Commons Sitting of 13 August 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at Twelve of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Risca Urban District Council Bill [Lords]— Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Torquay and Paignton Tramways Bill [Lords]—Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
North-Eastern Railway [Lords] (by order) —Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
Shrewsbury Corporation Bill [Lords]— Ordered, That Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly considered, as amended.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Marriages Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill— Read the third time, and passed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords]—As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]—As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords] —As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Adjournment,—Resolved, "That the House on its rising to-day do adjourn until Monday next."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (FINANCE BILL COMMITTEE).
Resolved, "That the proceedings on Clause 14 of the Finance Bill be not interrupted this day at Five o'clock or at half-past Five, under the Standing Orders
822
relating to the Sittings of the House, and, when that Clause has been disposed of and Progress shall be reported, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put, if Progress is reported after Five o'clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA TION) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
Mr. HUGH BARRIE: In rising to call attention to the action of the Postmaster-General in the appointment he made to a sub-postmastership in Ballintoy, county Antrim, I venture to think the House will recognise I am only discharging a public duty, however unpleasant it may be. I think it is only right to say that in all other matters with which I am brought into contact with the Postmaster-General I have invariably found him ready and willing to listen to any suggestion for improvement of the Service in my own Constituency, and it is therefore with all the greater regret I have to say in this matter that I have respectfully to submit that he has perpetrated a gross injustice on an individual and has at the same time broken, with full knowledge, two important rules of his Department.
Towards the end of January last the Sub-Postmaster of Ballintoy, Mr. Donnelley, an old and trusted servant of the Post Office for 32 years, died, and a vacancy took place. It transpired that his daughter had been in full charge of the place for a period of no less than 18 years, and immediately upon Mr. Donnelley's death the Belfast Superintendent of the Post Office placed Miss Donnelley in full charge of the business, which was a tribute to the record that Miss Donnelley had as a postal official. I understand the usual custom of the Department is that when a vacancy takes place an official from one of the larger towns is sent down and placed in complete charge until a successor is appointed to the vacancy. In this case such was the confidence of the local Superintendent in Miss Donnelley that she was at once placed in full charge. The next step was

823
an advertisement of the vacancy, and I desire to call the attention of the House to the wording of this advertisement. I think it has an important bearing upon what has since transpired. The terms of the advertisement are as follows:—
"Political influence must not be sought; the appointment will be made solely with a view to the efficiency of the Service, and on an impartial comparison of the qualifications of the different Candidates."
The candidates were, first Miss Donnelley, an expert postal servant o£ 18 years' standing, and the owner of the premises specially built a few years ago for postal purposes in this growing district; the second candidate was Mrs. Kelly, who I understand is the wife of a small farmer and who knows absolutely nothing about Post Office business. The whole community expected Miss Donnelley would be appointed as a matter of course. She never thought of asking anyone to use political influence on her behalf, not deeming it necessary. Miss Donnelley was, however, puzzled a little at the delay in receiving her appointment, but she went on discharging the duty without complaint and to the entire satisfaction of the Department. Mrs. Kelly, the second applicant, had never dreamed of enjoying the honour of entering the Postal service until her clerical adviser called upon her and insisted that she should apply. On the same reverend gentleman's demand the sitting Member for the Constituency backed her nomination. All this was done very quietly, and it was with astonishment, on April 26th, Miss Donnelley received intimation that Mrs. Kelly had been appointed. It was rather a cool request in the circumstances, but Miss Donnelley was asked by the official of the Department who called upon her and informed her of Mrs. Kelly's appointment to continue the duties of the office until Mrs. Kelly had fitted up a premises for a pest office. Miss Donnelley consented to do so. And now comes one of the most remarkable facts in this strange transaction. After Mrs. Kelly had made efforts to obtain a qualified assistant and had employed a tradesman to equip the premises of which she was apparently the tenant, it transpired that she was not the tenant of the premises, and in great haste the Department officials had to go down to Ballintoy and declare that Mrs. Kelly was not qualified according to the regulations. The Postmaster-General, across the floor of the
824
House, in answer to a question on Monday, said it was not collect to say that Mrs. Kelly had ever been appointed, but the fact that Miss Donnelley was asked to continue to discharge the duties until Mrs. Kelly could have the premises prepared upsets that statement, and I should be glad to hear the Postmaster-General's explanation as to why he came to state to this House, apparently, what is in contradiction of the facts. What becomes of the terms of the advertisement in face of appointing an admittedly unqualified person? What becomes of the impartial investigation of all the qualifications of the applicants? After this remarkable circumstance, one would have expected that the Postmaster-General would at once have admitted his mistake and appointed Miss Donnelley as the only qualified candidate, and put her in full charge of the office. No, that would not suit the clerical dictation under which the Postmaster-General has been acting. This clerical gentleman determined, that whoever might be the future postmistress it must not be Miss Donnelley; and the right hon. Gentleman, instead of at once proceeding to make this appointment of the only qualified candidate before him, allowed additional delay to take place, which was most extraordinary in the circumstances, and he permitted this local reverend gentleman to make a fresh nomination. To the surprise of everyone concerned, this second nomination received the approval of the Postmaster-General, and a few weeks later, O'Callaghan, who conducts a local public-house, was duly appointed, and Miss Donnelley was passed over for the second time. On Monday last, the Postmaster-General described Mr. O'Callaghan as the proprietor of a good-class hotel. I fancy Mr. O'Callaghan would smile when he read this description of his humble abode; and I was not surprised when the hon. Member for Westmoreland (Mr. Leif Jones), with that zeal for temperance reform which we all so greatly admire, inquired if the Postmaster-General had insisted upon a second entrance being made to this public-house for the transaction of postal business. The Postmaster-General evidently felt that the question was inappropriate, and he asked that notice should be given of it.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I did not say that. What I did say was that it would be a condition of the appointment that there should be a separate entrance.
Mr. BARRIE: I have the OFFICIAL REPORT before me.
Mr. BUXTON: It is wrong.
Mr. BARRIE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the OFFICIAL REPORT is wrong?
Mr. LEIF JONES: Perhaps I may be allowed to confirm what the Postmaster-General has said. I noticed that the OFFICIAL REPORT was wrong. What I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say was that it would be a condition when the transaction was completed that there should be a separate entrance.
Mr. BARRIE: The hon. Member did not ask for such information as that. I will read to the House exactly what is recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT:—
"Mr. LEIF JONES: Is there a separate entrance to the post office, so that people need not pass through the public-house?
"Mr. BUXTON: I must have notice of that question."
Mr. BUXTON: I did not say that. I said there would be a separate entrance. Not only did I say that in answer to the supplementary question, but at the end of my answer to the main question I said, "Care has been taken that persons approaching the post office shall not pass through, or near, the premises where drink is sold."
Mr. SPEAKER: If Ministers and hon. Members would address the Chair, instead of each other and the Bar, they would have a better chance of being heard by the Official Reporters.
Mr. BARRIE: If the hon. Member was so satisfied with the answer which the Postmaster-General gave him, why did he proceed to put another question on the subject. Evidently the answer of the right hon. Gentleman had not the value which he now seeks to place upon it. This post-office is in a very small building. I understand that a second entrance is being made into the bar of this public-house leading into the dining-room attached to the bar, and no stipulation has been made by the Postmaster-General that the communication between the dining-room and the bar is to be closed up. And so we have this strange development, that where we have a qualified postal official of 18 years' service offering to accept this appointment the Postmaster-General prefers to yield to local clerical dictation by appointing one of the small publicans in this village. The result is that we shall have children who
826
have occasion to go to this post office coming in open contact with the public-house bar; the old age pensions will be paid on one side of the room and I regret to say that probably a part of those pensions will be left in another form in the public-house before the recipients of those pensions retire from the premises. I regret that it is necessary to bring this matter before the House, but I do it only from a sense of public duty. If the Postmaster-General bad been anxious to avoid yielding to this clerical dictation, he could have had at least half a dozen suitable applications from people in the village, who are in no way connected with the liquor trade. We understand that in this practically Protestant village the local Roman Catholic priest has said, "You can only appoint my nominee, and I will approve of no other." It amounts to this—that we find the head of a great postal department who is a member of a Government which claims to be one of the most Protestant Governments we have had in this country for many years yielding to Romanist dictation in Ireland. All this takes place in a Protestant district, and that is what makes it all the more remarkable. Our protest is that the Postmaster-General has yielded to what is simply a piece of clerical intolerance, which is most unworthy, and we ask for any justification which he can reasonably offer us. Our objection to this appointment would be exactly the same if Miss Donnelley had been a Roman Catholic, and had been displaced in favour of a Protestant. During recent years two chief postal appointments in my own constituency have gone to Roman Catholics, who replaced Protestants; and no protest was made because we recognised the appointments were made on merit, and were given to men of approved qualification; but here the efficiency of the Postal Service is made a secondary matter to clerical dictation of the most sordid kind, and we have very respectfully to discharge a public duty, and to protest that a Minister of the Crown should have so unworthily yielded to this clerical dictation whereby every inhabitant of Ballintoy has been made indignant.
Mr. W. MOORE: I know Ballintoy very well, and I also had the honour of meeting the late Mr. Donnelley, whose family has been penalised in this way. It is not a question really of the personality of Mr. Donnelley, who was a man whom everybody desired to honour, or of his daughter, or of this Roman Catholic

827
publican, who has been found at the eleventh hour to oust out Miss Donnelley. I would go further than the particular interest of these particular people. The Postmaster-General described this matter the other day amid the plaudits of a large mass of his followers as a mere storm in a teacup. It may be here where we have larger interests to think of, but he will find it is by no means a storm in a teacup in the north of Ireland. It is not merely a question of Miss Donnelley being a Protestant, and being passed over in favour of a Roman Catholic. If Miss Donnelley had been a Roman Catholic, and a Protestant had been appointed, I should still say she had been most infamously treated. Let the House consider the facts: In these small villages where the remuneration is only some £20 or £30 a year, you have to have the post office in private houses, and I believe for 25 or 30 years past the house of the family of Donnelley has been recognised as the post office of the village. The work has been carried on there without complaint, and Mr. Donnelley's daughter was brought up as his assistant, and was a qualified telegraphist. She was her father's sole assistant for 18 years, and when he died she was there in her own house, the recognised post office of the village. What evidence was there in the absence of any complaint of any necessity for a change? It was, as the right hon. Gentleman's own case shows, almost impossible when he ultimately arrived at the decision to do what his advisers wished, and to get rid of Miss Donnelley, to get other accommodation in the village, and he was so far at his wit's end to know where to get a new post office that he had to go to a publican. I agree the Postmaster-General has other things to look after, but I do not think he could have been conversant with the facts. I would have been quite content to have left the decision to his judgment if he had been, because I am sure this action could not be tolerated by an impartial Englishman. Mr. Donnelley had at one time belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, but for reasons of his own, to which he was quite entitled, he had become a Protestant. When Mr. Donnelley died the priest of Ballintov went about saving whatever happened his daughter should not be allowed to continue in the post office because her father had left his church.
Whether this is intolerable or not, it is not a doctrine to which the head of the
828
Post Office should lend himself. Those threats were publicly made; and I ask the Postmaster-General, in the first place, what reason there was which necessitated a change? The only explanation the inhabitants of the village have had is that the priest said this lady was to be removed. About two months afterwards, no reason being assigned, and no complaint being made against this postal servant, who had for 18 years given satisfaction, and who was living in her own private house, which was the post office, Miss Donnelley received notification that Mrs. Kelly, a member of the priest's congregation, had been appointed. Mrs. Kelly, as a matter of fact, was not qualified. She had not a house, but, such haste has there to get Miss Donnelley out, that before discovering Mrs. Kelly had not a house, they actually sent down an official from Dublin to notify Miss Donnelley that Mrs. Kelly had been appointed, and to ask Miss Donnelley to hand over the accessories to her. Even this Government, however, cannot carry on business without premises, and that appointment had to be cancelled; but for some reason Miss Donnelley was not to be allowed to continue, and notification was sent out for a new appointment. The Postmaster-General may get up and say he knew nothing about them, but these facts cannot be contradicted. I submit it is his business to know something of them. The facts are all public; they have been published in the Press, and there have been indignation meetings about them. I asked the Postmaster-General, thinking he could not really know what had gone on, if he would allow an independent inquiry into this case. I was at once laughed at and sneered at, as if I had asked for a Royal Commission. I do think when a public scandal has taken place, it is not unreasonable to ask for a public inquiry. I am quite certain if the Postmaster-General was not bound by esprit de corps and by the necessity of defending his own officials, he would say this appointment could not stand for a moment. This reverend gentleman went about saying this woman was to be got rid of, and applications were invited from candidates. One of the rules of the Department is that sub-postmasters must not be engaged in the spirit trade. That debars ordinary publicans from applying, but this gentleman evidently had information from his principal supporter, the priest, who got up a petition signed by the school children, that if he applied he would, not-

829
withstanding that he is a publican, get the appointment. In every other case he would have been disqualified, and he would have been in this case if he had not had the priest at his back; but he is employed as the instrument by which this lady is to be put out of the post office after 18 years' service. This is a village in which it is very important, I submit, that the public-house and the post office should not be combined. I will tell the House why. It is a village, the local population of which is not large, but through which there is a tremendous tourist traffic during the summer. There is an extensive system of motor cars and mail cars, and the House would be surprised to know how many tourists pass through this village, which is only five miles from the Giants' Causeway, and is a recognised stopping place for the traffic there. Tourists are naturally attracted to the post office, and owing to the choice made by the right hon. Gentleman this traffic will be thrown straight into the arms of the publican. I am told there is a general rule against publicans holding postmasterships. Are we to understand that it is to be relaxed in the case of new appointments? The Postmaster-General ought to explain and justify his action in this case. What complaint has he ever had against the existing postal premises, which have been in use for 30 years, which made it necessary to transfer the post office to a public-house? What complaint was ever made against Miss Donnelley, who acted as her father's assistant in connection with the transaction of postal business—the lady who was actually asked to continue the work of postal administration for six months. Surely it was a very strong position for the right hon, Gentleman to take up. There have been public meetings in the village as the result of this surprising appointment, and gentlemen on all sides of political opinion have taken objection to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. The facts have been advertised in every Ulster town. They have caused a feeling akin to consternation among those engaged in the public service; they have given rise to the impression that when a postmaster dies, the question of appointing his successor is not governed by a desire to choose the fittest, but may be dependent on the fact whether he is a Protestant or may have incurred the animosity of the Roman Catholic clergy. The action of the right hon. Gentleman has in fact caused a feeling of insecurity; it
830
amounts to a scandal, and even at the eleventh hour I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to appoint a small commission of impartial people to inquire how this thing has been brought about. Publicity should be given to every stage of the proceedings. In the meantime we can only protest against an arrangement which is a most unfortunate one for the Service, and by no means a storm in a teacup, as the right hon. Gentleman tried to describe it.
Mr. LEIF JONES: I rise for the purpose of associating myself with the protest made by the hon. Members from Ulster against the appointment of Mr. O'Callaghan as postmaster of Ballintoy. I do not do this for all the reasons which animated their action. I cannot enter into local disputes as to the merits of particular candidates. I do not know whether Miss Donnelley or Mrs. Kelly or Mr. O'Callaghan had the greatest qualifications as officials of the post office, but I want to join hon. Members in their protest on the general ground, which I feel sure will receive a sympathetic answer from the Postmaster-General—that it is exceedingly undesirable to place a post office in a public-house. I always understood it was against, not perhaps the rule but the practice of the Department to do so, and my right hon. Friend has repeatedly assured me it is his policy to separate, as far as he can, post offices from public-houses. On Monday I was considerably surprised to learn from a question put by an hon. Member opposite that another case had occurred in Ireland in which a publican had been made a postmaster. I at once put a supplementary question as to whether separate entrances would be provided for those who went to the place on postal business and those who went to the public-house to drink. My right hon. Friend said there would be separate entrances when the matter was finished, but I did not gather whether the separate entrances had been made or whether they were in process of being constructed. I do not think this action of the right hon. Gentleman can give satisfaction. I recognise the difficulty which the Postmaster-General has in finding suitable premises for post offices in Ireland. We who live in this country heard on Monday with surprise that in Ballintoy it was not possible to find premises except at a public-house. On Wednesday we were told that at Collinstown the only place available was a pigstye.
Captain CRAIG: That is simply because the pigstye happened to belong to a Roman Catholic.
Mr. LEIF JONES: The conflicting explanation given by hon. Members from Ireland as a reason why these things are done are even more perplexing than the facts themselves. I should have thought that sanitary reasons would have precluded placing a post office in a pig-stye, and that social reasons would have prevented the Postmaster-General giving his sanction to the Ballintoy arrangement. In this place, as we have been reminded, there is a great tourist traffic, and many tourists find it necessary to use the post office. Again, children are frequently sent to post letters or buy stamps, and they are thus brought into contract with the drink traffic. Furthermore, old age pensions are paid at the post office, and I cannot conceive any more undesirable place in which to pay these pensions than in the close neighbourhood of a public-house. It has always been the aim of temperance reformers to separate the sale of drink from that of other commodities, and certainly nothing could be more desirable than to separate the post office from the liquor traffic.
Mr. G. N. BARNES: I wish to raise a point in connection with the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, which comes within the Department of the Postmaster-General, and lo elicit some information regarding it. The Act passed last year is defective in several respects; it contains disqualifications which penalise people for being poor and sets up distinctions between means and merits. But the House must be perfectly well aware of the limitation of the Act, and must be content until such time as it sees fit to amend it. My complaint is that by regulations, and in some cases by administration, great trouble has been caused owing to interpretations, which, I think, are somewhat harsh, and which ought to be avoided as far as possible in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Summerbell) will perhaps speak after me, and I know that he has one or two very hard cases to bring forward of people who have been penalised for accepting Poor Law relief at the last moment, but I will mention one case, which shows a defect in the Act and the partial administration of it. I was struck with a case mentioned in a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie),
832
who put the case of a woman in Scotland who was qualified in every respect for receiving an old age pension. She was 79 years of age. She had certainly received some Poor Law relief some years ago, when her husband was ill, but that was before the beginning of last year, and had no bearing upon her claim, but I am told by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that this woman, in prosecuting her claim for a pension, had to go to a different parish to that in which she was living, and being in bad circumstances, she accepted some money from the parish authorities, as she thought in the way of a loan, and, would the House believe it, on the paltry plea that this old body had received parish relief, although that parish relief was given after she had applied for the pension, when she applied for the pension, although she was otherwise qualified, she was disqualified on that ground. I have another case mentioned to me by a friend who is on the distress committee at Camberwell of a woman who had gone into the infirmary there, and, of course, medical relief being under the provisions of the Act exempted from the operation of the disqualifying clause in regard to pauper relief, that did not disqualify, but owing to the pressure upon the infirmary, so I am told, this old woman was removed by the authorities to the workhouse while she was still practically ill. There, again, that old woman has been deprived of her pension because she is receiving parish relief. I say that the Act, defective as we think it is, is made infinitely worse by this harsh administration of it, either under the regulations of the Department or under those of the local authorities.
Another matter I would allude to, is the mode of ascertaining income, where the applicant is entitled to an old age pension. In these cases, one would think, it would be sufficient for the old age pension officer to ascertain how much the man or woman was earning at the time the application was made. But that is not so, and, as a matter of fact, it is usual for the officers to ascertain not only what the man is now earning, but they have gone back to past years in several cases which I could cite—one from the West End of London, where the man was earning practically nothing, but the pension officer had to be satisfied what he had been earning in previous years with a view of finding out how much he could earn if he were employed this year. There, again, I say, that interpretation of the

