250,000 tons—and the cost of repairs and towing will be borne by Germany. The vessels will be handed over for allocation by the Reparation Commission.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a communication from the Monmouth County Council enclosing a report upon the relative values of margarine and butter; and whether he will consider altering the law so as to compel the makers of margarine to ensure that it shall contain the vitamines similar to those in natural butter, and to which much of its food value is due?

I have been asked to reply to this question. I have seen a copy of a resolution of the Monmouthshire County Council on this subject, and I should be glad to receive a copy of the report therein mentioned. The presence or absence of what are known as vitamines in various articles of food is at the present time the subject of active research. I am afraid, however, that the knowledge at present available is not at present sufficient to make the hon. Member's suggestion a practicable one.

asked the Food Controller whether, in view of the value of pigeons as food, he will consider the desirability of urging the revenue authorities to waive the Entertainments Tax on country shows held to improve the breed of pigeons?

I do not in all the circumstances consider that I should be justified in urging the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to make an exception from their general practice in favour of pigeon shows.

asked the Food Controller if the Ministry of Food, in charging the public high prices for the frozen meat imported from Australasia, has been prompted by an endeavour to amass a fund out of which the losses the Department is making on their purchase of American and home-killed meat is to be covered; whether he will consider the desirability of discontinuing the policy and taking steps to place the cheaper meat on the market at something nearer cost price, so that it may be at the disposal of the public who are not now willing or able to pay for the higher-grade home-grown meat; and whether, as the Ministry of Food have publicly stated that it is proposed to discontinue the control of meat very shortly, he will consent to give up the control of distribution forthwith, and so permit free trade in meat, retaining only the present maximum prices Order?

During the War and entirely as a result of war conditions the price of meat imported into this country was averaged, and it was sold sit a figure which was somewhat in excess of the cost of Australasian meat. No Government purchases were, however, made in North America, after the end of 1918; and since that date no imported meat has been bought by the Government at a price in excess of the figure at which it is sold in this country. The price of Australasian mutton and lamb was reduced by 2d. per lb. on the 10th November, and this meat is now being sold at its economic value. As regards the last part of the question, no restriction is now imposed on the quantity of meat which a registered customer may obtain from his butcher, but I do not consider that it is practicable to remove the control of distribution unless control is discontinued entirely. On this point I am now in consultation with the President of the Board of Trade and the President of the Board of Agriculture.

Is it not a fact that Australian meat bought at 5d. per lb. and landed here at 9d. is being sold at 1s. 10d. a lb.?

I think that statement does not differ from the admission I have made in my reply. That was the case during the War, when rationing was in existence and the meat was pooled and sold at a flat price, but we are coming back to economic conditions.

Therefore, will not the right hon. Gentleman allow people to buy cheap meat if they require it, and at economic prices, and not have to pay 1s. 10d. a lb.?

That involves the whole question of control, and I am, in conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade and Board of Agriculture, considering whether we shall not decontrol.

Is it not a fact that there has been a loss of something like £5,000,000?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to time Board of Agriculture if he is aware of the impossibility of obtaining basic slag of a higher percentage of total phosphates than 24; and whether, in view of the inferior quality, he will make arrangements in order that it may be possible for agriculturists to obtain slag of a pre-war standard?

My hon. Friend has been misinformed. It is quite possible to obtain basic slag of a higher percentage of total phosphates than 24 per cent. During the five months, ending 31st October, 1919, the total deliveries of basic slag containing upwards of 24 per cent. total phosphates amounted to 66,200 tons. The real cause of any shortage that may exist is the greatly increased demand. The production of high-grade slag is not directly dependent on the agricultural demand, but is primarily a question of steel works practice. Over this practice the Board have no control.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me where I can get it?

If my hon. Friend will write me, I will endeavour to direct him into the proper direction.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if it is the intention of the Government to appoint a Select Committee, with power to send for witnesses and papers, to report on the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill before the Committee stage of that Bill, as was done in the case of the Government of India Bill?

