ceedings against the prison authorities were ultimately unsuccessful. Though very bitter feeling was aroused by the action of the Government among some advanced members of the Liberal and Labour parties, it cannot be said that their views were shared by the general public, or that the Suffragist cause gained anything by the disorders; indeed, the Suffragists who tried to disturb Mr. Churchill's meeting at Abernethy on October 16 were pelted and forced to desist. From these the more moderate Suffragist organisations held aloof; and a crowded meeting in the Free Trade Hall at Manchester on October 4, summoned to debate the question and presided over by Bishop Welldon, adopted a resolution in favour of women suffrage. The adjournment of the Commons from October 8 to October 18 gave a welcome respite in the political struggle. The step was taken to give members an opportunity to consider fresh amendments to the Finance Bill; but it was regarded by the Unionists less as a concession than as an indication that the Government realised the entanglements and difficulties set up for them by their promises of concessions during the debates on the Bill. CHAPTER V. THE PEERS AND THE FINANCE BILL. THE brief recess permitted to the Commons in no degree diminished the activity of political debate. The death of Dr. Cooper, the Liberal member for Bermondsey, owing chiefly to over-exertion caused by his attendance at the Budget debates, necessitated a bye-election which would clearly be keenly contested; and the House of Lords, on October 12, further amended the Irish Land Bill by restricting compulsory purchase-notably by a provision, inserted by 106 to 31, permitting it only when the Judicial Commissioner and two Estates Commissioners were satisfied, after inquiry, that the land needed could not be obtained otherwise. The Bill passed its third reading without a division, after a brief debate. Next day, the House so altered the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill that its withdrawal by the Government became certain. The Bill aimed at abolishing the existing custom binding a tenant to agree to take a dwelling-house four months before entry and to stay in the house a year after entry. It reduced the period for agreement to sixty days; it provided that notice might be given by landlord or tenant to terminate the tenancy on the day on which the next payment of rent fell due; and it extended the principle of compounding for rates. Attempts had been made by Opposition members (Aug. 20) to amend it in the Commons; the Lords limited it to small houses in burghs of from 10l. to 201. in yearly value, according to the population of the burgh, and, among other changes, struck out the extension of compounding. Its title was accordingly changed to "The Small Dwelling-Houses in Burghs (Scotland) Letting and Rating Bill." The Development Bill was read a second time on October 14 after a reception which, though favourable on the whole, presaged amendment in Committee. In the Commons, just a week earlier, on the Report Stage, Opposition members had unsuccessfully moved amendments, (1) to secure more Parliamentary control over the Development Commission by abolishing the annual grant of 500,000l. out of the Consolidated Fund; (2) to limit the amounts payable in a year to England, Scotland and Ireland respectively to 80, 11 and 9 per cent. of the total sum advanced; (3) to secure greater independence for the Commissioners; (4) to restrict the number of the members of the Road Board to five; (5) to deprive the Board of power to construct new roads. The Bill had then been read a third time. Outside Parliament, while the rejection or amendment of the Finance Bill was strongly deprecated by the Old Whig and Free Trade Unionist Edinburgh Review, a case was being made for rejection, particularly by two independent Unionist Peers, Lord Curzon of Kedleston and Viscount Milner. The former, speaking at Leeds on October 15, after attacking the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a demagogue, said that in view of the amendments, numbering 250 or thereabouts, still awaiting consideration, the Lords had not made up their minds. But they would not be swayed by selfish considerations, nor were they eager for a constitutional conflict. The Constitution was unwritten; the law as to privilege was determined for each House by resolutions of its own, which had not the validity of statute law, though their strength might be increased by tacit acceptance over a long period. The Lords had only waived, and never abandoned, the right to amend a Finance Bill; the right of rejection they had never even waived. They might reject the Bill as a case of tacking-a case in which Mr. Gladstone in 1861 had admitted that rejection might be legitimate; or as mischievous; or as based on principles which made it necessary to refer it to the people. Finally, he insisted that the social problem demanded Tariff Reform. A similar line was taken by Lord Milner at Ealing (Oct. 19). He himself, he said, had been led to reject Free Trade by his practical experience; the worst feature of the Budget was that it was intended to " side-track Tariff Reform, which lay at the root of social reform. He denounced the confusion caused in the national finances by the "vote-catching" Government amendments to the Finance Bill, which was being used for purposes for which Finance Bills were not designed. He could not say what the House of Lords would do; it was a very independent body, but their right of rejection was unquestionable. The stock charges against the Lords were claptrap, and rejection would not cause "financial chaos." The Opposition would readily legalise the taxes necessary for revenue. Meanwhile Mr. Churchill, at Abernethy (Oct. 16), had described "taxing the foreigner" as "the gospel of quacks and the creed of gulls"; and had declared that the choice was between taxing wages and taxing wealth. Fears as to Liberal policy in the future, however, were