833
Act is altogether contrary to its intention, and makes the statute even more harsh than it otherwise would be. I have done with cases of that kind, which for my part I think will arise, must arise, as long as these defects are in the Act, and I ask the Government that some statement should be made, which would relieve the minds of thousands of people throughout the length and breadth of this country, as to whether the Government intend to fulfil and redeem the pledge, given more than once I believe, in regard to wiping out these disqualifications by a Bill to operate next year. I hope that something may be said in the House to-day which will relieve the minds of many hon. Members, and of many people outside the House in regard to this matter. Coming to the matter appertaining to the Department of the Postmaster-General, with which I hope he will deal, it has reference to the payment of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses for the distribution of old age pensions. There seems to be a good deal of misapprehension on the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) and another hon. Member pleaded for more money being given to the Inland Revenue Officers, but if they compare the payments made to them with those made to sub-postmasters and sub-post-mistresses they will see that the claims of the latter ought to be dealt with. An extraordinary statement was made that these sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses had a payment of 1s. for each old age pension, and they would be satisfied if they got a portion of that, but it is more likely that they pay 40 to get a shilling.
As a matter of fact, I believe I am right in saying that these Government servants are paid at the rate of 30s. per thousand claims paid for the first time and after that at the rate of £1 per thousand. Let the House understand how this works out. I have had a letter from one of these sub-postmasters who pays 200 pensions a week, and gets paid for doing it the miserable wage of 4s. A large number of these old people are sick, and cannot come to the post office to receive their pensions, and many of those who do come are infirm, and have to be helped in many ways. No less than 50 out of the 200 cases at this particular post office are sick, and therefore certificates have to be made up in respect of every one of these claims before the payment is made. I made an estimate with regard to those 200 claims.
834
Supposing it was possible to satisfy 20 claimants per hour, that means 10 hours' rather hard work for the sum of 4s., and then the accounts have to be made up afterwards, and I do not know how many hours' work would be involved altogether in the payment of these 200 pensioners. I think, however, the House will agree that 4s. is an altogether inadequate sum, and I would ask the Postmaster-General to revise these payments, and make them more in harmony with the duty performed by these officials. I hope, moreover, we shall have some statement as to the intentions of the Government in respect of amending the Old Age Pensions Act. It may be slightly out of order to refer to the new legislation, but I think I have shown by one or two cases the hardness and the harshness of the Act itself, and also that a better interpretation of it is necessary, but however generously it may be interpreted there will be hard cases as long as the Act is as it is, and I hope, therefore, it will be amended as soon as possible.
Sir F. BANBURY: I want to draw attention to the great increase in the expenditure of the Civil Service. I find for the year 1895–6 the expenditure was £19,874,000 whereas 14 years later it is £40,370,000, or more than double. Five years ago it was £27,599,000, as against £40,370,000 now, showing an increase of £13,000,000 in round figures. These five years practically correspond with the number of years which the present Government have been in office. We all know that economy was one of the reasons which induced the country to return the present Government to power, and that they have endeavoured to economise in two branches of the Service, in which, in my opinion, no economy should be effected—the Army and Navy. But they are not content to economise in what, in my opinion, is one of the branches in which the most effective economies can be made, economies which will injure the nation less—that is, the Civil Service. Instead of there being any economy there has been an enormous increase. I do not want to say a word which can be twisted into anything derogatory to the English Civil Service. I believe it is one of the best services in the world, and that its members give the whole of their energies in a whole-hearted manner to the service of the State. But it must not be forgotten that in eight out of ten Bills brought in by the present Government provisions are taken for increasing the Civil Service, either by inspectors or

835
in other directions, and consequently this tendency is bound to increase so long as we are inflicted with the presence of the party opposite on those benches. It is very hard to reduce the Civil Service when once established. These people are giving the best of their time and ability to the service of the State, and the sympathy of everyone is with those whose employment is to be taken from them. The ordinary clerk is of a class which finds it harder than any other class of the community to obtain employment if he happens to lose his berth. If we continue to increase the Civil Service in this way, and we find that economy and retrenchment is necessary in our expenditure, and when we remember that our expenditure is now higher than it has ever been before in time of peace— £162,000,000—whoever is at the Treasury will find it very hard to make economy in that Department in which it ought to be made, namely, the Civil Service.
I attempted to raise this question one day in Supply, and the Secretary to the Board of Education replied that I had forgotten that the Post Office was included in the Civil Service, and that the great rise which had taken place in the Post Office was accountable for the rise in the Civil Service. The hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken, because the Post Office is not included in the Civil Service, but in the Customs and Inland Revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will have the support of many hon. Members on this side if he will endeavour to economise in that direction. Perhaps he might be able to put a little pressure, if necessary, on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is perfectly clear that it is not to the general interest of the country that this great increase should go on. Once started, there is a tendency for this increase to grow. If I were given a post under the Government I should consider myself worthy of a greater reward than that which the Government gives. That is human nature, and the more you increase these offices the greater will be the tendency to demand higher pay and less work, and that kind of thing is very difficult to counteract. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me some assurance that this increase has not been lost sight of, and that they will do their best in the future to curtail these Estimates and to give up that fatal habit, whenever they bring in a Bill, of providing posts for new Civil servants.
Mr. PATRICK WHITE: I wish to say a few words on this very important question of the postmastership of Ballintoy, which has roused to such a tremendous extent the ire of hon. Members from Ulster, who have given us a complete argument in favour of Home Rule by taking up the time of the House at this time of the year, when all-important business is to come before the House, with a minor appointment in Ireland. Hon. Members from Ulster are always at their best when some question of appointment arises, whether that of a Lord Chancellor, a county court judge, or even the postmaster of Ballintoy. When they accuse Members of looking for places I would point out that those who are in search of places are hon. Members above and not below the Gangway. The hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) referred to public-houses in Ireland in regard to Post Office appointments. But the public-house in Ireland is quite a different institution from the public-house in England. The publican in England carries on business in the sale of alcoholic liquors only. In Ireland it is quite different. Government after Government have admitted that it is generally a store, and that the portion where drink is sold is only a small portion of the premises. The people are accustomed to go there, and could there be a more convenient place for a post office? The hon. Gentleman would tax the publicans out of existence. He would tax them to pay for "Dreadnoughts." If he does, he ought to give them leave to live. The hon. Gentleman should really have a little mercy. I would not have intervened in this Debate but for the position taken up by hon. Members from Ulster. They were indignant because a Catholic got an appointment. They have been so long accustomed to place and power that they cannot bear that a Catholic should get an appointment as a sub-postmaster.
Captain CRAIG: The real objection which we on these benches have in this matter is to the principle at the back of the appointment that has been made at Ballintoy. The hon. Member (Mr. White) said that the Ulster Members were wasting the valuable time of the House when there was more important business to come on. It may be so, but are we to sacrifice everything for business which, after all, can be transacted later? The opportunities come seldom for drawing attention to such gross injustice as arises in cases of this sort. The Member for

837
the constituency is not here to take part in the Debate, and anyone representing a constituency in the North of Ireland may give the Postmaster-General the advantage of his opinion on the scandal that has arisen. We are bound to take notice of this as a serious matter from the point of view of principle, apart altogether from the injustice that has been done to the lady in question. The Postmaster-General, in answer to a question the other day, said that on account of a disturbance which arose, or of the local feeling, it was impossible to appoint either of the other two, and therefore the appointment of sub-postmaster at Ballintoy was given to this man. For years the Donnelleys have been connected with the post office in the district, which contains a population of 5,000. The Postmaster-General says that what was done in this case was to save local squabbles. He laid aside the best, and in fact the only eligible candidate for the position, and gave it to a local railway man who has retired on a pension, and who owns a public-house. The hon. Member for North Meath (Mr. White) is also wrong in regard to the nature of the public-house. It is purely a public-house, and not a store, and it was to put the post office in this place that the Postmaster-General went out of his way to pass over the deserving lady who should have received the appointment. The only feeling that was raised on the subject at all was raised by the local priest. Pressure was brought to bear on the right hon. Gentleman in order to have an unsuitable nominee of his appointed. I cannot conceive of anything worse for the Postal service than to give in to such ridiculous pressure. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there would have been no trouble if Miss Donnelley had been appointed. I think the Postmaster-General would do well to pause before he goes further in the particular attitude which, I do not say he, but his Department, adopted in this case.
I wish to ask the Postmaster-General a question in regard to Collinstown. I have drawn attention to this case again and again. Here it appears that the Master of the Horse brought influence to bear on the right hon. Gentleman. The course pursued in the case was very sordid and ridiculous. Several most suitable sites were offered for the post office. One of the houses offered is a cottage which has the reputation of being the best in the neighbourhood. The Postmaster-General could have got one of these at a rent of £5 10s. per annum. After months of
838
correspondence the Postmaster - General eventually said that the officials had decided not to put the post office in this miserable little pigstye about a quarter of a mile outside the town, but yesterday, instead of supporting his own former decision, to our astonishment, he said that it is not to be put in the portion of the building which is used as a pigstye. That is one of the most ridiculous quibbles I have ever heard used in this House. At one time the right hon. Gentleman decided to have the post office at a place which would be convenient for all the villagers, and he promised to have the necessary alterations carried out, but afterwards, on account of some pressure, he goes out of his way to neglect the convenience of the people and to place the post office at a point which they can only get to by passing along the edge of a dirty, lonely lake. I have often had occasion to acknowledge the kindness of the Postmaster-General in carrying out much-needed reforms in my own Constituency, and I do not wish it to be thought to-day that I am casting any reflection on his courtesy. I thought the two cases to which I have referred so gross that I could not allow them to pass. Even at the eleventh hour I would urge him to rise superior to pressure and do the sensible thing by making Miss Donnelley postmistress at Ballintoy.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I will deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Black-friars (Mr. Barnes). The question of what should be the proper remuneration of sub-post-masters for payment of old age pensions has been under consideration. The only reason for the delay was this, that it was impossible to say at the beginning of the working of this Act what would be the amount of work thrown on the various sub-postmasters with regard to the payment of old age pensions. We gave, therefore, provisionally a payment of a shilling for each pension, and we took the payment as a conditional payment. The matter now has had careful consideration. It has been referred to various surveyors throughout the country, and we have now laid certain propositions before the Treasury, and later on we will introduce a new scale which will date back to 1st January, so that sub-postmasters will not suffer any loss by the delay which has taken place. The delay has been due solely to the desire to get information. As far as my information goes, the amount of work involved in the payment of these pensions has been

839
somewhat exaggerated. The matter has been considered in the light of the information conveyed to us by the various surveyors throughout the country, and I hope that it will soon be settled by the Treasury.
In reference to the questions raised with regard to the sub-post offices at Ballintoy and Collinstown, I have no quarrel with the hon. Members who spoke on these subjects, either for raising them or for the way in which they raised them. In the Ballintoy case the hon. Member practically accused me of two things: First, that I did not appoint the most suitable candidate to the sub-post office; and, second, that I had placed the sub-post office in licensed premises. My practice since I have been in the Post Office has been to reduce political influence with regard to appointments as far as practicable. I do not think it is absolutely possible to eliminate it altogether, but all hon. Members who have had anything to do with post offices during the last three years, at all events, know that that is the policy which I have endeavoured to pursue. In this particular case the hon. Gentleman said more than once that I had in this matter given way to clerical dictation. I received memorials of various sorts and representations and credentials on behalf of the two candidates in question, but as far as I am aware—and I have been looking through the papers again— certainly I have no recollection of receiving any communication or any pressure from the Roman Catholic priest to whom allusion has been made. Therefore, as far as that is concerned, the matter was decided on the memorials before us. I take full responsibility in the matter, but, obviously, it is very difficult for me, sitting in my room, to decide in these matters. I am bound to say, on such information as has been conveyed to me in relation to what the hon. Member (Mr. Barrie) has said to me to-day, that if the matter was still one between the qualifications and suitability of Miss Donnelley and Mrs. Kelly I certainly would personally look into the matter again to see whether justice had been done in regard to the suitability of these two candidates. But, fortunately or unfortunately, that position does not now exist, because, in consequence of Mrs. Kelly being unable to fulfil the conditions necessary with regard to premises, her appointment was cancelled, and, therefore, as regards the first point of the hon. Member that I selected the less suitable of the
840
two candidates, I do not wish to say in every case I am able to appoint the most suitable candidate, yet I endeavour to do so, and whenever there is reason for reconsidering the matter, I do look into the qualifications if the question is still in existence. The second point made against me was that I appointed as sub-postmaster a man whose premises were in connection with licensed premises. In spite of what the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. P. White) said, I am very much averse to having post offices on licensed premises wherever it can be avoided.
Mr. H. J. BELLOC: Does that apply to wealthy hotels?
Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: That really is quite a side issue. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my statement. With regard to sub-post offices we do not, if possible to avoid it, have them in licensed premises. But the hon. Member says that I have absolutely broken a rule of the Post Office. That is not so. The general rule of the Post Office is that officers of the Department are forbidden to be connected directly or indirectly with the ownership or management of a canteen, public-house, or establishment on licensed premises. But the second part of the rule says that, while it may sometimes be necessary to appoint as sub-postmaster a person holding a licence for the sale of drink, nobody in the service of the Department can receive a licence, so that the cases which do occasionally arise are dealt with by that rule, and the particular action which I have taken was provided for by that particular rule itself. I therefore deny altogether that I have in any sense of the term broken the rule of the Department. The question is one which must be considered on its merits. The position which existed after the disqualification of Mrs. Kelly is perhaps rather difficult to convey to the House. There were only two candidates in the field. As far as I could discover there were no other candidates. The position had unfortunately become very acute during Mrs. Kelly's candidature. A very considerable amount of political or, still worse, religious feeling had been aroused—so much so that Mrs. Kelly herself was practically boycotted during the time it was thought she was going to' be a candidate.
Mr. H. BARRIE: I never heard of it.
Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: That is what I thought, that perhaps the hon. Member

841
was not quite aware of what really took place. There were resolutions passed in regard to this, saying that if Mrs. Kelly was appointed practically the post office would be boycotted, and feeling was equally strong on the other side. The hon. Member said that there was no question in this matter of religious feeling as between the two religious denominations. It seemed to me, as far as I could judge with the information before me, that that unfortunately was not so. I would be very loth to bring these matters into discussion in this House, but as my action in regard to this matter has been challenged, I feel bound to read this extract from a letter from the Rector of Ballintoy, who was a most active supporter of Miss Donnelley, who practically wrote out petitions and wrote out letters in regard to this matter.
The Rector of Ballintoy, on 20th May, 1909, wrote a letter, in which he said:—
"I now deem it ray duty to tell you why there is so much feeling evoked in this matter. A few days before the late postmaster, Mr. John Donnelley, died, a messenger interviewed him and asked him to turn to the Roman Catholic religion. He refused. Another messenger tried the same, but his daughter, Miss Jane Donnelley, protected her father, and ordered the messenger to leave the room. Hence it is that Miss Donnelley is now persecuted. By whom? The Rev. B. Murphy, the Roman Catholic priest, and his little clique of bigots."
I am not blaming one side or the other, but I had to consider the circumstances, and see whether it would have been the right thing to have appointed Miss Donnelley, whatever her personal merits. I have nothing whatever to say against Miss Donnelley, but, from the public point of view, the Post Office Service ought to be free from political or religious controversies, and it was necessary for me therefore to appoint a third person—Mr. O'Callaghan. I brought the best judgment I could to bear on the matter, acting bonâ fide with regard to it, and without any communication or testimonial or memorial on the part of O'Callaghan, or of Roman Catholics or others. I think, under the circumstances, that I took the best action that was open to me. I appointed him under the conditions I have already stated to the House, namely, that he should have a separate access to the post office, and not through the public-house. Though I admit it is very difficult in regard to these matters to know what is the best course to pursue, yet I considered the case most carefully, and I came to the conclusion that in this instance local feeling was so acute that public opinion would not be satisfied if I appointed Miss Donnelley. That was the only ground on which I
842
acted in regard to it. Under these circumstances I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that I should make a searching inquiry into the matter.
Mr. LONSDALE: On what ground did the right hon. Gentleman propose to disturb Miss Donnelley at the outset?
Mr. BUXTON: I think that I have already dealt with that. I stated that in every case of a vacancy there is a public announcement, and anyone can apply.
Mr. MOORE: The right hon. Gentleman was asked why he, at the outset, disturbed the arrangements of a post office which had been in existence for forty years.
Mr. BUXTON: This was a case of a new appointment, and, in the case of new appointments, they are advertised, and anyone can apply. This was done in the ordinary course, and there was no exceptional circumstance with regard to it. Notwithstanding the information brought to me, if there still had been this question as to Mrs. Kelly and Miss Donnelley, I should have certainly looked into the matter further, but that does not arise now. Therefore, I think that, under the circumstances, I did the right thing. My hon. Friend may think differently; but, I can assure him that I have considered this matter very carefully.
Mr. HUGH BARRIE: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this particular matter, may I ask him why he told me last Monday that he never appointed Mrs. Kelly?
Mr. BUXTON: Mrs. Kelly was appointed on information which was before us. It came to our knowledge afterwards, however, that she was not qualified, and therefore her candidature ceased. That is really the position.
Mr. HUGH BARRIE: But she was appointed.
Mr. BUXTON: What point does the hon. Member want to make of that?
Mr. HUGH BARRIE: Why did the right hon. Gentleman tell me last Monday that Mrs. Kelly was never appointed?
Mr. BUXTON: If I said so, I made a mistake; I think I said her appointment was not confirmed.
Mr. HUGH BARRIE: No.
Mr. BUXTON: If I said so it was a mistake. We afterwards found that Mrs.

843
Kelly was not qualified, and her candidature was not pressed. As regards Collins-town, it was stated that we had placed the post office in an unsuitable place. There were certain candidates for the vacancy, and one was appointed. Colonel Smythe owns the whole of the district, and the lady who was appointed had to find premises. She herself was personally popular. She made an arrangement with a neighbour to let her have a house, but Colonel Smythe declined to give his leave to her having the premises in order to prevent her getting them for a post office. It became necessary to obtain premises. The only premises which were not under the control of Colonel Smythe were those to which the hon. Member has referred. Colonel Smythe then offered to let her have premises at a rental of £5 10s., which was raised to £8, but after some negotiations was reduced to £5 10s. again, but Colonel Smythe and his agents declined to give her anything more than a weekly tenancy, and that, of course, being of no use where the Post Office service is concerned, we could not consent to such an arrangement, so that this lady was driven back again to the only available premises. It was a case of Hobson's choice.
Captain CRAIG: Is Colonel Smythe a Member of the Government?
Mr. BUXTON: If he is a Member of the Government I can only regret that he does not show a more liberal spirit. For the time being, and as a temporary measure, this lady has taken these premises. I would like to say also that the premises offered to her by Colonel Smythe, I am assured, were not only distant from the town, but were in a more or less ruinous state. The whole matter is a very simple one. She was not allowed by the landlord, who owned the whole of the village, to have them, and it was not until she had come to an arrangement with this other person that then he tried to get her for his premises. It is only a temporary arrangement, and if it is possible to come to better arrangements, I can only say that the Post Office would be very glad.
Mr. T. SUMMERBELL: I think there is a feeling all round that we ought to try and get home as quickly as possible to-day, and therefore I will be as brief as I possibly can. I desire to bring before the Secretary to the Treasury a case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes)
844
in regard to an old age pension. It is the case of an old man, and I would claim that there ought to be exceptional consideration given to such a case. This old man came to the town I have the honour to represent to see about his old age pension. Unfortunately he was without means, and found himself stranded in the town on this particular night. He went to the workhouse, and he distinctly asked the workhouse official, and the facts are not denied, if the fact of his entering for lodgings for a night would prevent him getting the old age pension. He was told it would not, and on the strength of that he entered for the night; and then afterwards he lost his old age pension. I do say that those facts are worthy of consideration, because if the man had been told he would run the risk of losing his old age pension he would not have entered the workhouse at all, but remained outside. For anyone to say that this case should be dealt with on all fours with other cases where persons have knowingly accepted relief is not administering the Act as fairly as it ought to be administered. The old man was given the pension, and it was taken from him on appeal. I have got letters bearing on the case, and I do ask the Secretary to the Treasury to give this matter his consideration, and also, if it is possible, to tell the House as to whether the Government do intend to amend the Old Age Pensions Act in order to take away the hardships that exist-throughout the country.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That introduces future legislation, which is not in order.
Mr. SUMMERBELL: There is also the question of the remuneration of the pension officers. I do think those men have been unfairly treated. Speaking as a member of an old age pension committee, having attended the meetings in, the Recess at the end of last year, we had those men continually in attendance giving all particulars in regard to the applications. Anyone who has served on a committee knows that they are the men who do all the work appertaining to the applications, who have got to go into all quarters of the town and sift out information and lay it before the committee. We find that those men have been the least remunerated of any official that has to do with the administration of the Act. We have got the town clerk who sits in the committee giving his decision from the legal standpoint, and who