The Government are not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is the intention of the Government to leave the Second Reading of the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill to the free vote of the House?

The answer is in the negative.

On a point of Order. Does not the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill, in effect, impose taxes, though they are called fines and fees? Ought it not, therefore, to originate in Committee of Ways and Means? Does not the Bill, in effect, empower someone other than Parliament to levy taxes, and under the common law of Parliament is not the Committee of Ways and Means the only body which can impose a tax? It is not necessary to call attention to the decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means on the 2nd of July, which lays that down. It is the well-known common law of Parliament. Will not the Bill, in effect, create taxes the proceeds of which have not been demanded by the Crown for the public service and have not been granted by the Commons in response to that demand? May I make the following observations? This question of the imposition of taxation is, of course, one of the most important parts of our constitutional machinery, and one of the most delicate parts of that machinery. For that reason it has always been hedged around by a variety of safeguards which I apprehend, it is of the utmost importance should be preserved. I submit that among those safeguards is the rule that no tax should be imposed without the special procedure indicated in my question. This is not a charge on the public which will afterwards become the subject of a tax, if necessary, but it is the actual imposition of a tax. Where it is the actual imposition of a tax, I submit that no tax has ever been imposed except with a prior Resolution; no Bill to impose a tax has ever been considered by this House except on a prior Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. I submit, secondly, that it is a fundamental rule that this House doss not delegate its power of taxation; and, thirdly, that no tax may be raised except to meet actual financial need. If these two last principles are to be infringed it ought to be done only by the most solemn procedure of this House, which has always been a Resolution first and a Bill following the Resolution. For these very short reasons I submit that this Bill is out of order.

Before you give a ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I ask two questions? The first is whether, in view of the fact that by the common law of Parliament no taxation can be imposed unless it is imposed to meet the necessity and the financial needs of the year, and whether as those financial needs of the year are voted by the House in the Finance Bill, and as the Finance Bill in this House has already been passed, if taxation is imposed will not a new Finance Bill be required? The second question is whether this Bill, as far as Clause 17 is concerned, does not impose taxation? It is true that it says certain things are to be prohibited, but it goes on to say that that prohibition need not take place if people pay in order to be let off. The second part deals with the expenditure of money. Is it possible to combine in one Bill a part which imposes taxation and which should originate in Committee of Ways and Means, and another part imposing expenditure which should originate in Committee of the Whole House?

I am obliged to the Noble Lord for having given me notice of the question. I have, therefore, been in a position to prepare a considered reply. I will take the first two questions together. For the purpose of Second Reading, to which alone my attention is now being given, I have to look at the Bill without seeing the Clauses in italics. Being in italics, they are supposed not to be there, and I look upon them as blank spaces to be filled in later. I have to ask myself whether the Bill can stand without them. I think so, and to the first question my answer is that the Bill is one designed in the exceptional circumstances of the day, in respect of foreign exchanges, to regulate and stabilise the industries of this country by forbidding certain exports and imports, and other purposes with the same object. The main purpose of the Bill is to exclude dumped goods and goods competing with key industries, and the imposition of charges in the nature of Import Duties is incidental to the adoption of such a policy. The Bill, therefore, need not originate in Committee of Ways and Means.

(2). The second point is whether it requires a Resolution in Ways and Means to impose the fines for importation and sale under Clauses 3 and 4: and fees under Clause 10. My answer is yes. These fines, being in the nature of Import Duties, require Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means.