leading to conspicuous withdrawals from the party. Sir Alfred Pease had seceded in September; he was now followed, though only so far as financial policy was concerned, by Lord Joicey, who had long sat in the Commons as a Liberal, and whose peerage had been conferred under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Ministry in 1906. When the House of Commons reassembled on Monday, October 18, the Report Stage of the London Elections Bill was disposed of, after various unsuccessful attempts to delay or destroy the measure on the part of Opposition members, the arguments, however, being a repetition of those used at the second reading (p. 128). The third reading was then carried after the defeat of a "reasoned amendment" moved by Sir Henry Kimber by 161 to 29. The next day the Report Stage of the Finance Bill began. An unsuccessful attempt was made to obtain the recommittal of the Bill in respect of the land clauses by Mr. W. Rutherford (U., West Derby, Liverpool) on the ground that there were 139 new Government amendments to these clauses, several raising new points; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that the amendments were substantial, and the proposal was rejected by 180 to 80. A new clause drawn by the advisers of the Ecclesiastical Commission was then moved by Mr. Stuart-Wortley (U., Hallam, Sheffield) permitting certain ecclesiastical personages liable to increment duty on land attached to their offices to borrow the money from Queen Anne's Bounty; the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, maintained that their interests had been already safeguarded, and the clause was rejected by 196 to 74. Mr. Harold Cox then moved to omit Clause 1, establishing the increment duty; and this duty was then discussed anew, two Liberals, Mr. Bertram (Hitchin, Herts) and Mr. Ridsdale (Brighton) speaking against it. The latter argued that this duty plus estate duty, settlement duty, and succession duty if the land passed to a stranger, might reach 47 per cent. of the value of the property. This was idealistic taxation, and in private life idealist finance led to the workhouse. The amendment was rejected by 207 to 89. So (by rather larger majorities) were other amendments, postponing for a year the date from which increment should be calculated, and exempting land purchased by development. The next five clauses were then passed, Opposition amendments being rejected by large majorities; but several clauses were considerably altered at the instance of the Government. Of the unsuccessful attempts at amendment of the land clauses on October 21-23, we may mention attempts (1) to protect agricultural land or its purely agricultural value from increment duty; these received considerable Liberal support; P (2) to exempt recreation grounds granted by individuals from increment duty; (3) to limit the reversion duty to leases entered into after April 30, 1909, which would have made it unproductive till nearly the middle of the century; (4) to postpone the undeveloped land duty until after the completion of the general valuation of land; (5) to exempt market gardens from it; (6) to extend the exemption from it of land laid out for building with roads or sewers to land provided with railway sidings, tramways, or quays; (7) to reduce the increment duty when chargeable on undeveloped land by allowing deduction of the undeveloped land duty already paid on it.-Mr. J. M. Henderson (L., Aberdeenshire, W.), the mover, strongly condemning the proposed tax on undeveloped land. Attempts were also made in vain to amend the mineral rights duty by exempting owners developing their own minerals and by adding sandstone, marl and granite to the free list. An amendment (Oct. 22) securing the promoters of "garden cities" the whole increment arising from their undertakings, moved and seconded by Liberals, was likewise rejected after an ironical speech from Mr. Balfour, who held up the garden city companies, not the dukes, as "the real bloodsuckers." Several concessions, however, had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the two and a half days' debate on the land clauses. When the supplemental land clauses had been partly dealt with and the time for adjournment reached, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in accordance with a promise, gave a revised estimate of revenue for the current financial year (Oct. 22). The figures are best given in the form of the official table :REVISED ESTIMATES OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEAR 1909-10. I. REVENUE. (a) Estimated effect of alterations in respect of the new taxes: Land Value Duties Increment Value Duty Undeveloped Land Duty : Increase (+) or Decrease (-) in Yield of Tax. - £25,000 - 25,000 - £50,000 (b) Estimated effect of concession in respect of Income Tax :- (c) Revised estimates apart from alterations and concessions, including al- Estate, etc., Duties - £300,000 + £1,300,000 + 200,000 +300,000 - 25,000 -800,000 £975,000 II. EXPENDITURE. Grant of half Land Value Duties to Local Authorities III. REVISED BALANCE-SHEET. Total estimated revenue on the basis of the original proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer Add +£300,000 +200,000 + £500,000 £162,590,000 75,000 Total Estimated Expenditure as originally proposed (H. of C. 121 of 1909) £162,102,000 Grant to Local Authorities of one-half the proceeds of Land Value 300,000 Expenses of Land Valuation (£250,000, less £50,000 originally estimated) 200,000 Supplementary Estimates (H. of C. Paper of 1909) (£467,000, less £100,000 provided for in the Budget) 367,000 £162,969,000 Deduct Proposed Reduction of Fixed Debt Charge from £25,000,000 to £24,500,000 500,000 Balance £162,469,000 371,000 £162,840,000 In his statement, Mr. Lloyd-George mentioned that the yield of the death duties had improved, and the Post Office and stamps had done better, the latter from increased business on the Stock Exchange. The consumption of whisky had decreased in |