845
receives more money than the man who has to sift all the information. We have got the postmaster, who receives comparatively more also. Although the Treasury may have decided that up to the present they cannot give more, I do ask the Secretary to the Treasury to reconsider the claims of those men, with a view to giving them more adequate remuneration, which I consider they richly deserve. I am speaking from experience.
Then there is the position of the men of His Majesty's Customs. In the first place I have to thank the Secretary to the Treasury for his courtesy when on my application he was kind enough to give a deputation of the men the opportunity of stating their case before him. That was 12 months ago, and up to the present time no answer has been given whatever with regard to the appeals of those men. The result is that there is a feeling of anxiety and uncertainty in regard to their position from every conceivable standpoint. We have at present a Committee that has been appointed to go into the question of amalgamation of the Customs and Excise, and we have got floating in the air the threatened amalgamation of the Customs and coastguards. I think everyone will admit that the case I have stated time and time again on the floor of this House as to the men, shows that they are a deserving body of men who have really responsible duties, which they carry out with credit to themselves and the State. In asking the Secretary of the Treasury as to whether there will be the possibility of a reply to the appeals of those men, I venture to think I am not asking too much in view of the fact that it is now twelve months since they laid their case before him. They ask for extra remuneration between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. also overtime pay. I do not know any profession that work at night that does not get extra remuneration. Considering their duties, I think those two points ought to receive favourable consideration. Their work is performed during the night, in all kinds of weather. They have got to board vessels arriving from abroad, enforce the law as to infectious diesase, the Aliens Act, examine passengers' baggage, collect duty payable from passengers and seamen, supervise the landing of animals, examine goods landed in bulk, and various duties under the Merchandise Marks Act, also the port regulations, &c. Those are duties requiring intelligence and tact, and ought to be compensated for in something like an adequate
846
manner. The rate of pay for the upper section is £160 at the start, rising by annual increments of £7 10s. to £200. The lower section begin with £95, rising by annual increments to £150. The lower section are recruited from the ranks of the preventive men after passing a qualifying examination. A man generally serves 17 years before he is able to qualify for £90 a year, and another 12 before rising to £150; so that he has to serve something like 30 years before he receives £150 a year. In many cases men are 55 years of age before they reach that stage; while, inasmuch as the Civil Service age for retirement is 60 or 61 years, it is easy to see that a large number may never have an opportunity of obtaining the handsome salary of £150 a year. Officers and men ought, I think, to receive extra remuneration for Sunday work, and the preventive men ought to receive a higher wage than that at which they start. No doubt there are plenty of applications; but that is no guarantee that the rate is a just one. To give a young fellow coming to a place like London 18s. a week is to render him always open to temptation, as offers are often made by people who want to smuggle goods. The remuneration for overtime, which is mainly worked on Sundays, is 8d. per hour. But the men are allowed to charge merchants 1s. 6d., and if a merchant has to pay 1s. 6d., why should the Treasury only pay 8d.? I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to make a satisfactory statement on the points I have raised, and thus allay the anxiety which exists among these men.
Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: The subject I wish to raise is an urgent matter connected with the finance of the county of Ross, with which I am closely associated. In the island of Lewis the rating of the parishes has reached an extraordinary figure. Exclusive of the Burgh of Storno-way, the rate in Uig is 19s. 2½d. in the £, in Lochs 27s. 1½d., and in Barvas 28s. 10d. That is really an impossible state of affairs. It has continued for two or three years. The whole county to some extent suffers in respect of the county rate, but throughout Scotland it is felt that this is a state of matters which, if it is not met by general legislation, ought to be met by some temporary expedient on the part of the Treasury. An administrative crisis is inevitable in the island of Lewis, unless some steps are taken without delay. Moreover, this huge pressure of the rates renders the solution of the land question in Lewis,

847
which is a very urgent matter, almost impossible. It practically puts an insuperable bar in its way. The remedy is to be found in the Minority Report by Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Commission, which Report was powerfully supported by the joint Minority Report of Sir George Murray and the late Sir Edward Hamilton. The Report of those two gentlemen ought to carry great weight with the Treasury. It was issued about seven years ago, but nothing has yet been done upon it. Owing to the legislation of this House, the cost of the public services in districts with poor agricultural land, like Lewis, becomes absolutely intolerable, and it must remain so if this House insists on those services, as I think it must, so long as the burden of the rates is levied to fall on realty alone to so great an extent as at present.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It will require further legislation to alter that. The hon. Member must confine himself to what can be done administratively.
Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: I want to show that I realise the difficulties in the way of meeting this case by general legislation, and to urge that some temporary relief should be given. If the Government mean to act on the Report of Sir George Murray and the late Sir Edward Hamilton, I will not press the point. But unless some such assurance is given, I think all concerned in the welfare of the poorer districts in Scotland must feel the greatest anxiety that the Government should appreciate fully, and admit much more frankly than they have hitherto done, that this case has become a scandal, and cannot continue indefinitely. The fact that these rates have been allowed to remain at this level for the last few years is no argument that they should be allowed still to continue. It is the impossibility of allowing them so to continue without making any provision to meet the exceptional burden that the Government will have to consider. I do not wish to elaborate the point at all. I think the time has come when the Scottish representatives have a right to expect that some more serious attention will be given to this matter than was promised in another place the other day, and to insist that the onerous rates in the island of Lewis should be reduced within tolerable limits.
2.0 P.M.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The hon.
848
Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow, speaking on the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, referred to the case of a woman 75 years of age, who, he said, in the belief that she was accepting a loan from the Poor Law authorities, took a grant, and thereby deprived herself of the right to receive an old age pension. He has no doubt given us the facts as they were reported to him, but I confess, from a considerable experience of Poor Law relief, I have never known a loan made to any person who has applied to the Poor Law authority. I am afraid the evidence of the would-be pensioner in question must not have been altogether in accordance with facts. I am unable, as representing the Treasury, to deal with the administration of the Poor Law. It is my duty to see that money for such pensions as are to be paid is forthcoming. The administration of the Poor Law is under the Local Government Board. The hon. Member for Sunderland quoted another case—and I may deal with both subjects at once—in which a man went into the workhouse at Sunderland quite casually for a night's lodging. It was purely a temporary measure, the man having made, first of all, inquiry as to whether or not such action of his would deprive him of his pension. The case seems to be one of very considerable hardship. I will gladly make inquiries into the circumstances, and if the facts are as have been stated—it has been perfectly plainly put— I will endeavour to see whether the matter cannot be put straight. In all these cases there are, and there must be in the administration of any great service of this sort, occasional—having regard to the great number of persons concerned — hard cases. While it is quite clear we cannot escape in the administration of any law these hard cases, I think, when they are of an exceptional nature, they should be looked into, and I am glad to say that in three or four similar exceptional hard cases we have been able to step somewhat beyond the strict, and what ought to be maintained as the strict, letter of the law. The hon. Member for the Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson) raised the question of the rates of Lewis. He told the House quite correctly that they ranged from 25s. to 28s. in these three unfortunate parishes of Uig, Barvas, and Lochs. That is a state of affairs which fortunately is very exceptional, though I think my hon. Friend knows perfectly well that in the parishes on the West Coast of

849
Scotland the rates are exceedingly high. They press unduly and very hardly upon the inhabitants of the outer counties and islands on the West Coast of Scotland. But the Treasury, to whom he appeals for assistance, has a double duty in this case. No doubt there is some moral obligation upon us to do what we can in exceptional cases of this sort to come to the relief of distressed districts. On the other hand, we have to remember that it will be very easy to quote assistance given in exceptional cases as justifying assistance being given in certain other cases not so exceptional, and certainly not so worthy. Pecuniary assistance by the Treasury must be to exceptional cases, and must be justified by some extreme facts of the nature indicated by my hon. Friend. In this particular case the Treasury, as my hon. Friend knows very well, has guaranteed the authorities in the island of Lewis, by their letter of 11th February, the sum of £200, while by their letter of November last year the sum of £1,000 each was given to the three parishes named. So that we have from the pockets of the general taxpayer given exceptional assistance to these three localities. The real fact of the matter is, if my memory does not mis-serve me, that the whole of this trouble arises from the impecunious position of the proprietor—
Mr. YOUNGER: No, no.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg your pardon; the impecunious position in which the proprietor is placed by the fact that the persons resident in the islands are something like £7,000 or £8,000 back in their payment.
Mr. YOUNGER: Bates of 25s. to 28s. are enough to make anybody impecunious.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Something like £7,000 or £8,000 in his payment—
Mr. YOUNGER: He was in arrear.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: To the local authorities. I call that an impecunious state for the proprietor to be in.
Mr. YOUNGER: For the reason I have said.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not know what the reason is. He is impecunious when there is £7,000 or £8,000 due to the local authorities. If he was in a satisfactory pecuniary position he would not be indebted to that extent to the local authori-
850
ties. Thai is the real position. But if that position is unsatisfactory to the proprietor it is still more unsatisfactory to the local authorities, and more than unsatisfactory to the Treasury, who have to guarantee the deficiency in the present state of affairs.
Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: Of course, I have accepted the general position as described by the Secretary to the Treasury; but I think he must admit also that it would be fair to remember that this position of affairs arises from the fact that Sir George Murray's recommendations have not been carried out.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; I do not say that it arises from that fact. It is that the gentleman has not paid his rates. That is a condition precedent to reform. I should like to point out one effect of the Old Age Pensions Act in this particular locality, which, in the past, and still more in the future, will be of extreme assistance to the inhabitants. The pensions have already been relieving the poor-rates to the extent of at least £100, which is a very important sum in that small locality. The inhabitants, too, have been able to do what they never did before with the £1,600 in cash they received. The money has stimulated prices and given the people actual coin, and so enabled them to pay such rates as they are obliged to do. I think that was very considerable assistance from the Treasury.
To return for one moment to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland as to the Customs officers. It is quite true, as he said, that a deputation came to me a year ago, a deputation that I was glad to receive. They gave me some valuable information; but I have been unable, as he says, to give him any answer since that time. For this reason: The House has sat almost continuously since that deputation of his friends came. The points involved will entail very close and uninterrupted examination into the circumstances of the services of the two Departments; but until the inquiry is concluded into the conditions of the upper ranks of the Excise and Customs Service it is impossible to give an answer to his friends.
Mr. SUMMERBELL: Am I to under-I stand with regard to the inquiry that is I now going on that on any points appertaining to the position of these men they will I have the fullest possible liberty to state; their case before this Committee?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; the hon. Member is not to understand that at all. What I said was that it was impossible to inquire into their case until the other Committee had examined into the upper ranks of the Customs and Excise Services, and had reported on them. Until that is settled I cannot go into the other. I am sorry there should be delay in this matter, due to no lack on the part of myself or my colleagues to go into the question.
Mr. JOHN AINSWORTH: I should like strongly to confirm all that has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Leith Burghs, and I should like also to express my feeling of satisfaction at the sympathetic attitude of the Secretary to the Treasury in regard to the rates. The right hon. Gentleman talked about an impecunious proprietor, but I must remind him that it is not only a question of an impecunious proprietor, but it is a question of everyone else as well who have to pay these heavy rates. How can anybody help being impecunious when they have to pay such enormously heavy rates?
Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: But they are not paid.
Mr. AINSWORTH: How can they be paid? How can anybody afford to pay rates which are so high? The Government are interested in this question. Now how are you to deal with that portion of the United Kingdom where the social conditions are in such a state as they are in some of the Highlands of Scotland at the present time. The only way to do it is by aid which will enable the community to support itself. We all know perfectly well—for we have had the question before us in every Session—the cry in all parts of the Highlands—is "Give us more land." The man with a small holding wants it increased to make it economic. And the man who has no holding, but who has been resident in the country—he and his predecessors—for hundreds of years, whether he be a labourer or a fisherman—asks to be given some land for a small holding. These questions are well knowrn, and I think we are entitled to ask the Scottish Office to give us some assurance that something will be done not only before the end of the present Session, but as soon as possible; that they will be prepared to recommend some steps or to take some upon their own initiative so as to deal with the existing condition of affairs. I might remind the House that we have in the Highland's at the present moment a machinery for deal-
852
ing with these questions. We have the Crofters Commission and we have the Congested Districts Board, and I would remind the House the Congested Districts Board is in a position of having control of certain funds, and if they were made the legal owners of the property which they hold they could raise on chat property a very large sum of money. Therefore I say that this financial question is really in the hands of the Scottish Office at the present moment, and having the machinery for dealing with the question, I think we are entitled to ask to have that machinery brought into play so that these questions might be dealt with more seriously and immediately. The small holders of all classes in the Highlands are affected, and that shows that it is a matter that will not brook delay. I do earnestly hope that we shall hear from the representatives of the Scottish Office that they are prepared to deal with it as early as possible.
Mr. A. C. MORTON: I should like to say with regard to this land question of Lewis that the state not only of the landlord, but also of the Crofters is most sad. Unfortunately it would be out of order if I discussed the real remedy, which is this, that the land question in Scotland is not and never will be settled until the State steps in. There is no doubt that the Congested Districts Board and the Crofters Commission have got money, and I should like to hear some explanation from the Solicitor-General for Scotland why it is that all this money goes to one particular county? How is it that Ross and Lewis and Sutherland and other counties are left out of the reckoning altogether? It may be that Inverness is a very poor district, but at any rate this money ought to be divided among the crofting counties. What extraordinary influence is brought to bear upon the Scottish Office by which the money goes to Inverness is more than I can understand. But it is most unfair that the Scottish Office should allow that money to go to one county. If the Government can do anything to assist the people of Lewis and elsewhere they certainly ought to do so. Unfortunately, Lewis is a congested district, and is very largely populated more than other parts of the crofting districts. Possibly that may be one reason, but in the meantime something ought to he-done by the Scottish Office to relieve the people there. I hope after this discussion the Scottish Office will do something to

853
deal fairly between the parties without regard to any influence which might be brought to bear upon them.
I wanted to ask a question of the Postmaster-General, but he has gone. I wanted to ask him whether he has got any application with regard to penny postal service between this country and Turkey. I am not blaming the Postmaster-General, because I might say that he is the only Member of the Government who has done anything for us in Sutherland in the way of improvement. A question was raised today about clerical influence in Ireland. That does not apply to Ireland alone. It applies to England and Scotland as well. As far as I can understand, the Cardiff Railway Bill passed its second reading owing to such influence. Last year the same thing damaged our Scottish Education Act, and in the most mysterious way. Whether that influence is for good or evil I am not prepared to say. The Articles of the Church of England say the Pope has no jurisdiction in these realms. That is quite wrong. He wields it in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Sir EDWIN CORNWALLmade an observation which was inaudible.
Mr. A. C. MORTON: If the hon. Member will wait a little—
Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: I am very anxious to hear the hon. Gentleman's argument in regard to the penny post in Turkey.
Mr. A. C. MORTON: Then, perhaps, my hon. Friend will bring in the Postmaster. What I want now to speak about is old age pensions, and here, again, I find that the Secretary to the Treasury is gone. When I raised this matter on the second reading I got no reply, and therefore one must only take every opportunity until one gets an answer. On that occasion I specially raised the case of the Inland Revenue officers, especially in Sutherland, who have to travel very long distances at great expense to themselves to carry out their duties in connection with the Act. The complaint is that they only got £20 for this service compared with £160 odd which was paid to the secretary of local committees. That seems to me to be unfair, and I want to ask the Treasury whether they mean to reconsider it. It is not fair treatment for officials who do their work so well as the Inland Revenue officers do, and who are not too highly paid. The other point I wished to make was with regard to the fine which had been inflicted on some of the officials for giving informa-
854
tion to the Press last autumn. A number of those officials say distinctly that they did not receive the circular warning them, that they should not give information, and they had forgotten about some old regulations that applies to these cases. I do not want to argue in favour of breaking regulations. Regulations must be kept, and are absolutely necessary to the public service. But to fine these men £20 is rather hard. A reprimand would have been quite enough, and I should like to know from the Treasury whether they will reconsider these cases with a view to mitigating the penalty. I want to get some information with regard to the Amalgamation Committee in connection with these officers. The Secretary to the Treasury tells us he has nothing to do with that, and we find it impossible to learn whether the Committee is to be empowered to inquire further into all these questions. I think the officials would be perfectly satisfied for the moment if they knew their case was looked into, and if they were heard, if necessary, upon it. I hope the Government will consider this matter, and that they will tell us what the reference is, and whether it will cover the officials and their complaints about which I have been asking. These are public servants who are not well paid, and they are now feeling that they have not been treated fairly, and an inquiry into the matter would be of great use. I hope the Government will do something in that direction. I think Ministers ought to be here to answer our questions when they are put on the Appropriation Bill. We are entirely in order in bringing these-questions up, and the Minister ought to be here to answer them, because they are paid to give us answers. Cabinet Ministers ought to understand that they are our servants and not our masters, and I do not think that at the present moment we are being treated with courtesy.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: May I be allowed to say that I did communicate with hon. Members in order to ascertain what subjects they desired to raise. If the hon., Member for Sutherland had given, me-notice that he intended to raise any question I would have seen that the Minister in charge of that particular Department should have been here. It is almost impossible on an afternoon of this kind, when hon. Members may introduce 20 or 30 different subjects, to have every Minister in his place during the whole of the afternoon in order to answer some point which maybe raised.
Mr. A. C. MORTON: The right hon. Gentleman has given himself away entirely. I gave notice last night that I was going to bring up this question, and therefore it will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has not had notice. I gave notice to the Scottish Whip, who is the man to look after us, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman has entirely given his case away by stating what is not correct, namely, that I have not given notice. I trust the Government will bear these things in mind. I wish to draw attention to this £164,000,000 Budget, which will probably be £200,000,000 next year. My complaint is that in regard to our expenditure we get few opportunities now of considering questions of economy. The only hon. Member of this House who appears to be doing anything in that direction is the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I know the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Stewart Bowles) endeavours to help in a small way in that direction. Under the old system of conducting our business we used to have an opportunity of considering every item of Supply at some time or other, but under the, new arrangement the Government combine with the Opposition Front Bench, and arrange to stop Debate altogether with regard to matters of economy and other questions. I think it is our absolute duty to study the Estimates closely in regard to economy. If we do not get an opportunity of considering those questions, how can we carry out our duty? With regard to Scotland, I suppose, with a view of preventing discussion, some official takes care that we never have an opportunity of considering, except only in a small way, Scottish questions at all. Undoubtedly, some steps will have to be taken in the near future whereby Members of this House shall have more opportunities of considering Supply, both in regard to economy and other matters. Outside the specific questions of the Navy and old age pensions, the expenditure of the Government is continually increasing, and I do not think the present Ministers care much about economy. I have known of occasions years ago when a member of the Government thanked me for bringing these questions forward, because it strengthened his hands in dealing with the permanent officials. It is not for me to say how all this is to be regulated in the future, but I do say that it is getting worse and worse, and we have less control and more extravagant expenditure. Probably I shall be told that the Public
856
Accounts Committee look after all this, but they can do nothing at all, because they do not consider anything until after the money has been spent, and that is too late. What is more, this House takes care that those who understand these questions are kept off that Committee.
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think those questions are in order upon the Appropriation Bill.
Mr. A. C. MORTON: In conclusion, I wish to again express my regret at the discourteous way in which we are treated by the Front Bench in these matters. However humble an hon. Member may be, he has a right to raise questions on this occasion, and he ought to receive answers to them. Unless we get an opportunity of bringing these questions forward our grievances can never be remedied. I hope that next Session steps will be taken by which the expenditure of all Departments of the Government in this country may be properly considered, and that hon. Members will, in some way or another, be given an opportunity of considering all these questions, not only in regard to their own particular grievances as affecting their constituencies, but also with regard to economy in the expenditure of public money.
Mr. YOUNGER: I wish to bring before the attention of the House the question of the high rates in certain districts in the Western Highlands of Scotland, which has now become a great public scandal. In the districts to which I allude—Uig, Lochs and Barvas—as the hon. Member for Leith has already told the House, the rates have risen up to as much as 19s., 25s., and 28s. in the £. The Secretary to the Treasury said to-day that the whole 'difficulty arose from the fact that the principal proprietor in these districts was impecunious. In view of the taxation he will be called upon to pay I think we shall require some other word besides impecunious to describe the position of that proprietor. It is not a question of the impecuniosity of the proprietor. Credit has been taken by the Secretary to the Treasury because on two occasions last year the Treasury guaranteed the sum of £200 on one occasion and £1,000 on another to carry on the local government of those districts. It is true they guaranteed the money, but they never paid it. I am not sure if the Solicitor - General knows whether legal steps have been taken to enforce payment at the instance of the

