death duties, Lord St. Aldwyn had recommended such a tax. The tax on undeveloped land worked out at about 7s. per acre; the royalties and wayleaves, in a certain colliery, came to 1s. 2d. per ton, adding two hours to the miners' daily task. Let the owners spared. a ton for pensions. Let the Opposition name an alternative method of raising 13,000,000l. In the House, Mr. Bottomley alone had suggested alternatives (p. 132); privately, he himself received such suggestions as taxes on cats and on bachelors. After defending old-age pensions, he referred to the boast that the flag of England had not been lowered for centuries. "Let it also be its pride that under that flag no honest labour is requited with beggary. It is for that reason we are raising the money."

Later, Sir Charles Dilke contested the view that taxation determined the export of capital, and suggested that the new land taxes should be divided between the State and local authorities, and next day, after the presentation of a petition against the Bill at the Bar of the House by the Lord Mayor and representatives of the Dublin Corporation, an elaborate attack on the measure by Mr. Cave (U., Kingston, Surrey) and some adverse criticism by Mr. Lough (L., Islington, W.) and Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Balfour spoke. He began by expressing his belief that the Irish did not intend seriously to embarrass the Government, and then repeated the complaint that revenue was being provided in excess of present needs for vague social schemes. The Chancellor's amusing speech had ignored all criticisms. The indirect taxation proposed fell, not on every class, but on Scotsmen, Irishmen and smokers. He admitted that graduation. was necessary in regard to the higher incomes, and resented the charge that the Budget was opposed by rich people seeking to shift their burdens. But the super-tax and the death duties were driving securities abroad by millions. Formerly foreigners used to send their securities to London for safety, now these were going to Belgium, Holland, and the United States; there was no income tax in Canada or India, and in India rival industries to our staple industries would be fed by British capital. The income tax, too, would now be associated with inquisition, and the edge of a great fiscal instrument blunted with over-use. The Opposition objected to the new licence duties, whether they were going to ruin the trade or endow it. As to agricultural land the Chancellor's statements showed great fairness; but there were five different meanings of the term site value, and this part of the Bill was bewildering. The tax on undeveloped land had been dealt with by the Lord Advocate, a convinced follower of Henry George-a writer who was not a Socialist, but "something much more foolish "--but his only reason for it was that land could not run away. If its object was to drive land into the market, was that the aim with regard to ungotten minerals? Would building villas with gardens relieve workingclass overcrowding? The Commissions which had recom

mended this tax contemplated its use for relief of rates. Mining royalties had nothing to do with wages. The increment duty was least justifiable on land, because increment was there most difficult to establish. Valuers, of course, would value anything, "even your immortal soul," but their valuations were mere shots in the dark. Increment on stocks could be estimated in a moment. The House had been flooded with bad metaphysics. Had the present community made the value of the land? The value of the land of Glasgow had been made by commerce, to which West Indian slaves and the world at large contributed. What was the title of the proposed heirs? To burden one special kind of property was to destroy confidence. Supposing you put a super-tax on every red-haired man with 10,000l. a year, he might naturally complain that his red hair marked him for taxation. The Budget was absolutely inconsistent with the common doctrines of financial honesty.

Mr. Asquith made a rather brief reply. Was every commodity, he asked, to be taxed in order to get equality of indirect taxation? All the necessaries of life were taxed already, except bread; and of the whisky drunk, 22,000,000 gallons were consumed in England, 6,750,000 in Scotland, and 3,750,000 in Ireland. Mr. Balfour had admitted graduation of income tax, and graduation was impossible without imposition. He did not know, and he was not sure if Mr. Balfour knew, whether the export of securities meant sale here and reinvestment abroad, or export of the securities for safe custody; but a resident in Great Britain would pay income tax on his income wherever it was made. Dealing with Mr. Austen Chamberlain's objection that the Budget violated the canons of Free Trade finance, he said that Free Trade taxation aimed solely at bringing in revenue, Protective taxation at benefiting private interests likewise; when a tax did not do this latter, there was no reason why it should not be chosen for its social or moral effects. Mr. Gladstone had laid this principle down repeatedly. If the liquor trade did not shift its burden on to the consumer, the tax might be transferred from the seller to the commodity. The charge of vindictiveness had been swept away by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was admitted by Mr. Balfour that the Government meant to deal fairly with the owners of agricultural land. Besides, the definition of site value credited the agricultural owner with the cost of improvements. As to the charge that the Budget was socialistic, exemptions and abatements of income tax, free education, and many other socialistic measures, had been granted by one or other political party. As to the undeveloped land duty, the object of the Budget was to secure that all land should be taxed at its proper value, and Lord St. Aldwyn had suggested an increment tax as a substitute for death duties, not for rating. Most land in a country like ours was subject to a steady increase in value, unforeseen when acquired by the owners or their