(3). The third question is whether the House of Commons can divest itself of the responsibility of fixing the rates and amounts of these fines and fees and hand that duty over to an outside body such as a Trade Regulation Committee. It has been part of the unwritten law of Parliament that the goods upon which and the rates at which taxes are to be levied shall be fixed and determined by the House of Commons itself. I am not prepared to say that the House cannot delegate that power to some other body such as the Trade Regulation Committee. I will only say that at present I am not aware of any similar case. It may be urged that if Parliament is desirous of altering its practice it should be done in some definite, specific and formal manner, and not a mere adjunct to other proposals, just as when we desire to alter our common law we do so by passing a Statute for that express purpose. In this connection I might refer the House to a recent ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means on 2nd July, 1917, when he declined to countenance any departure from the rule that the authority to impose taxation is the Committee of Ways and Means. I understand, also, that when it was proposed that a luxury tax should be imposed on articles, and at rates, to be fixed by a Select Committee, the Chairman of Ways and Means took a similar objection and declined to admit the proposal. But, upon the assumption—an assumption which I am bound to make —that the House of Commons desires to impose these fines and fees, which, owing to the nature of the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, may vary from week to week, or, at all events, from month to month, how can it be done? It is evidently impossible to bring in a Bill ever, month to deal with a fresh situation. It seems to me to be reasonable to fix either certain limits, or a ratio which the fine is to bear to the cost of the article, and to give to some authority the duty of fixing the price and applying the-ratio or determining the exact figure of the fine, or in some similar fashion. As to the question whether the proceeds of these taxes have been demanded by the Crown for the service of the year, in my view that point does not arise at this stage, because, for the purpose of Second Reading, there is no such proposal in the Bill.

I am very much obliged for that answer. May I put this question? I do not know whether it is beyond the function of the Chair. When it is desired to make a great departure in our constitutional practice has it not always been the practice to proceed first by Resolution, and, after the Resolution has been passed, to bring in a Bill? If I recollect rightly, that was the practice on questions of franchise, and in any questions of great moment, I submit, that has always been the practice. Since you have been good enough to tell us that this provides for an entirely new departure in our taxing machinery, something which the House has never seen before, I submit that it would have been more regular, and therefore more proper, for the Government to have proceeded by Resolution in the first instance, rather than by introducing the Bill without a Resolution.

I know that the system of starting by Resolution was one that obtained at one time, and that it was very frequently adopted, but of late years it has not been so often adopted. I think the tendency of the House in late years, certainly during the last fifteen or twenty years, has been to proceed directly with Bills and not to found them on a Resolution.

May I respectfully say that I entirely agree? But where you have an entirely exceptional measure, then, I submit, the old practice is the proper one to resort to, because it is the most formal way in which this House can proceed to make alterations in the law.

For the purpose of making it clear to one or two Members like myself who would wish to have a very clear view on this most important question, may I ask whether I am correct in deducing from your ruling that you regard this Bill simply as an ordinary Bill containing Clauses in italics which, therefore, cannot be regarded by you on Second Reading, but which will require at some time or other a Money Resolution; that you do not regard this as a Finance Bill in the recognised and proper acceptance of the term; that you do not differentiate it at all from, say, a Land Bill for Scotland, which requires money to back it, or any other Bill of that kind, but that it simply requires a Money Resolution?

I do not consider it needs a Money Resolution in the ordinary sense. There is one Clause which does require it, and that is Clause 17, I think. That will require a Money Resolution in the ordinary sense of the term. I think that the whole Bill hangs together with one purpose. The so-called taxation purposes are incidental and adjuncts to that.

When the Second Reading has been obtained, will it not be necessary to have a Finance Bill, so that the various taxes may be confirmed by this House?

In a Finance Bill it would be necessary to set up a Committee of Ways and Means for the purpose of taking certain Resolutions in Ways and Means. I should not like to commit myself as to whether those Resolutions would require an Instruction or not. Possibly it might require an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they should have power to embody those Resolutions in the Bill.

Is it not the constitutional practice to found such Bills upon Resolutions in this House, and is this not an analogous case to many which we have had?

I do not deny that sometimes legislation is founded on Resolution. I rather think that the Representation of the People Bill was founded upon simply one general Resolution. I am not quite sure about that, and all I say is that it can be done both ways. It is not for me to say which way should be adopted.

Is it your opinion, since this Money Resolution is one which, you have pointed out, must arise in Com- mittee of Ways and Means, that this Bill therefore is a Bill which will have to be considered by Committee of the Whole House, and not go upstairs?

I think that is a matter for the House to decide.