857
parish councils against the defaulting ratepayers. At present the Treasury is sitting bight, in the hope that they will be able to extract a little more blood from these stones. The time has come when undoubtedly this question must be faced. I do not think the Scottish Office is in any way to blame. I have often had occasion to blame the Scottish Office—sometimes it is useful, and sometimes it is a useless institution—but in this matter I do not think it is at fault. Upon this question I think the Treasury is to blame, and not the Scottish Office. I am strongly inclined to think that the Treasury will find that the difficulty is becoming so acute that they will very shortly have to do something. The rates are not levied, and they are not payable till something like the month of November. For the first half of the financial year the public bodies have to borrow money to carry on the business of their parishes and burghs until the rates become due. I should think they will find it very difficult to borrow at all, and administration must come to a standstill. I hope Parliamentary pressure will be brought upon the authorities concerned to do something to remove this gross public scandal.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. A. Dewar): The House will not expect me to detain them at any great length in dealing with the various questions raised with regard to the management of Scottish affairs. I desire, first of all, however, to thank the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger) for his generous acknowledgment that in this serious matter of rating the Scotch Office is not to blame. It is no new problem. It has been there for many years, and has existed through many Governments. The serious burden of the rates not only exists in the Lews, but in other parts of Scotland as well. We have here, however, a dramatic instance of one individual being hardly pressed. It is not only the great landlords who are greatly pressed, but many poor people find serious difficulty when the collector comes round in finding the few shillings necessary. I feel it is necessary something should be done, but the proper way is not to ask the Treasury to put its hands into the bag and assist this man, and that man spasmodically. The hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Ainsworth) referred to the Scotch land question. The Government, as he knows, have made various attempts to settle that. It is a great question on which he will not expect me here and now to say more than that I will com-
858
municate what he has said to the Secretary for Scotland (Lord Pentland), and I have no doubt he will give the question the attention which he always gives to suggestions of Scotch Members. The hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton), unlike other Members, did not give me personal notice, and I had not the remotest idea that he was going to speak. I do not complain about that, but I am sorry he should think he was treated with discourtesy by the Treasury Bench. The hon. Member I am sure is far too reasonable to expect that all Ministers shall be here on every occasion he speaks.
Mr. A. C. MORTON: I made no complaint at all of the hon. Member. I have not given any notice to him, and I did not know this land question would be raised to-day.
Mr. A. DEWAR: I was not defending myself, I was really defending the Front Bench against the hon. Member's charge of discourtesy. I am quite certain if my hon. Friend had taken the trouble to inform a, Minister he was going to raise any question, that Minister would have been here to have answered that question. His chief grievance was with regard to the Congested Districts Board. The Congested Districts Board, as he knows, have no power to subsidise any class at all. Their power is to administer. They can purchase land and they have power to give certain assistance here and there, but not in cash. I do not think it is quite fair to say they confine their whole attention to Inverness-shire. Wherever they can be useful, they are there; and I do not think the hon. Member has any complaint to make with regard to his own constituency. It is, quite true that the Lews is suffering, but it is suffering in a manner with which the Congested Districts Board, as at present constituted, cannot deal.
Mr. MORTON: Surely, as you have actually bought land in Inverness-shire and let it to the crofters, you could do the same in the Lews?
Mr. A. DEWAR: The Congested Districts Board have no compulsory powers to purchase at all; they must have a voluntary arrangement. If the hon. Member would read the Congested Districts Board Act, he would see some of the difficulties with which we are beset.
Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: I do think somebody who is not a Scotchman should say one word on the general importance of this Lews case, because it is a positive

859
scandal to our civilisation that individuals should be ruined and made bankrupt by a rate of 28s. in the £. Really, considerations of the highest importance arise out of this case. Here we have a district where there are very primitive social conditions, and it is attempted to set up a standard of the highest civilisation. The cost of maintaining that standard is thrown upon a district totally incapable of bearing it. You have a system in Scotland whereby the landowner nominally, pays half the rates, but the crofters are exempted, and that in this case involves the whole of the burden of the rates falling upon the landowner. You, therefore, have a proprietor of an area of land forced to pay for public requirements, and the whole of his income, and 8s. in the £ beyond, is demanded from him to fulfil those public requirements. He is unable to pay that money out of his income and he is obliged to borrow money to pay the rates. There, of course, comes a moment when that process must automatically cease, because it is obvious people will not advance money without security, and it is only a question of time when the owner of that land is forced into the Bankruptcy Court and ruined. Is it tolerable that a public burden should be placed upon a subject of the Crown which is to ruin him and force him into the Bankruptcy Court? It seems to me cases like this demand an immediate remedy. I am perfectly aware the Scotch Office have had this case in hand some time, and I entirely appreciate the force of what the Solicitor-General has said about the difficulties of dealing with it. I share his view as to the most objectionable character of the policy involved in giving special grants, but that does not do away with the fact that we have a man being ruined by a public burden, and that it is the duty of the State to deal with such a case. What would be the position of the Government if the owner of this property is forced to bring his land into the market and is made bankrupt? It is a question of national and not of Scotch honour; it is a question of the responsibility of this House to see that a subject of the Crown is not ruined by burdens imposed upon him by our action. The responsibility in the main, of course, rests primarily upon the Government.
We see in this a lesson of wide application. We see that there is an end to the money which can be obtained by taxation, and we see that it is possible to demand
860
requirements which are beyond the resources of the area over which the rates are levied, whether they are the resources of the owner or of the occupier. I think that should be a lesson to this Government and to the country that there is a limit to the resources which are available for public purposes, and that when you reach a certain point in taxation, however desirable your object may be, you will defeat that object and ruin the district, and cause national bankruptcy if you endeavour to carry it out by imposing a burden greater than can be borne. It is with the object of pointing that moral, and of calling attention as publicly as possible to the responsibility of the Government to see that the owner of this property is not ruined by the burden placed upon him, that I have ventured to intervene in this Debate. The responsibility is none the less because one man only is involved, and I would urge the Government to take some action immediately so as to stave off the ruin of a man who has done his duty. The question does not affect England primarily, but it does affect the legislature and the Government, and it is of real national importance.
Mr. A. DEWAR: The hon. and gallant Member will know that the Government has tried to introduce both land and rating legislation which would provide a remedy for this state of things.
Mr. PRETYMAN: That has nothing to do with this case.
Mr. T. F. RICHARDS: I should not have raised the question I am about to raise once more if I had got anything like reasonable satisfaction when this Bill was before the House on the last occasion. Every Member, when he brings forward matters in which he possesses particular knowledge which is likely to benefit a particular Department, ought to be able to claim some consideration from that Department, but when I was told by the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Haldane) that his hon. Friend was going to wear two different pairs of boots to test the difference between hand and machine-sewn boots, I thought it was almost a ludicrous way of dealing with the subject. I have made many inquiries since I last raised the question, and I am satisfied I did not overstate the case so far as the shoe of the soldier is concerned. I regret exceedingly that the Government should have preferred to make a change without first of all making adequate and reasonable investigation and trial. I sug-

861
gested that a battalion of men should be permitted to wear, one part of it handsewn and the other part of it machine sewn boots; and, if they felt that was not a wise proceeding, that at all events the hon. Members in this House who have acquaintance with the leather business, should be requested to give this matter their earnest and serious consideration. We appear to be able to make no impression upon the Government. I regret exceedingly that they should have been hurt because I made a reference to their method of procedure as being an inducement to sweating. I will prove my case rather than make any statement. When I was on a visit to a certain district a few months ago I received a deputation from a number of our men, who gave me a memorial, which I still have in my possession, asking that the union to which I belong should allow them to scab or blackleg my society by working under price in order to satisfy the claims of the Government, which demanded boots at less than 10s. 6d Is it a fair proceeding that a contract should be obtained under certain conditions, and that then the Secretary of State for War should say he does not bind himself to accept the lowest tender? I challenge the representative of the War Office here to give me a solitary instance in which they have not accepted the lowest tender. Then the firms which do not get the contract are told that they can have work if they will come down to the other man's price. I say that this is neither honest nor fair dealing, and that it is not right that firms should be told they can have an order if they will come down to the level of the lowest tender. Anyone who knows anything about leather knows that it has gone up in price, whereas the Government are to-day paying less for boots than they ever before paid.
What is more, their method of treating the soldier is not a wise one. They buy the cheapest possible boot. It is no concern to the authorities because they do not have to wear them. The last time, when I was attending some manœuvres, I was told by one of the three greatest men in our British Army that boots are quite as important as rifles so far as soldiers are concerned. One can readily understand that in connection with men on the march. We know that during the South African war the boots gave out simply because the War Department had not sufficient sense to keep an adequate stock, and they are not doing that to-day. They have not a sufficient stock to-day to boot the whole
862
of the British Army. I am not taking into account the Cawnpore boots. I am talking of British-made articles—boots made under proper conditions and guaranteed to wear. I am informed by officers of the Army that when they are on the march they abandon their own dress boots and take a pair out of stock because of their comfort and ease. That bears out my statement, that the hand-sewn boot, owing to its construction, its durability, and general roominess, is the best possible boot this country has ever been able to produce. I regret exceedingly there should be any attempt to interfere with the supply of such boots. I think it is about time the Government turned their attention to this matter, and ceased buying the cheapest article simply because they are not concerned with the repairing of the boots, the cost of which has to be borne by the soldier himself out of his meagre pay. So far as new boots are concerned, the Government formerly took the responsibility of giving out to each man two pairs of boots. Now they only give out one pair, and they offer a man not 12s., but 8s., if he will undertake to make or repair his boots out of his own pocket. If the Government want to boot the soldiers as they ought to do they should see that these men always have two pairs of boots by them. The Government ought to take the responsibility on their own shoulders of keeping the boots in repair. In other words, while the man is wearing one pair, the other pair should be at the repairing establishment. That would be more economical in the long run. I am concerned as to the durability of the boot. There is an attempt being made to force into the industry of which I happen to be a humble member a cheaper and nastier article—boots which can be obtained for a little less money than they have been accustomed to pay in the past. It has been suggested that it is a cheaper and more durable article, but I am satisfied that that is not the case. I do not ask the Government to accept my personal views. They may think I have my own axe to grind, and I recommend them to put themselves into communication with Members of this House who are boot manufacturers, or let them institute an inquiry and consult the Kettering Board of Arbitration—a body composed of manufacturers and workmen engaged in this particular industry.
Suggestions have been thrown out to I firms that they should give out as much

863
work as possible in the winter time. Let the War Department in this matter practice what it preaches. Let them give out their orders for the winter so that the work may be undertaken at that period of the year, when our men cannot go into the hay or cornfields or spend their time in the allotment gardens. There are very few of our people who are not allottees. Why should this Army boot trade be busy in the summer and slack in the winter? Here is a Department which can, if it chooses, find a lot of employment for the winter time. I shall have to keep on drawing attention to this matter until I have persuaded the War Office to accept and act upon these views. I have referred to the boot which was made in India. I should like to know from the War Department what has been the loss on the Cawnpore boot. I think we shall find that there has been a considerable loss. The Government ought always in my judgment to carry a large stock of Army boots. Every man in our trade knows fully well that at the present time the Government are carrying a very small stock indeed. What need is there for cutting the stock down? Of course, ideas may differ as to what is a large or a small stock, but I say emphatically that during the last five years the stock has been smaller than it was ever before. Inquiry ought to be made into this matter. We all know that boots do not deteriorate in the first two or three years. If they are kept under proper conditions they are much better than if they are worn straight off after leaving the manufactory. While, as it is said in our trade, they are green or wet, they are not fit for use. They want to be thoroughly dried and to be kept in a proper place for at least 12 months. Why have the Government taken the trouble to reduce these particular stocks? There have been charges of sweating made against the War Office Department in their treatment of men who for a great number of years have been making hand-sewn boots and who are rot yet old enough to claim old age pensions. These men want an opportunity of working for the Government. But simply because the authorities have got certain ideas they have introduced a new policy, with the result that they have already ruined one or two firms. They have told us they do not want a ring of manufacturers to get hold of these contracts, but, as a matter of fact, a ring has already done so, and everybody in Northamptonshire knows full well that the mem-
864
bers of that ring get the orders. Unless the Government are prepared to give this question proper attention I shall persist in raising it on every available opportunity. I do not want to complain of the Secretary of State for War, but I do not think it is altogether courteous for him to try and get rid of this question by saying that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is trying the boots. Now, the Under-Secretary, like myself, is not a very heavy man. It would take him at least 18 months or two years to wear out a pair of these boots, and we are not prepared to wait for that long period before we get a satisfactory answer to our complaints. This subject ought to be taken up seriously. I know the Secretary for War has his time very much occupied with the question of Army organisation, but there are others in his Department who might fairly be expected to give consideration to this matter, and I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman himself would only give a few moments' serious attention he would come to the conclusion that some inquiry ought to be made in order to remove the complaints which people engaged in my own industry bring against this Department. I shall renew my protest until I get satisfaction, and the sooner the inquiry is promised, the sooner will the subject be dropped.
3 P.M.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. F. D. Acland): If the object of the hon. Member is to induce the War Department to go back to the old state of things under which the War Office were never able to get an adequate supply of Army boots, under which also they could not get sufficient contractors, I do not think he will get what he is aiming at. The makers of these hand-sewn boots in the small villages have never been able to produce an adequate supply of Army boots, and it is because we have never succeeded in obtaining that supply that we have had to change our policy. It was in consequence of the shortage of stocks at the time of the South African War that we had to get boots from India, and the Department would never have dreamt of getting a single pair from that place if the articles could have been produced in this country. We have only been able to make up our stocks by accepting machine-closed boots. The hon. Member has suggested that there has been a want of consideration in regard to this matter. I do not think his complaint is well founded. The hon. Member accompanied a large

865
deputation, which talked to us for four hours on this very subject. He is himself continuously talking to me about these boots. I do not know how many hours I have devoted to the subject with him. I do not think a week has passed in which I have not had the pleasure of at least one hour's conversation in regard to it. He is constantly complaining of the machine-closed boots, but, as a matter of fact, he has not been able to bring forward a single case in which complaint has been justified. We have given exhaustive trials to these boots. We have had to be satisfied by the most rigorous tests before giving orders for machine-closed and machine-worked boots, and it is only in recent years that a machine has been discovered the work of which has been proved to be absolutely satisfactory. The only complaints that we have had for the last year of any boots at all have been those of hand-sewn boots, and that being so, we have been able to get a perfectly satisfactory article, and we cannot go back upon it now, simply in the interests of the hand-sown trade, which never could produce, whatever the price may be, a supply which was anything like adequate to our demand. The only other argument the hon. Gentleman used answers itself. He said we were getting an article which was cheap and nasty, and yet he admitted that the inspector rejected his own boots and at once took these cheap and nasty boots.
Mr. T. F. RICHARDS: They were hand-sewn.
Mr. ACLAND: They are not hand-sewn now, they are machine-sewn, and I challenge the hon. Gentleman to detect, in an ordinary pair, the difference between hand-sewn and machine-sewn. He could not do it; the one is exactly like the other, and there is nothing in his complaint except an impossible desire to get a monopoly for those who could never give us anything like an adequate supply. Therefore I am afraid the hon. Gentleman must go on raising this Debate at every opportunity that he can. I have endeavoured to get good boots for the soldier, and never was the soldier so satisfied with his boots as those which he gets to-day, and never have we had a list of such a decent number of contractors with whom we can place our orders. It is only by the introduction of machinery that we have been able, for the first time in recent years, to get a guarantee of an adequate supply in times of pressure, and that being so, we are now getting a perfectly good boot at a reason-
866
able price, and we are getting by the machine-sewn a sufficient number of contractors. I say that the Army boot supply is in a satisfactory position, but the hon. Gentleman says we are in the hands of a "ring." I say we are not in the hands of a "ring." The last order that I gave I took care to spread it as far as possible, and that was admitted in the "Leather Trades' Review," which stated that the Government had been placing a few of their orders in the district, but only a few-places could take the work, as succeeding generations did not think it paid them to learn this branch of the business.
Mr. T. F. RICHARDS: What is the date of that?
Mr. ACLAND: This is the last issue of the "Leather Trades Review." It is the current monthly number, and the trade journal says that succeeding generations did not think it paid them to learn this branch of the business. It is therefore impossible for me to restrict our orders to that particular branch of the business, and therefore I am sorry to say that I cannot do it.
Mr. W. W. ASHLEY: I think the House will say, with the Financial Secretary to the War Office, that he must get his boots as cheaply as possible provided the quality is good, both in the interests of the nation and of the soldier too, but I think the point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. T. F. Richards) was rather this, that there were a large number of men who had been at this hand-sewn work all their lives, and who were now becoming old men, and who, owing to the Government taking these machine - made boots, were thrown out of work. They were not old enough to have an old age pension and nothing remained to them but the workhouse, and I am sure that the House does not want to bring a change of trade by which middle-aged men are thrown out of work, if they can produce an article as good as that which is made by machinery. Therefore, I do support the proposal of the hon. Member that the Government should, as long as these elderly men are not entitled to an old age pension, give the making of boots to them as much as they can to keep them employed and out of the workhouse.
Mr. ACLAND: Exactly. I spread the order.
Mr. ASHLEY: I did not gather that that was so, but I did not rise to bring forward that point, but to refer to the

867
complaint of the Inland Revenue officers as to the way in which they had been overworked and underpaid in connection with old age pensions. This matter has been brought forward by one or two hon. Members, and it was put, if I may say so, with great strength and clearness by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Summerbell), and my own personal experience from talking to these men leads me to think that the Government who had to get forward with their scheme as rapidly as possible, and were obliged to engage a quantity of extra workers have, as a consequence, given rise to a complaint on the part of these officers that they have had their work increased and not decreased, and that their work is very much enlarged. I do think that the Government ought to give a substantial increase of pay, because at present it has not been increased at all, or, at all events, to a very small extent. These are men who have done a great deal of good work in the past and have done their work extremely well, and I wish to bring this matter to the attention of the Treasury.
Sir FRANCIS CHANNING: I represent a large portion of the district which supplies the articles to which reference has been made to the War Office, and I wish to traverse one statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office as to the capacity of that district to supply boots. It can provide any amount of boots, which may be necessary, if given orders. I happen to know that several villages that I represent have been suffering from serious unemployment in the last two years, simply owing to the fact that the orders which the hon. Gentleman says they are unable to carry out for the War Office have not been given. There are villages where Army boots have been supplied for years, and there are firms of competent contractors in those villages, and they have been out of work during the last two or three winters owing to the failure of the War Office to give a fair chance in those districts to the contractors who employ the men. I think it is fair to those whom I represent to make that statement. In reply to the statement which my hon. Friend made, doubtless based on facts and figures placed before him at the War Office, I venture on behalf of those whom I represent most emphatically to traverse and to contradict it. During the stress of the South African war and the
868
expedition to Egypt and the Soudan, it was perfectly true it was necessary to go beyond this district and get machine-made boots, and some of the makers of machine-made boots devised new types of boots suited to hot climates. And as regards the ordinary supply of the War Office, a temporary arrangement was made by the War Office during the war to obtain a supply from India; but it was a temporary arrangement, and even at that time there were many contractors in Northampton-shire who could have supplied a larger number than they were asked for by the War Office. I must say that the statements which have been made by my hon. Friend, both in regard to the employment of the hand-sewn workers and also in regard to the facts which have been placed in his hands, are, I think, misleading with regard to the ability of the contractors of those districts to supply admirable Army boots. I wish to take this opportunity—I was unaware that the matter was coming up—of emphatically expressing the opinion that the facts that he has laid before the House are not correct.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee—[19th Day],
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

VALUATION FOR PURPOSES OF DUTIES ON LAND VALUES

  Clause 14.—(Definition of Total Value and Site Value of Land, excluding Minerals.)
  (1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, the total value of land means the amount which the fee simple of the land, if sold at the time in the open market by a willing seller in its then condition might be expected to realise.
  (2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act the site value of land means the amount which the fee simple of the land, if sold at the time in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise if the land were divested of any buildings, and of any other structures (including fixed or attached machinery) on, in, or under the surface, which are appurtenant to or used in connection with any such buildings and of all growing timber, fruit trees, fruit bushes, and other things growing thereon.
  (3) For the purposes, both of total value and site value, land shall be deemed to be sold free from incumbrances, but subject to any easements affecting the land, and to any covenant restricting the use of the land entered into before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the restraint imposed by the covenant is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, or in view of the character and surroundings of the neighbourhood, and the opinion of the Commissioners shall in this case be final and not subject to any appeal.
  (4) The Commissioners shall allow as deductions from the site value of any land:—

  (a) Any part of that site value which is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be directly attributable to works of a permanent character executed bonâ fide by or on behalf of any person interested in the land for the purpose of fitting the land for use as building land or for the purpose of any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture; and

  (b) Any sums which in the opinion of the Commissioners it would be necessary to expend in order to divest the land of buildings, timber, trees, or other things of which it is to be taken to be divested for the purpose of arriving at the site value and of which it would be necessary to divest the land for the purpose of realising the full site value;

  and the site value as reduced by those reductions shall be taken to be the site value as ascertained for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
  Amendment proposed in Section (3) to leave out the words "where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the restraint imposed by the covenant is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, or in view of the character and surroundings of the neighbourhood, and the opinion of the Commissioners shall in this case be final and not subject to any appeal."—[Mr. Salter.]
  Question proposed, "That the word 'where' stand part of the Clause."
  Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: This Amendment covers the whole of the ground, and three questions arise upon it. First of all, as the Bill is amended, I think the Committee will observe that the words preceding this Amendment are taken out,
  870
  which rather alters the bearing of it. The words "entered into before the 30th day of April, nineteen hundred and nine," are now taken out, so that the Amendment really follows "land," and the clause now says, that land "shall be deemed to be sold free from encumbrances but subject to any easements affecting the land, and to any covenant restricting the use of the land." Then comes the qualification "where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the restraint imposed by the covenant is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public." That is the first point of my hon. Friend's Amendment. It is intended to suggest that the covenant restricting the use of the land should not be limited by that expression of opinion of the Commissioners as to whether it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, because "public" is a very wide term, and although it might be argued that it is in the interests of the public that the restriction should be imposed, and naturally affects individual interests, I hardly think that the Attorney-General would argue that this is necessary. I think he would agree with me that, in the ordinary case where you have a plot of building land which has restrictions upon it in regard to the construction of a certain class of house of a certain value, that it would not be primarily in the interests of the public to maintain that provision.
  I do not think the Attorney-General will suggest that it could be argued that on general grounds that could be said to be in the interests of the public. You lay out a piece of land and you say that residential houses of £75 rent shall be the smallest type of houses which shall be erected upon it. That covenant runs with the land and the owner of that land is bound by it, and he would erect perhaps half a dozen £75 houses. Then the market might change, and he cannot get customers for £75 houses, and he would like in his own selfish interests to erect smaller houses of £20 rent. The covenant restricts him from doing so, and the covenant clearly ought to be maintained in the interests of the occupiers and purchasers of the £75 houses already erected. I do not think that can be said to be in the public interest, and yet it is clearly impossible to suggest that this House should do anything to discourage it. One of the objects we have very much at heart, and which has been a good deal in the mind of the House, is the matter of housing and town planning, and, certainly in the