predecessors in title, and it was just that the man who reaped the advantage should from time to time pay toll to the State. In 1907 and 1908 they had had reasoned amendments to the Finance Bill recommending a broadening of the basis of taxation; had the alternative Tariff Reform Budget been found safer on the platform than in the House? Once again: Where was the money required to come from? The Government provided it from sources which could afford it, without fining wealth, hampering industry, or trenching on the necessaries and simpler comforts of the daily life of the people.

After other speeches, Mr. Winston Churchill closed the debate. He ridiculed the neglect of the Opposition to propose to "tax the foreigner "; they knew their plans would not raise enough money. The Ministerial proposals had not interfered with trade, credit, or the price of stocks; and he contrasted the strong financial position of Great Britain with that of other European nations. After Mr. Balfour's speech, both sides were clearly agreed on a generous provision for the service of the State, including national defence and social reform, and agreed also that the main burden should be fairly apportioned to ability to pay. This would make for national unity and demonstrate the great financial strength of the British Empire.

Sixty-two

The amendment was rejected by 366 to 209. Nationalists voted in the minority. There was no cross voting. Five Unionists, five Labour members, and twenty-eight Liberals were absent unpaired, but several of the last named were with the clerical deputation in Germany.

But this manifestation of the opinion of the House of Commons only stimulated the opposition outside. A "Budget Protest League," of which a good deal was heard some months later, was formed under the presidency of Mr. Walter Long; a separate movement against the Bill on the part of all those interested in land was also announced; the Incorporated Law Society formally declared that the land taxes would be unjust and unworkable, and the Earl of Onslow gave an example of the attitude towards them of landowners by announcing the sale of parts of his Surrey estate. There were signs of a Liberal "cave against them likewise in the Commons; but though about thirty Liberal members joined in a deputation to the Prime Minister (June 17) the interview was friendly and nothing came of the movement. Deputations, notably from the Irish licensed trades and Oxford and Cambridge Universities, waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and received assurances of sympathy and promises of consideration. Clearly the claims of the Bill would dominate the rest of the session. The Welsh Disestablishment Bill was quietly dropped after private negotiations with the Welsh members, on the understanding that it should have first place in 1910. This decision was formally communicated to the House on June 15, and during the ceremony of "calling a truce" at the Eisteddfod, performed in Kensington