  871
  matter of town planning, it is obviously desirable to get a certain class of house in a certain area and not to allow property of one kind, small houses or shops, to be put closely adjoining large residential houses, and so to deteriorate their value and destroy the amenities of the neighbourhood. Therefore, I cannot see on what ground the Government restrict this deduction of any depreciation due to a covenant to cases where the covenant is in the public interest. The Amendment removes that restriction and leaves it simply that where land is subject to a restriction or a covenant it shall be taken into account. It is obvious that the man who owns the land might be able to make more of it by selling it for an inferior class of property. This is a very material matter, that where he is subject to restriction he should be entitled to deduct it. It seems to me that you cannot wish to prevent such restrictions being made in the future. The only hypothesis on which you can keep this in is either that you want to prevent such restrictions being imposed in future, which I do not say you do want to do, or that you desire to tax people for a value which the land does not possess and cannot possess because it is subject to this restrictive covenant. On that ground I think we may fairly ask that these words should be taken out. The second point is that the opinion of the Commissioners shall in this case be final, and not subject to any appeal. From our point of view, that is a very undesirable restriction, and it ought to be a question of fact. There ought to be an appeal in that case, as there is in any other.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: When you come to valuation this question of restrictive covenants is exceedingly important. These restrictive covenants affecting the commercial value of land are a comparatively modern device—a product of recent years—but they are found very useful and beneficial improvements from a private point of view, and they are very widely employed, and they have a very powerful effect on commercial values, and everyone would agree that although wise and far-sighted, restrictive covenants may often, as years go by, have a great effect in increasing value, yet in their early days, when they are in operative and active restrictive effect, they invariably have the effect of reducing the commercial value of the land, because a man will not give as much for land the use of which is re-
  872
  stricted. This Amendment will affect an enormous amount of property, because these covenants mostly apply precisely to that class of building land which the Government think it desirable to deal with. What does the Bill say as it stands as to the manner in which a valuer has to deal with restrictive covenants? He is valuing a good piece of land, and he finds that it is subject to a restrictive covenant which reduces its commercial value. Is he to reduce its estimated commercial value in assessing the land for taxation as he would if he were assessing the value of the land for the purpose of advising a buyer as to how much he should get for it? I should have thought if you want to tax a man on the real value of his property obviously that is what he ought to do, but that is not what he is to do. Under the Bill as it stands, having made up his mind that if the restrictive covenant is to be taken into account it will reduce the value of the land, the valuer, as I understand, must communicate with the Commissioners and report to them that on a given property he finds such and such a restrictive covenant in force, and he must, I suppose, obtain their decision as to whether in their view such a covenant is either in the public interest or in the local interest, which, I imagine, amount to about the same thing.
  If they come to the conclusion that the covenant is not in the public or in the local interest, the instruction given by the Bill to the valuer is that he is not to value the land at that which, in his opinion, is its true value, but he is to add to what he honestly believes to be its true value, a fictitious and false addition, by ignoring the restrictive covenant, which, as a matter of fact, reduces its value. The object of the Amendment is to say that in every case where there is, in fact, a restrictive covenant, whatever the Commissioners may think about it, which, in the opinion of the valuer, reduces the value, he is to reduce his assessment. It is obvious that if the Amendment is not carried we will get all over the country people taxed upon excessive values. I can hardly imagine that that is the desire of the Government. It does not appear to me to be at all a question whether the covenant is what I may call a politic covenant. May I take the case of the simplest possible restrictive covenant? A man has bought some land for development in suburban villas in a country town subject to a very common restrictive covenant that he is not to build a public-house or any kind of shop, and that he is not to

  873
  apportion less than half an acre to a house and not to build any house of a less value than £500. He has given less for the land in consequence of these restrictive covenants. I will suppose that the neighbourhood has not developed quite as had been anticipated, and that the restrictive covenant is a misfortune, not only to the owner of the land who has bought subject to it, but to the locality. The locality has so developed that it would be desirable to have shops and smaller houses with less gardens, and possibly a public-house. The prospective taxpayer will heartily agree with the valuer, and will say: "I entirely agree that this restrictive covenant is a great misfortune to the locality. I bought the land subject to it, and gave less for the land because of it, and I should like nothing better than to be relieved from it, and I entirely agree with you and the Commissioners that this is not a good restrictive covenant." But what is to happen in such a case? I have observed with great interest an Amendment to be moved later on that in such a case the effect shall be that the restrictive covenant shall cease to operate, and that the fortunate developer, without paying any more, shall be free from the restrictive covenant.
  I do not want to anticipate that Amendment, but it is significant that it should be on the Paper. I do not know what the owner of the land, who is not consulted on the matter, would have to say. He has imposed a restrictive covenant in the interests of other land of his in the neighbourhood, and he would think it something of a hardship that the person who bought it should be relieved from it without paying any more money, and I do not know what would become of the celebrated observation of the Prime Minister in the City of London in regard to the sanctity of contracts. That, indeed, would be a very large order, but at present certainly I shall not assume that the Committee would think of interfering with contracts in that way. What is to be the position? That in the case I have put, a restrictive covenant which is not merely contrary to local interest, but is admittedly on all hands contrary to local interest, you are going to say to the developer who would be glad to be released from his covenant: "I am not going to release you from this covenant at all. As you have thought fit to subject yourself to it you shall not only develop your land under the commercial disadvantages which it entails, but meantime and for ever you and your successors shall be taxed upon
  874
  an inflated and artificial, which is not the real, value of the land, because it is not in the public interest." The supporters of this Budget are accustomed to repudiate very strenuously, and, I do not doubt, quite sincerely, the allegation so often made that parts of the taxation imposed by this Budget are penal. Can one imagine a more essentially penal, a more fatally penal, kind of taxation than to say to a man, "Because we disapprove of the nature of the covenant imposed on you and to which you submit, we are going to impose an artificial and admittedly unreal value"? The Committee will see that this Amendment proposes to deal both with this matter of the approval of the covenants and the question of appeal. The two questions raised by the Amendment are these. First of all, is the valuer to be instructed to disregard all such covenants as the Commissioners disapprove of; and next, and only in the event of the Committee being against me on the first point, is there, or is there not, to be an appeal? It is suggested that it will be better to deal with the question of appeal in the later Amendment, and that it will be convenient to confine the attention of the Committee at present to the other point. I propose to take that course. If this Amendment is defeated, I desire to raise the latter question, whether there should or should not be an appeal from the Commissioners allowed? I desire to urge on the Government and the Committee that since their desire admittedly is to base the taxation on a real estimate—I think myself it is always a great misfortune to have to base taxation on estimates at all; sometimes it has to be done, and it is done both in relation to local and Imperial taxation—let us try to base it on a real estimate and not on an untrue estimate, which the man instructed to make the estimate will tell you is not the real value of the property.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It must not be lost sight of in looking at the Amendment that practically all property that has been built, especially in the neighbourhood of towns, within the last 50 years is subject to covenants of some kind, and, therefore, the Amendment is of great importance, because it affects the method in which the whole of that property will have to be valued, both for Increment Duty and Reversion Duty. Of course, it will not affect the Undeveloped Land Duty, because in that case no question of covenants arise. But it must seriously affect

  875
  the two earlier duties. Some of these covenants are certainly of a character to reduce the actual saleable value of a given piece of property. I could mention plenty of cases where these covenants are of value—where the mere fact that the covenants exist is a very considerable element in the value. I might give an illustration. Some of those properties which have been laid out depend, as regards the amenities of the land, almost entirely on the excellent way in which the estate is laid out, and the way in which the owner of each house is bound to do or not to do certain things, all of which tend to add materially not only to the value of the whole estate, but, of course, to the items which constitute that estate. Bearing these facts in mind; and bearing in mind also the fact that we have got to deal with a state of affairs which applies to nearly every recently built house in the kingdom, we ought to look at the Amendment and see whether it is practicable or whether it is one which the Government ought to resist. I submit that the Amendment is the best way out of the difficulty, namely, to leave entirely out of the Bill all those words which tend to prevent the valuer in valuing the property from forming a judgment and fixing upon a value which is not the actual value of the property. I ask myself, looking at the clause, why should the Government seek to insist upon a valuation being made of any property which is not in fact the value of that property? Is there any object in the Government going out of its way to have a value put upon a given house which is not its real value? If so, perhaps when the Attorney-General comes to deal with the question he will tell us why they want to put a fictitious, and not the actual, value on these properties.
  The importance of these covenants cannot perhaps be better illustrated than in a case of my own. I have a piece of land, and I entered into a contract to sell it six years ago. It had upon it at one end a joiner's shop, and the rest of it was an open yard. I suppose 60 years ago, when that piece of land was carved out, there was a covenant that the yard should not be built upon. In fact, it abuts on a number of other houses and open ground. When I entered into the contract to sell that piece of land in Liverpool I found this covenant in the restrictionis affecting the title. I said to the buyer, "I think I can get rid of that covenant," and he replied, "I will take it if you can." I found
  876
  that so much money was asked that it was impossible to get rid of it, and the consequence was that my contract was cancelled and I could not sell the land. The object of the buyer of the property was undoubtedly to build upon the site, which is in a neighbourhood which has changed, and where there is no reason now in the public interest why that restriction should any longer exist. I think that illustrates the importance of these covenants. I suppose if the valuer under this Bill got to that piece of land he would say, "I am going to put a charge on the land for Increment Duty." If we passed the Bill without the Amendment the valuer will say, "The covenant is not in the interest of the public, and I am not going to pay any attention to it. I am going to assume that the piece of land could be sold perfectly free." He would put the value at £1,200, the price at which I was going to sell it, and I should have to deal with that property not only in regard to these taxes, but in regard also to other taxes which the Government may impose next year on a valuation of £1,200, whereas it is perhaps not worth half that amount. Is that right? My case is that if there is a covenant which is enforceable, and which affects the land, there is no way of valuing the property except by taking the covenant into account. The covenant is there. The Attorney-General will probably tell us that the Amendment is impracticable for this reason. It is not proposed by this Bill to set up a tribunal to determine the reasonability of all covenants, and which would have the power to knock them off entirely if they thought the covenants were no longer in the interest of the public. If a representative of the Government will get up and say that he will accept such an Amendment as that we will know that those covenants; which are of no further use to the public can be got rid of in that short and somewhat drastic manner, and I shall be content as regards this particular Amendment. I should say, perhaps, that it is a good idea if we can get rid of the covenants, but we cannot get rid of them in this way, and it is not proposed by the Bill to do so. We must therefore value each property not only with the buildings upon it, but with the covenants affecting it. They are just as much an item in estimating the value of the property as the fences that surround it and every other matter that affects it. There is another reason why I support the Amendment,

  877
  and that is because of its simplicity. If you stop in this clause after the word "nine" and knock out all the words which attempt to, restrict the operation of covenants, to impose a classification of covenants, and that sort of thing, then you simplify the matter if we are imposing new taxes. May I, as a matter of common-sense, put it to the Government to impose the tax in a simple way, and not to invent complications which are unnecessary, and which will, of course, make matters more difficult. By the Bill as expressed, without the Amendment, the Government propose to brush aside covenants. They cannot brush them aside, and therefore the alternative is that they must take each property with the covenants as they find them. The value otherwise would he illusory. Let me point out to the Attorney-General that if a covenant is of no use, if on being examined it is obviously out of date—supposing it has been obviously set aside by what has happened in connection with the actual facts in relation to surrounding houses—the valuers will pay no attention to it. You will get every protection against stupid and expired covenants by the fact that the valuers will not take them into account because, if taken into account, they would not alter the state of affairs. If the Government are really serious about this tax and about this clause, I do not think they should make it impossible to carry out a proper valuation. I do not think they should make the carrying of it out absurd, and it is absurd and unreasonable if the Government insist upon adhering to the clause in the way it stands, because it would have the effect simply of enabling the valuers to put a valuation on a property which was not the true value because of these covenants. I think it is a very great pity that the Government should introduce into the consideration of any of these covenants the opinion of the Commissioners as to whether the covenants are or are not in the interests of the public. The interests of the public to-day are protected by the statute, and protected by the local authorities. These covenants are all for private purposes generally, and only are public so far as they affect the rest of the estate which has been laid out under a similar covenant. It seems to me that the attempt for the purpose of these taxes to extort a valuation which has no foundation in fact is a very unfortunate one. I think the Government would be very well advised if they leave the whole of the
  878
  words of this clause out from "where" down to the end of the section, in accordance with the Amendment now before the Committee.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not rise to argue this case. Clearly it does not require argument. The Government have not tried to argue it, and cannot argue it. Why cannot they give way at once? We have had two or three speeches. It is clear that there is no reply, and they are acting on the old principle of absolute indifference, and will not defend their attitude.
  Sir W. ROBSON: There may be some other reason than pig - headedness or obstinacy which induces the Government to pause before making a somewhat important alteration in the scheme of the clause like this. The hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Watson Rutherford) spoke in favour of simplicity. We all try to have simplicity where we can, but unfortunately there are many reasons, some legal and some in reference to various interests, which animate mankind which prevent lawyers from indulging unduly in the pleasures of simplicity. We are obliged to consider not merely the effects, frequently undesired, of any particular form of words we adopt. We are obliged also to consider the other effects, which may be more serious in the form of words which may be suggested as an alternative. First of all see what we are trying to avoid by the limitations which we put upon this clause. Suppose we struck the words out completely as suggested by hon. Members opposite. There is no doubt that we would avoid some of the cases which have been put with great force and moderation in the speeches that have been made. I feel the force of these speeches as much as anyone can. It may be when you are imposing some fiscal burden that you are hitting someone in a way which you cannot avoid, and which undoubtedly puts upon him some hardship, and yet it may be the lesser evil. That makes a justification for a good many fiscal hardships. What are we trying to avoid here? Suppose there is no kind of qualification upon the sort of covenant that the Commissioners may entertain as a ground for exemption, you have two possible evils. You have your land-owner, neither better nor worse in this respect than the rest of the community, imposing upon himself disabilities in order to save this tax.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how he can impose these upon himself?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I am certainly not going to suggest. Hon. Members can imagine for themselves the way in which a tax may be evaded by covenants of a kind which may be entered into by agreement of the parties, and which, for the time being, as long as they last, would have the effect of exempting the property. There is another effect which we must consider. You may have a landlord and someone else putting a very large and unreasonable area of land under the burden of a covenant of this kind. It might be that it might cover an area of land that would be a very serious hindrance to the development of some adjacent community. As we know, there are many persons who desire, and from motives which are not by any means dishonourable, to keep land undeveloped in the neighbourhood of their places, although it may be to the detriment of their community. Clearly we ought not to treat cases of that kind as being proper subjects of exemption. Therefore we must devise some means, if we can, of preventing the two classes of evils which I have suggested. Some qualification, I think, will be required. It is not quite easy to devise words that would deal with the cases which we want to avoid and yet not bring in some cases that we would wish to exclude. Hon. Members opposite, in order to meet the particular cases of hardship, which I think will not by any means be so common as they have indicated, would sweep all safeguards away in this Amendment, leaving the door open both to evasion and to the class of covenant I have described where the landlord and the tenant between them, desiring to secure the amenities of one or two houses in the neighbourhood, by mutual covenant subject an unduly large area of land to this restraint. I am perfectly conscious of the hypothetical cases of hardship that have been mentioned. They are only hypothetical in the sense that they are used as an illustration. But the cases of hardship put by hon. Members opposite are not mere hypotheses. They represent real, but, I think, rare cases. How can we deal with them? We say that first of all the Commissioners may have regard to the public interest. I grant that those would, if they stood alone, not be adequate or even satisfactory in a certain class of cases, because it might be contended that, after all, the public have no interest in such restrictions. I do not think myself that that contention would be effective. I think that the public interest, especially when one comes to consider the
  880
  succeeding words, and especially also when one comes to consider the tendency of any tribunal, be it Commissioners or Court or Referee dealing with cases of this kind, wherever those open spaces are not a real cause of congestion in the immediate neighbourhood, I think that the public interest would receive a more generous construction than hon. Members give to it, even if the words stand by themselves. But they do not stand by themselves. There is an additional ground for consideration put before the Commissioners, in itself important, that, I think, shall affect any construction they are to give to the words. "public interest," namely, "in view of the character and surrounding of the neighbourhood." See how many cases that covers. I am not saying that it covers every conceivable case, but it covers by far the greater part of the cases put by the hon. Member for West Derby. Let us take the general run of such cases where you have got these restrictive covenants imposed, where it is desired to have buildings only of a certain class in a certain part of the town. That is precisely the kind of case to be met by these words.
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: Is that necessary? The Commissioners only allow the covenant if, in their opinion, the restraint is necessary and in view of the character and surroundings of the neighbourhood. Would the Commissioners say it is necessary?
  Sir W. ROBSON: Taking the words "reasonably necessary," I do not think the word "reasonably" would be ruled out as totally inoperative in such a case. I think anybody construing the word "necessary" would make some difference on account of the word "reasonably." But I think that the words might be somewhat reconsidered. We must be somewhat careful about the choice of words in this case. I do not indicate the construction we desire to adopt. But that is a point which could be considered at any time in the light of what we have heard in this Debate. Anybody who has had to do with the drafting of a Bill in the Committee stage, which comes before the Report stage, knows that there is plenty of time to consider a minor point like that. But I was considering something of more substance. The great bulk of these cases clearly are due to the desire of the persons laying out the land for building to preserve this amenity in the interests, not only of one or two persons, but of all those who are concerned in the general condition

  881
  of the land—that is, the character and surroundings of the neighbourhood. That covers the great bulk of cases. It covers clearly the case which was put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. A. C. Salter), where you have an owner averse to different types of property being built in a street, and therefore the restriction is put on the class of houses, and it is provided that nobody should put a poor house, a mean house, or a public-house, or a house with no space about it on this land. These are the oases which have been pointed to, and in every one of them account would be taken of the character and the surroundings of the neighbourhood, and of what is reasonably necessary from the point of view of the neighbourhood. I think, therefore, the great bulk of cases are covered by that qualification, and therefore when you come to measure the possibility of individual cases of hardship against the disadvantages of this other course, it seems to me on the whole to present a less evil than if you cut these words out. That is the only answer that can be clearly given to individual cases of hardship, that although individual they are the lesser evil. I submit to the Committee that we must have some qualifications. The Government will give careful consideration to the points, but we are not able to do away with safeguards altogether.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I regret the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I mean no discourtesy to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but we all of us know that the Minister primarily responsible in this case is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The learned Attorney-General has not that freedom of action which the Chancellor would have in a case of this kind. I do not mean to say that he would not accept anything, but not being the Minister primarily responsible for the Bill he has not that same freedom as he would himself have if he were the Minister in charge. I am convinced that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been present and had listened to this discussion half an hour ago he would have got up and said, "I think you have made a case. I am always anxious to meet a good case," and he would have accepted the words. There would have been no more talk, there would have been no Division, and we would have got on with something else. What does the Attorney-General's defence come to? He admits a case of hardship, but he thinks that such cases are not likely to be as numerous as we sup-
  882
  pose. He says it is better that these cases should arise and that the victims should suffer than—what? I really do not know. He said we had the lesser of the two evils. I really do not know what the other evil was, unless it was that this tax might become unworkable. Upon my word I think that would be the lesser of the two, and to deliberately set up and enforce a tax knowing that you are going to create and inflict permanent injustice seems to me a most amazing defence for the Government to put forth. What have they said again and again in respect of this tax in answer to our arguments. They have said, "We are going to tax a man on what he has got; we will not tax him on what he has not got." Is there any statement which has been more frequently repeated in these Debates by every Minister? What is the admission of the Government in regard to this particular case? That you are going to tax a man on what he has not got, what he cannot get and what you will not give him—not only what he cannot get for himself, but what you will not give him; because, if you did, you would break numberless contracts throughout the country in the most flagrant way, or in so flagrant a way that you dare not do it, after the declarations of the Prime Minister and other Ministers. To "tax on what a man has got" goes absolutely by the board. It is a tax on what a man has not got, and what he cannot get. It may or may not be a reasonable restriction placed upon him; it may or may not be a restriction in the interests of the public, but as long as it is put on him, nothing could be more grossly unjust than that he should be taxed as if that restriction was not in existence. The position of the Government astonishes me all the more, because on one section of Clause 10, as I am informed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already pledged himself to do exactly what we are asking the Government to do in this case. The Attorney-General, I think, was here during the discussion of Clause 11, and, as I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes these words:—
  "(c) On the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act, for the development of the area of which the land forms part, and that it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, or in view of the character of

  883
  the surroundings or neighbourhood, that the land should be so kept free from buildings."
  I am glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer now in his place. I quite understand that he was away on public business. In regard to Section (c) of Clause 11, it is exactly parallel to Subsection (a) of this clause, and contains the very same words. In answer to the Member for West Derby, the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook on Report, or I believe it was the Attorney-General himself, to introduce a safeguard in the case of private rights as well as public rights. I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do exactly the same thing here. If you omit these words, that is one way. If you will not omit those words, introduce other words. Anyhow, what we ask is that you shall not tax a man on the basis of it being possible for him to do what it is not possible for him to do.
  Mr. J. W. HILLS: I hope—even at this eleventh hour—the Amendment will be accepted. I may be sanguine, but the case is so absolutely unanswerable that I cannot help thinking that the Government will change their mind. The Attorney-General really has not attempted to meet the case at all. Our case is this: Take a house which is bound by certain covenants. The man who owns the property did not impose those covenants, and he cannot withdraw them; they go with the land; they are part of the flesh and bone of the property, just as much as is the situation. Take a house in Park-lane. You cannot value it on the same basis as a house in Caithness. You must have regard to the fact of the surroundings of a house in Park-lane, and also to the covenants which bind it, as well as other houses around it. These covenants are an essential item of value. That is our case. The answer of the Attorney - General is threefold. He says that if you leave out these words, and allow the valuer to take into account all covenants, it is then in the power of the land-owner in future to burden his land, and thereby to reduce the tax. I find it hard to treat that argument seriously. Is it really supposed that the land-owner will depreciate the value of his own land? It is just as reasonable to say that a man will invest his money without getting any income. It has been argued that these covenants depreciate and decrease the value of land. A large number increase the value of land. I
  884
  think it stands to reason that it should be so. The seller imposes them and he puts them on to get a bigger price, thereby increasing the value of the land and increasing the subject on which the tax is levied. The second answer of the Attorney-General is really the same as the other. He said it might place a large area under the burden of these covenants. I think that was hardly a subject for a Finance Bill. If the owner sells his land at a higher price, the valuer has got to value it at a higher price, and, therefore, increases the value, and does not decrease it.
  Without disregarding the facts of the case, what happens is this: An estate is laid out in the suburbs, and houses with gardens are built. Then the character of the neighbourhood changes. The population goes elsewhere, and a new population comes in. All these houses are bound by restrictions, such as that no shop should be put in, and so forth. This, no doubt, increases the value, and the covenants were required in the public interests when they were first imposed. Now they are quite out of date, and the Commissioner and valuers are bound to see that these restrictions are now absurd in the public interest, and, of course, they would say so. Therefore it is perfectly clear that no Commissioner could possibly say that these restrictions are in the public interest. In fact, the whole genesis of these covenants is that they are imposed by the owner and seller of the land to increase the value of his land. He does not impose them in the public interest, though in certain cases they may be in the public interest. My real point is that unless you leave these words out valuation is absolutely impossible. You cannot value a single piece of land apart from the covenants binding upon it or upon the property surrounding it. Take a house in London, good, bad, or indifferent, you have to regard these covenants. No man on earth can say what is the value of that house unless he regards the covenants binding upon it and upon the surrounding houses. You cannot regard London as stripped of all these covenants. There they are, and there they have been for centuries, and they are essential in determining the value of every single house in London. Who, in heaven's name, could value the houses of London and disregard those covenants? All these covenants are just as much a part of the value as the situation, and the valuer who comes along and is told to value a house

  885
  in Park-lane without having regard to the covenants binding it and upon surrounding houses would be set a perfectly impossible task. That, surely, shows the Government ought to accept the Amendment, because I am certain that you will render any real valuation of any town absolutely impossible if these words are allowed to stay in.
  Mr. G. D. FABER (York): Under Clause 14 the Government are enabling these Commissioners at their own sweet will and pleasure to say whether in any case restrictive covenants are to be regarded by them or not. The Attorney-General is afraid of leaving out the words proposed to be left out by the Amendment because it might give rise to cases of collusion. It is hard to follow what he meant by cases of collusion, because if a landlord engaged in an operation of that kind he would, to use a homely illustration, be cutting off his nose to spite his face. He would be hurting his own pocket. Until the Amendment which the Government themselves adopted last night, taking out the words "before the 30th April, 1909," collusion could not have arisen at all, because as the clause then stood it comprised only cases before the 30th April, 1909. It is really only an after thought on the part of the hon. Gentleman, who said as well there would be only rare cases of hardship. I rather think there will be hundreds and thousands of cases of hardship. It has been pointed out that in London, at any rate, and in all other large towns, restrictive covenants are the rule rather than the exception.
  Let me quote a case which is within my own knowledge, and which at any rate brings home the injustice; the flagrant injustice to my mind. A relative of mine, a distinguished lawyer—and lawyers are not always good business men—bought 300 or 400 acres of land near a provincial town about 25 miles from London. He paid something like £200 or £300 per acre, and built himself a house. He particularly desired to live in that particular spot for private reasons. He bought the land from a large adjoining land-owner, who put this restrictive covenant into the conveyance, which my relative wisely or foolishly accepted, that although a house might be built, on the rest of the 300 or 400 acres no other house should be erected. The 300 or 400 acres were along a main road not far from a fashionable centre, and no doubt they had very considerable undeveloped value. Now suppose that case had come before the Commissioners. There
  886
  is the property belonging to my relative, which cannot be built upon—the covenant actually estops his representatives from doing anything of the kind. The Commissioners come in, and they say, in the words of the Bill, that the restraint imposed by the covenant is not in the interests of the public at all, or of the character of the neighbourhood, and that those acres ought to be built upon—that it was merely the will of the original vendor that imposed this covenant, and that the land ought to be built upon. What an extraordinarily difficult position you are putting the owners of that land into. The Commissioners say the land ought to be built upon, and therefore that they shall disregard the covenant altogether, while the covenant says you cannot use it for building purposes for all time. The truth is that once you depart from the broad track of justice you get into devious paths, and you never get to the end of your difficulties. I daresay hundreds of cases could be quoted where just as great hardship would arise. We have got the great master of the Bill back again in the House after his fight or otherwise with the London brewers. Whatever he is not, at any rate he sees which way the game is going and the way the cat is jumping. I do hope he will get up and save the face of the Government and say that they must not be allowed to go on with an impossible case.
  Mr. G. YOUNGER: At the risk of being tiresome, I should like to read again a few words from the Scotch Land Values Bill, words which I read last night, and which contradict the words we want to get out of this Bill. The land is supposed to be sold free of all burdens, public and private, except building restrictions, and then there is the point of the Attorney-General as to-collusion. The words to which I refer are:—
  "Provided that where an assessor considers that any restriction or servitude created after the passing of this Act has been created in order to defeat this Act, without prejudice to the appeal which any person aggrieved has, he is entitled to disregard such restriction or servitude."
  It appears to me that that is a very useful contribution to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with this question, and if Philip drunk will appeal to Philip sober then you get this clause all right and in proper order. Without a clause of this kind you will see the difficulty which the Attorney-General says might arise, and you will get rid of the appalling proposal to interfere with all these covenants. We have got no leasehold system in Scotland, but a system

  887
  of permanent feus, and therefore there is never any power to review, and such restrictions can never be removed except by the superior, who does not pay the tax and has no interest to do so. Otherwise they remain permanently on the land, and cannot be dealt with after any series of years. As this Bill applies to Scotland, it is most necessary that those words should go out, and that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue should not be entitled to come down to our country and tear up every feu.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I had hoped the Government were going to rise and say they were prepared to give way on this point, or, at any rate, mate some suggestion to meet the difficulties. As they have not done so, I desire to say a word or two on the aspect of this Amendment, Only two reasons have been given—indeed, only one—by the Attorney-General for the insertion of these words, namely, that they are designed to avoid evasion, and his second reason, as I understood it, was only a kind of accidental incidence to add importance to the first reason. If you look at this clause for a moment you will see that is not the reason why those words were included in this Bill, and it is quite plain they cannot be, because they were originally designed only to apply to existing contracts. Nobody could have possibly foreseen this Bill, and therefore could not enter into a covenant to evade its provisions before 30th April, 1909. Therefore the Attorney-General's reasons are not the reasons the Government have for inserting those words. They cannot be, that is obvious. Then there are no reasons, so far, that the Government have given us, absoluely none. I agree there might be a reason for keeping them in now that you have changed the Bill. The Attorney-General said that they do much harm, because a covenant which is a reasonable and necessary covenant practically includes every covenant, or almost every covenant. Then what is the use of putting them in if in point of fact they are going to have such a very small effect? Therefore I do not think that that can be the real reason of the Government.
  I think myself there is some other reason why those words are put in. I think they are an excellent instance of one of the many vices which underlie this Bill. If this were a Finance Bill those words would not have been put in, and the Government
  888
  would be ready to strike them out in a moment from a financial point of view. They will do nothing but harm, they will greatly increase friction, and their return in money would be infinitesimal. They are put in owing to some crank of a land reformer. I suppose some friend of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) has a dislike for covenants of this kind, or it may be the Lord Advocate. I do not know, I have not followed their reasoning. It may be only as is suggested, a general dislike to contracts. Those words are inserted for some purpose of that kind, and not for a financial purpose. It would be impossible to convince any impartial Member of the Committee that they are for a financial purpose. I hope they will be struck out, and that the Government will have the good sense, if not the prudence, to accept the Amendment.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I have to apologise to the Committee for not having been here during the discussion, as I had to meet some deputations. I had no idea the Bill would be taken on Friday when I so arranged, and it was too late to make a change. I am afraid the contribution of the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) has not assisted the solution of this question. What is the position? The position is this, and it is quite clear from the speech which has been delivered by the hon. Member for York (Mr. G. D. Faber) that you may have restrictive covenants which would have a very serious fiscal result. The Noble Lord said this is not a fiscal matter at all, that it is purely what he would regard as a first-class crime and misdemeanour, that it is an attempt at land reform.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: By a Finance Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Let me assure him this is not contaminated with that sort of vice at all, it is purely fiscal. The whole point is put by the speech of the hon. Member for York. He gave the case of 400 acres of land which was subject to restriction with regard to building. Surely if covenants of that kind are allowed to be entered into, and not merely allowed to be entered into, but are allowed to be effective in excluding taxes, you may have a very serious fiscal effect, certainly as far as this particular tax is concerned. I know of a covenant of that sort, extending

  889
  not to 400 but to 40 acres, where the lessor insisted on a covenant that no other houses should be built which would interfere at all with his view. That meant that the whole of the 40 acres were absolutely destroyed for building purposes.
  Mr. REMNANT: It might be an open space in a very crowded neighbourhood.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was nothing of the kind; and I am answering the point of the Noble Lord to show that covenants of that kind may have a fiscal side. In the experience of two Members there are 440 acres on which you could never get your tax at all. You can multiply those cases all over the country. So that there would really be a fiscal result. I agree that there is a distinction between covenants entered into before the Act and covenants entered into after. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. J. W. Hills) says: "At any rate, here are parties who have entered these engagements, which they cannot break; but they have to pay the halfpenny tax upon land which, under these covenants, they cannot develop, and the party which keeps them from developing the land is the party who does not pay." I think there is a case there for consideration, and I say frankly that I am quite prepared to meet the case with regard to existing covenants. But I say still that there is a very serious distinction between existing covenants and covenants made in the future. Otherwise there would be a distinct inducement to put covenants into an agreement for the purpose of excluding the operation of the tax. In the case put by the hon. Member for York (Mr. G. D. Faber) there was no intention of evading the tax. It was purely—I will not say a whim of the landlord; but it was what the landlord thought was probably in the interests of his own estate. I can however, quite conceive its having a very disastrous effect on the development of the neighbourhood.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: He may have wanted to develop his own land.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: He may have thought it was best in the interests of his own property; but at the same time, unless it is in the interests of the neighbourhood, I can quite conceive a covenant of this kind being entered into in the future with a view to evading the tax. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has quoted the Scottish Land Bill as if he were quoting the Ten Commandments.
  Mr. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman must not forget that that Bill was drafted and carried through this House by the prophets of land values, and he is only a new recruit.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member must not make too sure of that. At any rate he quoted it last night and again to-day. But in that case they foresaw the possibility of covenants of this kind being used to the detriment of the revenue, and that was their way of meeting it. I do not deny that it may be the best way for Scotland; but I think on the whole, that this is the best way, taking the country through, for meeting that case—that you should give to the Commissioners a discretion with regard to future transactions. I am quite willing to meet the case of covenants already in existence. I am impressed by the case made by the hon. Members for York and Durham, that we might be imposing a tax upon a man who is bound by a covenant which he cannot abrogate, and that the man who insists upon the covenant is one who will not pay. I am not sure that I can give the exact words now, but I would be prepared to consider words to this effect, "Saving so far as covenants or agreements entered into before the Act are concerned"; but in regard to agreements entered into after 30th April, 1909, the Commissioners should disregard restrictions of that kind. I agree that it is rather hard on a tenant who is bound by an agreement into which he certainly has not entered with a view to evading the Act of Parliament. He might be very glad to use the land for building, but he cannot do it. But in the future I think parties when they enter into an agreement of that kind should do it with full knowledge that unless it is in the public interest the halfpenny tax can be enforced.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am sure we all feel that the right hon. Gentleman in any suggestion he has made has done his best to meet us, at all events as far as the consideration which he has been able to give to this matter enables him to come to a decision. But I am rather anxious about one point. In the first place let me remind the Committee that there is an absolute divergence of opinion between the Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the number and magnitude of the cases affected Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer came in the Attorney-General, who was fighting a

  891
  rearguard action with most commendable persistence, found temporary refuge behind certain imaginary statistics or statements of general fact, which he laid before us with great assurance, as to the number of cases in which the grievance of which we complain really occurs. He said, "You can indeed find here and there a case in which the Bill as it stands would throw the tax upon a man for possessing undeveloped land which he cannot develop, but those cases are of the rarest kind. My Noble Friend (Lord B. Cecil) pointed out that all these provisions have clearly nothing to do with a Finance Bill; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to be outdone in rapidity of movement and dexterity, immediately faced round, and said, "This is indeed a financial transaction. Look at the immense loss to the Exchequer on account of the number of these cases. The hon. Member for York (Mr. G. D. Faber) gave a case affecting 400 acres; I myself know another case affecting 40 acres. Such cases occur in every part of the Kingdom." And he assured the House, with all the authority of his position, that really the finances of the country would be shaken to their base if the rare exceptions which the microscopic examination of the Attorney-General could not find were allowed to escape the net of his taxation. May I point out also, though I do not wish to go back on anything that is past, that, as the clause was originally drawn, it did in the main apply to these cases, and drew a distinction between past and present—I do not say the precise distinction drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it did draw a sharp distinction between contracts entered into before the passing of the Act and contracts entered into after. That distinction was abolished last night by the Attorney-General, and, if not re-established in precisely the old form, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit that there is a very great resemblance between the new form and that which was last night abandoned by his legal confrère.
  There is a much more substantial point, and this is a criticism which I venture to put in all seriousness to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I understand it now, all existing contracts are to be safe, and a man is not to be taxed for land which, owing to a past contract, he cannot develop. That is the new proposal of the Government. All future arrangements, however, which might diminish the operation of the tax, can be disregarded by the
  892
  Commissioners. Are the Government quite sure that they are right in adopting that form? The Scottish form read out by my hon. Friend (Mr. Younger) only excepted those contracts which were entered into for purposes of, I will not say fraud, but something very like it—evasion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will not have that limitation; he wants it to apply to all arrangements. In that case, I would point out that unless the Commissioners lay down beforehand what kind of regulation they will allow, everyone who wishes to lay out his estate to the best advantage of the public, unless he is going to cover the whole of it with buildings, will do so with the gravest doubts as to what the financial result will be to himself or to the purchaser. That must be wrong. If you think that these arrangements are in themselves bad, or that, on the whole, they ought not to be allowed, you should forbid them. But nobody does think that. The whole theory of the Government in regard to town planning is that such arrangements, made either by a local authority or by a private owner, are in the highest interests of the community. Everybody will admit that wherever a town has expanded in a manner satisfactory to the public, wherever it has been laid out with open spaces and amenities, it has always been done by a single owner or landlord planning the estate himself under restrictions—because it is only under restrictions that such arrangements can be entered into. In Scotland I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the system of feus is the only possible system, if you allow these restrictions and make them eternal, because the essence of a feu is that it is a perpetual lease, and if it is for the benefit of the community the restriction limiting the building of houses should be as perpetual as the lease to which it refers. No Scotsman will admit that you can do without these restrictions. You must have them; I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees to that. But does not the Government see that, unless people who have to enter into these restrictions have some knowledge beforehand of the view which will be taken by the Commissioners as to the taxable result of the arrangements they enter into, there will be a real impediment thrown in the way of the proper use of the land? I think that is absolutely the case. Therefore, I would venture to suggest that if the Government will not go the length of the Scottish precedent, if they will not allow restrictions, and

  893
  future contracts or covenants made bonâ fide are to be free from the operations of this Bill, at all events, make some provision that broad categories shall be made by the Commissioners as to what they will regard as a proper kind of arrangement to be come to, so that those who enter into this eternal arrangement may know what the result to themselves may be. If not, I am convinced that this proposal of the Government will be found really to be an arrangement restricting the proper use of land. I do not think the Government have thought this matter out. All the difficulties arise upon the absolute insistence of the Government to treat parcels of land as if they were parcels of stock. Parcels of land are not parcels of stock. One £100 in Consols is similar to another £100 in Consols in the books of the bank. It is not so with land. The character of one acre of land does not depend upon its inherent value, but upon what is done in the next acre. When you are dealing with buildings it is even more so. The whole thing is mutually dependent. The matter is a serious one. If the Government could find some method of laying down principles or rules that when buyer and seller maintained their transactions they would not find themselves penalised, I do not think much harm would be done. But under the sort of loose arrangement proposed by the Government, in which men who know nothing or need to know nothing about town planning, and who may have the most varying views as to what is good for the neighbourhood, the community, the owner, or the occupier of a house—if all uncertainty and variety of opinion is to be drawn into the middle of the land transactions to hamper development and falsify the conclusions of those who are making arrangements, not for this or next month, but for the next 20 years—or under the Scottish system, for eternity—then I think no small individual injustice will be perpetrated, and the result will be to hamper the proper development of the suburbs of our great towns. The advantages which you are introducing in one Bill are advantages you take away by this so-called Budget Bill. I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession he has made, but I ask that he will go further and endeavour to meet our objections, which are wide in their scope, and not frivolous in their character, and which deserve serious consideration.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think the Scottish words really as helpful as those we have in the Bill, because they
  894
  involve really consideration of intentions. The words in the Bill involve the adjudication by the Commissioners upon questions of fact. The words in the Scottish Bill involve rather an examination of intentions. You have got to prove fraudulent bargaining with a view to getting rid of taxes. Now that is very difficult indeed. Our experience of recent casts in the House of Lords shows how very difficult it is to establish lack of bona fides. That is one thing we are bound to take into account. I do not want to discuss these cases at present. We have come to the conclusion, for the reasons I have given—and we have considered the words—that the Scottish words will not do. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that you should have some sort of regulations or catalogue of things which would be regarded as giving the right of exemption, or rather depriving a man of exemption under this particular clause. That is a very difficult thing to do. I confess I should not like to under take the responsibility of drafting a clause of that kind. It would involve your foreseeing every possible contingency that would arise. Whatever the authority may be, whether commissioners or other body, I do feel that it would be infinitely better that they should have general instructions of the character indicated. I think the right hon. Gentleman as a whole will agree with me that, subject to his having confidence in the body that will adjudicate, that it is very much better that the words should be general rather than that we should attempt to enumerate all sorts of contingencies which are likely to arise, and under which exceptions are suggested to be made.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider one further point in regard to the concession he has offered? He proposes to deduct the value of any reduction in value due to existing contracts, but as regards future contracts to take the words of the Bill. But there is this point: that a contract may be perfectly bonâ fide entered into, and may fulfil the conditions that he imposes, but subsequently when you come to the word to put the thing into effect the effect does not follow. I would suggest the substitution of the words, "was when imposed." One other remark. I think it is necessary to look at this question of restrictions not only from the individual standpoint, but from the wider standpoint of the whole ground. The general effect of these restrictions is to improve the revenue. If you put restrictions upon one piece of