Gardens on the morning of that day, there was a significant demonstration. To the question put in Welsh by the Archdruid "Is it peace?" the majority of the Welsh members of Parliament present returned an emphatic affirmative, Mr. Ellis Griffith, the leader of a dissentient minority, sorrowfully shaking his head. Moreover, on the same evening "guillotines" were set up for the Housing and Town Planning Bill—which, as Mr. Asquith pointed out, had been extensively discussed by a Standing Committee in 1908-and for the Irish Land Bill. For the former Bill two days were allowed for Committee and one for Report and third reading; for the latter, eight days for Committee, two for Report and one for third reading, or eleven days as compared with twelve days taken by the corresponding stages of the Land Bill of 1903. Mr. F. E. Smith moved an amendment declining to allot further time to measures which could not be adequately discussed; and later, Lord Robert Cecil urged the Prime Minister to appoint a Committee to devise some alternative for a process which, he said, was destroying the efficiency and dignity of the House. He himself favoured an extension of the Grand Committee system, his prejudices against it having been removed by experience. Mr. Asquith admitted the dangers of the guillotine, but stated that his efforts to institute a Committee for the allocation of time to important Bills had been, so far, unsuccessful; and later Mr. Balfour in opposing the motion, contended that such allocation should rest solely with the Ministry. There were some Liberal protests against the proposed guillotine, and some opposition by two Welsh members as a protest against the treatment of Welsh Disestablishment; but Mr. F. E. Smith's amendment was rejected by 290 to 116, and the allotment for the Housing Bill carried by 257 to 115. To the proposal respecting the Irish Land Bill a condemnatory amendment was moved by Mr. Ashley (U., Blackpool, Lancs); on the other hand, Mr. Dillon declared that the Ulster members were conspiring to destroy the Bill, and was grateful for the amount of time given. Eventually the amendment was negatived by 288 to 86, and the resolution carried by 284 to 80. It was amended, however, by omitting a provision allowing clauses to which no amendment had been proposed to be put en bloc to the vote.

The rest of the week was occupied by social questions. The Home Office Vote on Monday, June 14, led to the usual miscellaneous discussion on various details of social and industrial life. Sir Charles Dilke called attention to the mortality among the children of mothers employed in factories, to the illegal employment of children in cleaning machinery, which had recently led to two deaths, and to the early age at which many children were sent to work,-in Belfast, even under twelve. He urged that the Children Employment Act, which was more stringent than the Factory Acts, should be put in force. Various alleged defects in factory inspection were touched on by Labour

members, and the other points raised were connected with the Vivisection Act, the Aliens Act, the weekly rest day promised earlier in the afternoon for the Metropolitan Police, and the provision for cases of accident within the Metropolitan Police District. Mr. Gladstone, Home Secretary, promised inquiry on the last-named subject, and mentioned that the weekly rest day would cost 150,000l. and require an addition of 1,400 men to the Police. Circulars had been issued recommending that fuller use should be made by courts of the power of expelling undesirable aliens. He deprecated attacks on the vivisection inspectors, and promised inquiry into child labour. He could

not give hope of the appointment of more inspectors, but thought employers and workmen between them might arrange to enforce the law which was for their mutual benefit. The Home Office had called attention to the diseases produced by cardstripping and grinding, and to the need of adopting devices to counteract the danger. It had prosecuted in 468 cases of "time-cribbing," i.e., starting work too soon and so cutting down the dinner-hour, and had obtained convictions in nearly all. An amendment of the Lunacy Law was needed. commended the work of the departmental inspectors.

He

Mr. MacNeill (N., Donegal, W.) attacked the punishment of flogging and the treatment of the women suffragists, though they were political offenders; and Mr. Claude Hay (U., Hoxton, Shoreditch) moved a reduction of the vote to emphasise a protest against the administration of the Aliens Act. He was supported by Mr. Guinness (Haggerston). Mr. Herbert Samuel, Under-Secretary for the Home Office, declared that the questions raised as to aliens had been answered in February (p. 27), and that the suffragists were kept apart from ordinary criminals. The reduction of the vote was negatived by 140 to 20, and the vote was agreed to.

Subjects of a kindred character were dealt with in the debate on the vote for the Local Government Board on Thursday, June 17. A reduction was moved, but not pressed, by Lord Edmund Talbot (U., Chichester, Sussex) as a protest against the continued keeping of children in workhouses, instead of boarding them out; but Mr. Long (who paid a very high compliment to Mr. John Burns's administration) and Mr. Crooks stated that boarding out was very unsatisfactory in many cases, and the latter incidentally deprecated breaking up the families of widows by the refusal of outdoor relief, and suggested the transfer of Poor Law children to the Education Department. Mr. Keir Hardie, after making some complaints against the Local Government Board asked as to the provision to meet unemployment in the coming winter. Among other questions raised were the steps taken against tuberculosis and the sale of spurious butter -a specially Irish grievance.

Mr. Burns, in a sympathetic reply, gave figures showing that the department was spending liberally on Poor Law