  895
  land that reduces its value in order to maintain the value of the adjoining land. Therefore the State will get the advantage of the other piece of land. At the same time they should be most careful not to penalise the piece of land upon which the restriction lies.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: With regard to the second point given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I do not quite agree. I am perfectly certain in the case which I have quoted that it would destroy the value of the adjoining property, and that it would not be in the interests of the property. As to the first point, I think there is something in it. I am not prepared to give an answer now. I would rather not at the present stage promise absolutely, because I want to see exactly what the effect of the Bill may be.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As to the other point?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Land may be residential one moment, and then become industrial, but I would rather have a further consultation before making such further concession.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The point of view of myself and my Friends is that it is a matter of the utmost importance. If the Chancellor refuses, if he were ultimately not to meet that case, it would withdraw a great deal of the value of the concession he has made. What is the Chancellor's whole argument? It is not that he can prevent improper covenants being made. That may be a proper matter for legislation. But, as was said by the Noble Lord, it is not a proper matter for a Finance Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is very anxious that we should understand that it is nothing but a Finance Bill. He cuts that ground out altogether. He is not producing taxes in order to discourage what he considers a wrongful covenant. He is doing it merely in order to prevent your losing money. How do you lose money? You lose it because the land which was bound by covenant, which was reasonable at the time the covenant was made, and was recognised by your officials as reasonable, as being the proper thing to do, remains bound by that covenant after it has become a disadvantage to the owner of the land. That is, so long as the covenant adds to the value of the land the man is
  896
  not taxed, but the moment the covenant detracts from the value of his property he becomes a victim to taxes. The whole question of fraud is gone. Provided you sanctioned it once, surely you ought to be bound as much for the purpose of the Government. If the Government had said we will not sanction it so far as this tax is concerned—that would have been the course—that is to say, it shall have no fiscal, whatever other effect it may have. You have your option, and like the seller and the buyer, like the lessor and the lessee, you ought to stand by your option. You have no right to go back upon that bargain, which they cannot go back upon, and you have no right under a Finance Bill to destroy the liberty of contract. I do press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the case of fraud or the possibility of creating this covenant to avoid a tax being out of the question—I do press that the covenant which you yourselves think wise and in the public interest if, by an unfortunate turn of events, it becomes a misfortune, you ought not then to drop upon the poor sufferer and to tax him.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not want to be forced into the position of arguing against the proposition. At the same time, I cannot agree that it is in the same position as a covenant entered before the Act. If a man enters into a restricted covenant of this kind he does so with full knowledge that the land may become the subject of this contribution to the revenue. It changes the character of it, and the land may become the subject of revenue without interference with the contract. I would rather not be forced to argue the matter at the present time, as I want to give it absolutely free and unbiassed consideration. I may have to argue it later on. Undoubtedly there are reasons against it There may be a considerable amount of revenue in cases of that kind. You may exempt land in the whole of a neighbourhood from taxation, and for these reasons I am afraid I must adhere at the present moment to what I have said already. I am willing to move an Amendment, of which I have given notice, but I cannot promise anything further.
  Mr. GEORGE HARWOOD: I want to suggest to the Chancellor that there is another way of dealing with this matter, and that is that where the Commissioners come across a covenant which is not reasonably necessary in the interests of the

  897
  public, and in view of the character of the particular neighbourhood, that it should be abolished. I am not a lawyer, but if covenants which were originally made and intended in the interests of the public are, owing to a change of affairs, found indefensible, and that everybody acknowledges that it would be well to abolish them, why not let them be abolished. It is obviously unfair that the tenant should be made to pay a tax when he cannot perform certain particular conditions, and therefore it seems to me that it would be obviously fair, and obviously in the public interest, if the covenant were abolished.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think in discussing this matter the fact is lost sight of that when the ordinary covenant is made without collusion, it really docs not depreciate any property at all. The Debate, to my mind, has proceeded entirely on a misapprehension on that point. Of course if a collusive covenant such as that referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is put on, then it is obvious it might depreciate a large piece of the property. But the ordinary covenant does not really cause any depreciation whatever to land as a whole at the time it is put on. Let me give an illustration, and it is a frequent illustration. A man owns, say, 30 acres of land. He reserves to himself or sells to another individual a corner plot. That corner plot contains a number of restrictions and covenants, but not one against building a licensed house upon it. The licensed house can be built upon the corner plot, but it cannot be built upon the rest of the property. See the effect in the question of value upon that plot of land. It is true that a certain price per yard, some small fraction of a ½d. or something of that kind, may conceivably be taken off other bits of the property, which has the restriction upon it, but I contend that the whole of that value has gone on to the piece at the corner which has got an additional value exactly equal to what the other pieces have been deprived of, because the particular piece at the corner is now the only piece in the neighbourhood where a licensed house can be built. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to in reply to the hon. Member for York, was the case of the man who bought 400 acres from another with a covenant that he was never to build a house upon it. But I contend that that covenant did not reduce the value of the land in the country by one penny. What was the reason for putting on that covenant? The man who
  898
  insisted on that covenant said to himself, and perhaps to those who bought his land, if there is going to be any building in this district it is going to be done upon my land, and you will therefore covenant with me that no houses are to be built upon the 400 acres. There is a certain depreciation, but the man who kept the greater part of the property got the added increased value, because if there is going to be any building value in the district he reserved the right to keep it for his own property. I do not represent any party, of course, in this House except myself, but I do not think that the suggestions made by the Government should be listened to for a moment. The case is perfectly simple, and it ought to be decided by an absolute principle of right and wrong. If there are binding covenants on a property that property should be valued subject to these binding covenants, and no attempts should be made to whittle them down. The Government are malting an objection, and they are setting up a state of facts which is absolutely vicious. You must take the binding covenants and you must value the land with them, or else you must take steps to get rid of them. If the covenant is against public policy, and if they are wrong covenants they ought to be got rid of, as the hon. Member for Bolton has just said. He need not have apologised for not being a lawyer, for in my opinion he made a very sensible suggestion. Why could not the Commissioners give an undertaking that this particular covenant was now no good and doing a great deal of harm and abolish it? As a land law reformer myself, and I think there are a considerable number of matters in our land laws that ought to be reformed, and have been waiting to be reformed for years, I would say, why do you not bring in a Bill putting in a clause providing that when covenants are effete and useless, and detract from the value of property, and are no longer required for any sensible reason, that they should be got rid of? I think it ought to be possible to do that.
  Mr. W. P. BEALE: That is a doctrine which is in force now without an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I know when the character of a neighbourhood has entirely changed if the parties to the covenant have been parties to the change in the surroundings, then the Court may give relief; but there are very few cases of that kind, and there are lots of cases

  899
  in which you cannot get relief. I earnestly protest against any trifling with this matter, and against the acceptance of any Amendment or any whittling down of these clauses. If you have the covenants on the property, they ought to be taken into account, unless they are got rid of in a legal and proper manner, and there is no other just or right way of dealing with this subject.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I would suggest now that we should come to a decision upon this question, and I wish to say that I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession he has made
  I also absolutely agree with what has fallen from my hon. Friend on this point. The Bill, as amended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, contemplates the possibility that a man may be taxed for possessing developable land, which, in fact, is not developable. That is a most flagrant injustice, and it would be done away with by the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I see no reason why the Debate should go on, but if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall support him.
  Question put, "That the word 'where' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 54.

  Division No. 447.]

  AYES.

  [5.20 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Alden, Percy

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O' Malley, William

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Gulland, John W.

  Partington, Oswald

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Barnard, E. B.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Barnes, G N.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Beale, W. P.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Robinson, S.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Harwood, George

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Seely, Colonel

  Branch, James

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Henry, Charles S.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Snowden, P.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hodge, John

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hudson, Walter

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Clough, William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Clynes, J. R.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Walsh, Stephen

  Crooks, William

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Wardle, George J.

  Cullinan, J.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J,

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Elibank, Master of

  M' Callum, John M.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  M' Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Marnham, F. J.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Massie, J.

  Wood, T. M' Kinnon

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Mond, A.

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r

  Gordon, J.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Hills, J. W.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hunt, Rowland

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Renton, Leslie

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Stanier, Beville

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Starkey, John R.

  Winterton, Earl

  Percy, Earl

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Younger, George

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Salter and Mr. G. A. Gibbs.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Mr. STEWART BOWLES Mr. STEWART BOWLES moved in Section (3) to omit the words, "in the opinion of the Commissioners" ["where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the restraint imposed by the covenant"].
  The phrase is a very simple one, but the Amendment raises a really very important point. The words, as they stand here, are only necessary to provide that there should be no appeal from the Commissioners. That is the only object of putting the words in here, because, of course, it would be understood that the question whether or not a restraint imposed by a covenant was in the interests of a locality would be one for the Commissioners to decide in the first instance. The only object of these words, therefore, is to carry us on to the words at the end of the section, and to provide that not only are the Commissioners to decide the question in the first instance, but that there shall be no appeal from their decision. The question raised by this Amendment is really whether or not it is a good thing that the decision as to the character of the covenants, and as to whether allowance is to be made in the valuation or not, shall be by the Commissioners without appeal.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: On a point of Order. May I ask whether this Amendment will preclude the discussion of lines 22 and 23 about the possibility of an appeal, or whether we shall be able to discuss that important question at a later point?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): The Amendment just negatived by the Committee covered the question of appeal raised by the Amendments on lines 21 and 22, and these later Amendments would be included in the decision of the Committee if they formed the subject of discussion.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: You were not in the Chair, Mr. Caldwell, at the time the point arose. It was, I think, with the concurrence of the Chair, agreed that we would not discuss the question of an appeal on the last Amendment. In order that we might raise it on appropriate words, we carefully refrained from discussing the question then.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That being so, the later Amendments would not be excluded by the decision, the question put being that "where" stand part.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not think you answered my point of order as to whether it is necessary on this Amendment we should discuss the question of an appeal, or whether this Amendment will preclude that question being discussed two lines lower down, If we must discuss it on this Amendment, I should personally suggest to my hon. Friend not to move, but to let us have it discussed on a later point.
  The CHAIRMAN: The discussion cannot be taken on this Amendment.
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: Then I will move the Amendment as it stands, the point being the short and simple one as to why it is considered necessary for the Government to provide in terms that the question of the character of the restraint imposed by a particular covenant should be decided here by the Commissioners. I should like to know from the Government what is the object of putting in here words which give the Commissioners a power which we cannot but regard with some suspicion, in view of the enormous power given to the Commissioners.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The same question arose on Clause 11. This question has got to be decided by somebody, and the whole point is whether the Commisioners are the proper body to determine it. I rather regret we cannot discuss these two subjects together. We had the same two questions discussed on Clause 11, and the view of the Government was that they were quite willing to consider some alternative authority for the purpose. No one took the responsibility of suggesting an alternative. The Government suggested the Local Government Board if that would meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not want to discuss the comparative merits of the Local Government Board and the Commissioners for this purpose, but if there is an objection to the taxing authority being the court for the purpose of deciding this question, I am quite prepared to meet the Committee on

  903
  that point. It must, however, be the same authority as decides the issue in Clause 11. They have got to be decided together. I understood the Opposition were willing to allow the words to stand on the distinct understanding that the question of the authority should be reconsidered. At the present time I have had no alternative suggestion from the Opposition. I think there is possibly a great deal to be said for the objection raised to the taxing authority deciding a question of that kind, especially as they are also a court of appeal. I agree that Clauses 11 and 14 should be considered together, and that the authority of Clause 11 should be substituted for the Commissioners, but you must have some authority in, and I therefore suggest we should leave these words in at the present time and reconsider the question later on.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly reasonable in saying we must stand or fall by what is done under Clause 11, and I therefore do not think any good purpose will be served by prolonging this discussion; but I desire to add that, in my opinion, no adequate reason was given to the Committee on Clause 11 why it was not right to leave this appeal to the Referees, which, I understand, is to be greatly improved by an Amendment suggested by the Government. I frankly admit I have not had time to properly examine that Amendment, but I hope to do so in the course of a day or two.
  A WELSH MEMBER: The day after tomorrow?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: No, on some other occasion. I am rather surprised at such a suggestion coming from a Welsh Nonconformist. Let me add, that if the Commissioners are not to be subject to appeal, then it is very important we should have the right body to decide this question. But if they are to be subject to appeal, then personally I cannot see the least objection to its being left in their hands.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have given some consideration to this matter, and personally I should prefer some authority like the Local Government Board, which has a staff for the purpose of considering questions of this kind. I would rather not put forward my suggestions just now, because that would lead to a discussion on alternatives which would be worse than the dis-
  904
  cussion on the Amendment, and would take much more time.
  Viscount MORPETH: I should like to enter my caveat against the introduction of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman was not here the other day when this proposal was discussed, and when I gave reasons why I thought the Local Government Board was a very undesirable body to introduce. I will not now repeat those reasons, but I will give an additional one, and that is that the Local Government Board, under another Bill introduced by this Government, are already being given extensive and far-reaching powers.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I at once withdraw, in order to shorten discussion, my suggestion as to the Local Government Board.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not think my hon. Friend would be wise to take this Amendment to a Division. Providing there is to be an appeal, it does not matter much whether the Commissioners or some other body are to act in the first instance. I want, however, before the Amendment is disposed of, to put another point as to how the opinion on the Commissioners is to be expressed. Will it be before the conveyance is finally entered into? The parties to conveyances will, in future, be under considerable difficulties and uncertainties, and they may want to know at what time the restrictive covenants may be set aside. Will it be possible for the party to go before the Commissioners and get their approval? And if they can do that, how long will that approval be binding? I take it it will be rather difficult for the Commissioners to say more than that "we think that this is all right," but will they be able to set their seal of approval on it for a period of years? If they cannot do that, then the greatest uncertainty must arise when discussing the conditions of conveyance and restrictive covenants embodied in it. If their approval is to be binding for a number of years, then the question would arise how far they will have power to give their assurances, and will those assurances require confirmation by some superior authority? I think this is a point of some substance.
  Mr. J. F. REMNANT: I wish to ask one question, an answer to which may save a lot of discussion in Committee. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to introduce into Clause 22 any provision for granting

  905
  an appeal in all cases? If the Government will undertake to do this, it will save a tremendous lot of discussion in Committee, and it would be better to do this at once than to leave it for the Report stage.
  Mr. BOWLES: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Section (3), after the word "covenant" ["imposed by the covenant"], to insert the words "or agrement."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I now beg to move, "That in respect of the words of the Clause to the end, the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."
  Question put, "That in respect of the words of the Clause to the end, the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 49.

  Division No. 448.]

  AYES.

  [5.45 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O' Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Alden, Percy

  Gulland, John W.

  O' Malley, William

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Partington, Oswald

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Beale, W. P.

  Harwood, George

  Robinson, S.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hedges, A Paget

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Bowerman, C W.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Seely, Colonel

  Branch, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Hodge, John

  Snowden, P.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Soames, Arthur Wellestey

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hudson, Walter

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Bytes, William Pollard

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Stewart, Hailey (Greenock)

  Clough, William

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lament, Norman

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Walsh, Stephen

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Crooks, William

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Cullinan, J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  M' Callum, John M.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M' Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Massle, J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Mond, A.

  Wood, T. M' Kinnon

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks-

  Gordon, J.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Percy, Earl

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

  Hills, J. W.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Renton, Leslie

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Stanler, Beville

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Winterton, Earl

  Starkey, John R.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Warde, Col C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): In accordance with the decision of the Committee, and having regard to the importance of the Amendments, I think that of Mr. Laurence Hardy [to leave out the words, "and the opinion of the Commissioners shall in this case be final and not subject to any appeal"] should be discussed. I understand that is the Amendment which raises the question of whether there should be any appeal, and in order to carry out an undertaking given to the Committee I call upon the hon. Gentleman to move it.
  Lord R. CECIL (in the absence of Mr. Laurence Hardy): I rise to move the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I point out that exactly the same words appear in Clause 11?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Those words in Clause 11 were passed under the closure. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to avoid a discussion now of the character of the tribunal to which the appeal should be taken, and he proposes to have a discussion on that on a later clause. That is all right, but if these words stand in the Bill, whatever the appeal or whatever tribunal is created in a later clause, there can be no appeal. What we want to do here is to secure an appeal under this section, and we are quite content to leave the character of the tribunal to whom the appeal goes until the proper time comes.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understood that the Government had pledged themselves to consider the suggestion of the Noble Lord as to whether the Commissioners should decide in the first instance and there should be an appeal, and on that understanding to reconsider the whole question. I understood the Secretary of State for War gave some pledge with regard to Clause 11. The question is not pre-judged at all.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not want to take up time, but as a matter of fact it shows the inconvenience of the procedure under which we discussed Clause 11 the other night. The whole of that clause was closured on the Motion of the Government, which called forth a certain amount of angry protest and angry feeling
  908
  on this side, but these words were never discussed or considered on Clause 11.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am assured by my hon. Friend that the whole question of appeal was discussed upon the words "and the opinion of the Commissioners," and not only that, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War gave a pledge in regard to these words, and which distinctly referred to these words.
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: Am I not right in saying that the arrangement throughout has been that nothing shall be done to prejudice the question of the tribunal? That was the arrangement, and, that being so, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that to leave in at this point the positive words that the opinion of the Commissioners shall be final and not subject to any appeal, whatever else it may be, is to prejudge the simple issue. I think we are all agreed that the only thing to do is to carry out the clear understanding on both sides that this matter shall not be prejudiced. It would be prejudiced if those words were left in.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Would the Government allow my Noble Friend to move the Amendment and accept it on the understanding that they do not pre-judge the matter? Let them take out the words which would pre-judge the decision.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The words are already in Clause 11, and it was agreed that the two cases were quite analogous, and I understood it was accepted that we should consider the two cases together, and whatever was decided in regard to Clause 11, the decision should be extended to the machinery of Clause 14. But the words are in Clause 11, and I could not take them out here.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Really it will be shorter to move the Amendment, and let the Government consider what they will do about it. I would not move it if the recollection of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department was the same as mine of what occurred the other night, but ray recollection is that what we discussed was the question whether the Commissioners are the proper people to decide it in the first instance. Then there were suggestions of various kinds, and there was a general suggestion that the matter

  909
  should be left over. But I remember very distinctly the Secretary of State for War stating that he did not think it was possible to have an appeal in any case. If the Government will say specifically that they are perfectly ready to consider the question whether these words should or should not be struck out at a later stage, and do rot in any way pre-judge the question of an appeal, I do not think it would be right to take up any time on the matter. But the only sugestion the Government have made is to substitute the Local Government Board, which they have withdrawn. That suggestion shows the kind of way their minds are moving. I am very confident that the right way of settling this question is to leave either the Commissioners or some one else to decide, in the first place—it does not matter very much whom you leave, provided you have a really good appeal in the background—not for the sake of taking every case, on the contrary, my own anticipation is that there will be scarcely any cases taken. But, if you have a really good appeal court behind the Commissioners, they are not under the temptation, to which it is not fair to submit any one in a judicial position, to decide the matter in one way rather than another apart from the evidence. If the Commissioners are left without an appeal behind them, it is absurd to say they will not be biassed in favour of that course which will bring most revenue to the Crown. That is the whole bent of their mind, and they are bound to decide every case with that bias. If you have a really satisfactory appeal behind them they are perfectly competent people. I think this is a separate matter altogether, and it is just as convenient to discuss it now as at any other time.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I rather gather that the Government have already made up their mind that this decision should not be final, but that there should be an appeal somewhere or other. But if we leave these words in it is shut out, because the words of Clause 22 are clear, "but except, as expressly provided in this Act, there shall be an appeal against the determination of any other matter which the Commissioners are to determine, or may determine, under this part of the Act." Surely the Government might see their way to 6trike out these words, which certainly pre-judge the whole case, and make the decision of the Commissioners absolutely final.
  6 P.M.
  Mr. BEALE: I speak from the point of view of one who is an enemy of any court being absolutely without appeal. The crux of this question is not whether there should be an appeal or not, but whether the words "in the opinion of the Commissioners" are to stand or not, because us the matter stands it seems to me very analogous to the case of an arbitrator. If you have to predicate of a thing that it is to be so and so in the opinion of the Commissioners, the question for the court of appeal will be not whether they are of opinion, but whether the Commissioners have reasonably exercised and expressed their real opinion. I think the whole question having to be reconsidered, it should be reconsidered in connection with these words "in the opinion of the Commissioners," which qualify the whole thing.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I will not contest the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, but I think he is wrong. I think as a mere question of drafting construction he is wrong. What we are on now is whether there should or should not be an appeal from the Commissioners. There is one ground which my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) has not stated. As the clause now stands the view of the Government is that the Commissioners should adjudicate from time to time as to whether certain restrictive covenants are of a kind which should free people from taxation or not as regards future covenants. It is of importance that people who are going to make future covenants should know where they are. In order that they may know where they are there should be a body of accepted judgments as to what is or is not regarded as "reasonably necessary in the interest of the public, and in view of the character and surroundings of the neighbourhood." These are very difficult words, and as we are dealing with the limitless future, and as the Government refuse to alter this, it is quite clear that where you have these transactions in land in the future in which covenants are to play a part it is all-important that we should have a body of doctrine laid down as to what is the kind of covenant which will be accepted by the Commissioners and what will not be accepted. If there is a strong court behind the Commissioners there will be some kind of uniformity, and there will be a general policy which, it is understood, the courts will uphold, and

  911
  those who have to make these arrangements in future, those who desire to impose covenants or to enter into them, will know exactly what the fiscal results are likely to be. They will not be left to the uncertainty in which the Bill is going to leave them, which cannot but hamper in the most embarrassing and injurious way all future transactions in land.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am afraid I do not quite take the same view of this particular matter as the Leader of the Opposition. Each of these cases has got to be considered on its merits. It is not so much a question of laying down general principles of law. It is a question of an expert of some kind to decide whether, in his judgment, a certain covenant is in the interest of a neighbourhood or not. It is not a question of law, but a question of fact.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I did not use the words "question of law." I said "doctrine."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, I know. But the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that once you get to a court of law, so far from emancipating the thing and making it clearer and easier, you are hampered in the work, and you are apt to be embarrassed by all sorts of legal decisions that really are not helpful to a man who has to decide the issue. He is not assisted by general doctrines, which would take the form of legal doctrines. I know lawyers pretty well, and that is the form it will eventually take. I am perfectly certain that if the right hon. Gentleman had to decide the question whether a certain form of development was in the interest of a neighbourhood he would not ask a lawyer to decide the point for him. Lawyers have their uses, and you cannot get on without them. Eventually all these things get into the hands of the lawyers for the interest of the community, and incidentally for the advantage of the profession. But I am perfectly sure, if the right hon. Gentleman had to decide it for himself, he would not go to the judges for their opinion, and therefore I do not think it is desirable to go to a court of law on this question.
  Lord R. CECIL: The appeal is to the Referee. The Referees are not always under the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree.
  Lord R. CECIL: I do not say that I in any way accept the method of the appoint-
  912
  ment of the Referee, but still, as I understand, he is an expert tribunal in this very kind of matter.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is the very reason why I should not decide on this point at the present moment. The Noble Lord's idea is the same as mine that the Referee would be perfectly impartial, and that there should be a judicial guarantee of his impartiality in deciding. That is a very different thing from such an appeal as we are prepared to concede under Clause 22. That appeal would involve questions of law. There you must have a general body of doctrine laid down. We have conceded the question of appeal which the right hon. Gentleman pressed upon us. There we met his view, but I do not think this is a case in which you want to lay down general doctrines. On the contrary, it is a case where you want an impartial Referee. That is a very different thing from the ordinary appeal, and I hope that the Committee will allow this to remain in the same general category of considerations with the decisions under Clause 11, because there again the questions are not what may be called questions of law. I would like the Committee to permit the Government to consider these two questions together because they are the same class of questions. We want the judgment of experts on this particular kind of question. We do not want to go to courts of law to argue whether a particular covenant is in the interest of a particular locality. It is far better in dealing with such questions to get experts, with the guarantee that the Referee will be impartial. I must say that, as at present advised, I cannot consent to the elimination of the words. I am perfectly ready to consider the nature of the tribunal and the nature of the appeal from the tribunal.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If that is so, I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept this particular Amendment, which does no more than he says he is prepared to do. The right hon. Gentleman is prepared to concede an appeal from the Commissioners. At present the proposal is that the Commissioners are to decide in the first instance. He is prepared to take it from them to somebody else who is an expert.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: What I suggested was that it might be desirable to refer questions under this section to a totally different tribunal from the Commissioners. It might be an impartial

  913
  Referee. The question whether you should have an appeal from that Referee afterwards is a totally different question.
  Lord R. CECIL: I do not quite accept the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what fell from myself. I am not a believer in experts.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is perfectly clear that you had better refer to somebody who knows something about the question.
  Lord R. CECIL: No.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That depends upon the amount of confidence which you have in your case. The Noble Lord has had some experience of experts upstairs, and therefore he is a great authority as to the amount of reliance to be placed on their judgment. At any rate, what I want to put now is that the two questions are not necessarily identical. There are the Commissioners to decide in the first instance. After that there is the question whether there should be an appeal from them to some other tribunal. My own view is that the Referee ought to be an impartial person who knows something about the matter. The Noble Lord says he should be an impartial person who knows nothing about it. I will not at present pre-judge that question, but I think on the whole it is not desirable that there should be an appeal from him to a court of law, once you have secured the impartiality of your tribunal.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I join issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I agree with what I understand to be the view of my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) in distrust of experts. An expert has proverbially a reputation which sometimes does him gross injustice, but which is worth bearing in mind. Apart from that, the expert is very apt to be a faddist. He is apt to think that there is nothing like the particular thing with which he is always dealing. I would not like to appeal to an expert in that sense, but I wish a real appeal to a court of law. It is quite true that a court of law does not bring expert knowledge to bear upon the matter, but it brings what is more valuable, common-sense. I see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer differs from me as to the Court of Appeal bringing common-sense to bear on any question. But, on the whole, with all its limitations, I would sooner trust in this matter to a court of law than to the expert on whom it is suggested we should rely.
  Mr. A. C. SALTER: I think we are in a very unsatisfactory position in this matter; and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to go a little further. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested a moment ago two main questions: Who should decide the question in the first instance; and what would be the nature of the appeal? The Committee has decided who is to decide this in the first instance. We have passed the point in the Bill which says that the valuer is to ignore these conditions in his valuation where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, certain conditions exist. There is not the slightest doubt that the Commissioners are to decide this matter. Then the Bill goes on expressly to exempt this particular decision from the general class of decisions of the Commissioners which, otherwise, would be subject to appeal, because a general right of appeal is given. But the passage affected by this Amendment says that in this particular instance the decision of the Commissioners shall not be subject to any appeal at all. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, assuming, as we must assume, that this matter is to be decided in the first instance by the Commissioners, he was prepared to concede that that was not to be a final decision, that there was to be an appeal, and he is turning over in his own mind whether there should be an appeal to an expert or a non-expert, a court of law, and so on. That can be discussed on a later occasion. I understood him to agree to an appeal. That is all that the elimination of these words requires, and, therefore, I do not understand why he objects to their omission. The Committee will pardon me if I point out in one word that this matter, the finality of the decision of which we are now considering is a very doubtful and difficult matter. Besides being very important, it may affect very large interests, and someone has got to determine whether a given set of restrictive conditions are or are not in the local general public interest. I ask the Committee to consider that it is a matter which will vitally affect the assessment. There is a general right of appeal against the assessment. It is a pure question of fact. If it were not for these express words which we are seeking to strike out, then, of course, there would be an appeal from the Commissioners because the taxed subject could go to the court of appeal, whatever it is, and say, "My assessment is too high, and one of the reasons it is too high is because these

  915
  restrictive covenants have been ignored," and so the matter would come to appeal. But it is to be expressly shut out.
  Have the Committee considered at all what will actually happen? Does anybody suppose that the Commissioners who are three rather eminent and very busy gentlemen in London, are really going to apply their judicial faculties to the question whether a given set of restrictive conditions, applied to land in the neighbourhood of some provincial castle, are or are not in the local interests of the inhabitants of that place? It is a matter requiring the most intimate and minute local knowledge. The best persons to ask would be local surveyors. Is the assistant valuer who goes to this place to make the valuations to send up some kind of report? He will probably know nothing about the place. Is he to send up such impressions as he can form, and are the Commissioners to sit in judgment upon his reports? Is one of these eminent gentlemen to travel down into a provincial town and to look upon these villas and make inquiry of the porter what he thinks about the needs of the neighbourhood? It will not be the judgment of the Commissioners at all. It will be the hasty impression of an assistant valuer locally gathered. Will the owner of the land—the taxpayer—be consulted at all? Will he have an opportunity of giving evidence, if the assessment valuer talks to some busybody in the street who tells him the neighbourhood has changed, and that covenants of this kind are very injurious, and the assistant valuer reports to Somerset House that that is the local opinion, and they accordingly form the opinion that these particular covenants are undesirable? It may be that the owner of the land could call a mass of irrefutable local opinion which would satisfy any fair-minded man that that is not so, and that these covenants are in the local interests. Will any opportunity be given to him? We know exactly what will happen. He will see the local valuer. He will tell him about these conditions. In due course he will receive a buff or blue-coloured paper saying that he is assessed at so much. If he writes to ask whether his restrictive conditions have been taken into account or not, if he is favoured with an answer at all it will be one saying that they have been considered not to be in the local interests and have therefore been ignored. The suggestion of the Government is that the man should be absolutely without redress, or without appeal to any kind. What-
  916
  ever be the best kind of appeal is really a different matter, but I do ask the Government to say that the man should be allowed some sort of an appeal.
  Mr. J. F. REMNANT: In furtherance of what my hon. Friend (Mr. Salter) has just said, may I call the attention of the Committee to what occurred before the Select Committee on the Taxation of Land Values (Scotland) Bill, where evidence, and very powerful evidence I maintain, was called on this very subject of the suitability of officials, who were employed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, for the work which they would be called upon to perform. The evidence of Mr. Philip Sully, an assessor, under the Valuation Act, of the county of Fife and the various Parliamentary boroughs, was very much to the point in dealing with this matter. Of course the Commissioners cannot be expected for one moment themselves personally to inquire into all the various intricate matters which may or may not come before them. They must employ a whole host of officials to carry out the work for them. In fact, I do not think it will be disputed that the Government have been themselves looking round among the various valuation staffs of the different corporations throughout the country for suitable men to employ for this purpose. In London the valuation department of the London County Council is often quoted in reference to this matter as being an authority to testify as to the cheapness and so on of valuations likely to be made. I venture to say that the officer who is alluded to in reference to that matter is not a valuer of standing at all, and does not belong to that department, and his evidence is disputed by men more qualified to judge. This Mr. Sully, in giving evidence, was asked among other things as to the position of these officials who were employed by the Inland Revenue for working under the Lands Valuation Act. The evidence he gave was that they were of necessity rather junior men, that they could not get experienced qualified men, and that they had to take men from comparatively young classes, junior men with very little if any experience in these matters, and that they had to train them. You have to depend very largely on the individual. It was almost impossible to get any systematic valuation through these people, as they were all practically men who were exceptionally devoid of what is so necessary in these cases—local information and local experience. Under this

  917
  clause they will have to judge as to whether the covenants are, in the opinion of the Commissioners, in the interests of the public, in view of the character and surroundings of the neighbourhood, before they can report. How can they get any proper opinion as to that without having local knowledge? You cannot get the necessary valuers with the local knowledge. The whole system is wrong. If, in addition to that, these promiscuous officials, appointed for a purpose for which they are not qualified, are to be allowed a final judgment on the matter, you are going to put a gross injustice upon those who are brought under their control. It is one of the most preposterous provisions of a preposterous Bill to suggest that these inexperienced men should have the right to decide the rights of parties in very difficult and intricate cases. I am quite sure if party feeling were left out of the matter the Committee would decide in favour of the Amendment. We have certainly on this side of the House not endeavoured to delay or obstruct in any way. These are very important points on which we offer very strenuous opposition, and therefore I do hope that the Government will see their way to accepting the Amendment.
  Viscount MORPETH: I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he might adopt a method similar to that which obtains in the case of the local Income Tax Commissioners. If you look into the way in which the private taxpayer manages his income you will see that if he mismanages it he has to pay the Income
  Tax accordingly; but in the case of the income from property, if the property is not managed in consonance with the ideas of the Government, instead of having a plan such as that adopted in the case of the Commissioners of Income Tax, they propose to appoint officials who are to say that he shall manage his property in the way they decide in order that they may tax him on that management. That is a very bad system. The point is that you have got to find some body of persons fairly reasonable, if possible with the confidence of the taxpayer himself, and who shall stand between the Government tax-gatherer and him. I believe that the local Income Tax Commissioners were set up by Sir Robert Peel when the Income Tax was originally started in order to meet this very difficulty. They were, if I may so describe it, the representatives of the ancient jury, not the jury of the present day, but the Jury in its original form. They were appointed as fairly impartial local persons, having the confidence of the taxpayer, to represent his interest as against the central authority. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he considers, and I think very likely rightly, that a court of law is not the most suitable authority, it is desirable that he should have some body either in the position of the present local Income Tax Commissioners, or a body constituted in a similar manner.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 52.

  Division No. 449.]

  AYES.

  [6.30 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Crooks, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Alden, Percy

  Cullinan, J.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hodge, John

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Hudson, Walter

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Fester, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Lamont, Norman

  Bowerman, C. w.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Branch, James

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gulland, John W.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  M' Callum, John M.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  M' Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Clough, William

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harwood, George

  Marnham, F. J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Massle, J.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Mond, A.

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Seely, Colonel

  Walsh, Stephen

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wardle, George J.

  O' Donnoll, C. J. (Walworth)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  O' Mahey, William

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Partington, Oswald

  Snowden, P.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Rainy, A. Roiland

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wilson, P. W. (St Pancras, S.)

  Robinson., S.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wood, T. M' Kinnon

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gordon, J.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

  Stanier, Beville

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Beale, W. P.

  Hills, J. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Bryce, J Annan

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Winterton, Earl

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Percy, Earl

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Clavell Salter and Mr. Stewart Bowles.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Forster, Henry William

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps I ought to say about the two Amendments of the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford), to which he attaches some importance, that they are not raised in the right place. If he wants to raise anything which is not allowed for in the clause he must do it later in the paragraph, and not at the beginning.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Section (4), Sub-section (a), to leave out the words "satisfaction of the" ["which is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners"].
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL Lord ROBERT CECIL moved in Section (4) Sub-section (a) to leave out the words "of a permanent character" ["directly attributable to works of a permanent character"].
  This is an Amendment which I think the Government will probably accept. I cannot understand on what grounds, they suggest the deduction should be confined to works which are of a permanent character. The point is that you are to deduct from the site value "any part of that
  920
  site value which is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be directly attributable to works of a permanent character." Why you are to deduct value which is proved to be attributable to works which should be of a permanent character I cannot conceive. Suppose you have land laid out, or in course of being laid out for building, and you have some levelling done and the erection of some fencing or something of that kind, why should you deduct the value which is due to the levelling, which I presume would be work of a permanent character, and not deduct the value which is due to the fencing? I cannot see any reason in that at all. It appears to me if it is right to deduct what is added to the land by the efforts of the owner or those who are acting on his behalf, it must be equally right whether the work is of a permanent character or a temporary character. It appears to me exceedingly difficult to give a certain meaning to such an expression. I do not know what work of a permanent character is. If you are to consider the matter strictly and grammatically, there is scarcely any work that is of a permanent character. I do not know that a road would be a work of a permanent character. It requires to be constantly renewed and kept up, and we know that those in London, at any rate, are very much the reverse of a permanent character. What is

  921
  work of a permanent character? Who is going to set limits to the operations of time, and if you cannot set a limit to the operations of time I do not think you can say what are works of a permanent character. I do venture to protest altogether as a matter of drafting against putting in any words of that kind. It will lead to perpetual dispute, and it is very unfair. As the Bill stands, it leaves it very much to the discretion of the Commissioners. It is quite true you are going to have an appeal, which is an immense protection, but not a complete protection. It is an immense protection to the rich because the rich can put the appeal machinery in motion. It is not so much protection to the poor. They are not advised, to begin with, by skilled people, and they have not the money to spend on law. If you have these doubtful words put into the Bill, it will mean perpetual risk.
  I do not want to attack the Government official more than any other official, but I observe that in all cases of officials, whether they are officials of the Government or of a great company, there is a great tendency to stretch their powers as far as they can, and I have observed, I do not say it in the case of the Government, but in the case of great corporations, who are more or less actuated by the same kind of motive as the Government official, that they do undoubtedly oppress the people who have not the knowledge to resist them. I have come across many cases in my own experience of that kind. If you put in doubtful words, then there will be no protection against that kind of oppression except the result of a rather doubtful appeal. I protest against those words. They seem to be utterly unsound, and I hope the Government will see, even on the principle which underlies their measure, a principle which seems to me utterly unsound and unjust, that this particular proposal cannot be justified even by their own showing.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not quite agree with the Noble Lord's view as to those words. They are given in several Acts of Parliament, and they have been the subject of legal decisions, of which there is quite an array. I do not attach any particular importance to the words. I do not think it very much matters when you are trying to ascertain the site value. Even if the improvements were of a temporary character, it is only the value attributable to them. Therefore I do not attach very great importance to the words, and, as the Noble Lord seems to consider
  922
  that they might be injurious, especially in regard to persons of small means, I do not object to their elimination.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to insert in Section (4), Sub-section (a), after "executed" ["works of a permanent character executed"], the words "or expenditure of a capital nature (including any expenses of advertisement) incurred."
  This is an important Amendment, adding to the deductions which may be made. I think the Committee will agree that we ought to deduct expenditure of a capital nature calculated to increase the value of the land.
  Mr. J. W. HILLS: Will capital expenditure include legal expenses? I think they ought to be included.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member knows very well the kind of expenditure which an accountant or auditor when examining accounts will pass on to capital. I am not quite sure whether that would include legal expenses, but I am using words which are very well known in business, and I think it would be a mistake to begin to say that such and such expenditure is capital expenditure. The kind of expenditure meant is very well known in business circles, and it is far better that the words would be in the ordinary form.
  Mr. HILLS: By including advertisements I think you would exclude legal expenses.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have inserted advertisements, because it is conceivable that such expenditure would not be taken as being of a capital character.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It is a dangerous thing to put in one word, because it might have a limiting effect.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not object to leaving out the word, but the hon. Member knows there is a certain type of land value which is created by advertisements. There are districts where you would not have had any houses for the next 500 years if somebody had not advertised the place. Very often the amount of money spent on advertisements is more than the owner would realise in the next 20 or 30 years, and I want to make it clear that such expenditure should be included.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I should like to ask a question with regard to a subsequent Amendment which may possibly save time.

  923
  Would expenditure of the kind referred to be held to include the dedication of land? That is a most important power of development, and it is a very common case. You do not spend money, but you sacrifice it. You take three or four acres worth perhaps £500 per acre, and dedicate it to the use of the public as an open space. You do not spend the £1,500 or £2,000, but you lose that sum. It is obvious that that must be included. I have handed in an Amendment which may possibly take the place of two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Derby Division (Mr. Watson Rutherford). The first refers to value "arising from any expenditure by the owner, whether on the land itself, or upon any adjacent land of the owner." I am of opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's words cover that. It would cover expenditure not actually on the laud.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Therefore, that Amendment would be unnecessary.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The word "directly" might have the effect of limiting the clause to money absolutely expended on the land, and therefore we suggest inserting the words "improved the value."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: In that case it would be unnecessary to move the first part of the Amendment of my hon. Friend. Then conies the second Amendment, the first part of which, I think, is also covered; but it concludes with these words, "or the dedication as streets or passages or open spaces of any part of the land of the same owner." That is a point which must be covered. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to deal with it in a separate Amendment, but it would perhaps save time if it could be added to the present Amendment.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: In laying out a piece of land of four acres probably one acre goes in streets, passages, and so forth, so that you ought to add 30 per cent, to the value of the remainder in order to get the same money for the estate as it was worth at the beginning. I think it is essential to make allowance for the land necessarily sacrificed in this way.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Undoubtedly the expenditure on roads would be deducted, but I do not think the actual land
  924
  devoted to the making of roads could be. The value attributable to the expenditure on the roads would be deducted, but not the actual land absorbed in the operation.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: There are numerous cases where land has had to be bought for roads or for part of the roads. It is obvious that the money spent on that part would come in, and why not on the part the owner has to sacrifice?
  Major COATES: If a man buys four acres of land, and desires to lay them out, he will have to sacrifice one-fourth of his land to make the roads; therefore, he will really sacrifice one-fourth of his capital account. Under these circumstances it is only fair and right, if all capital expenditure is to be deducted, that this expenditure should be. It is one of the main portions of capital expenditure; it is part of the actual capital money.
  The CHAIRMAN: We are going away from the Amendment actually before the Committee. The simplest way will be to move the further Amendment, if necessary, when we come to the point.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. F. W. LAMBTON (on behalf of Mr. Radford)Mr. F. W. LAMBTON (on behalf of Mr. Radford) moved, in Section (4) Sub-section (a), after the word "land" ["Any person interested in the land for the purpose of"], to insert the words "or his predecessors in title." I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer is disposed to accept this Amendment, and that will save me the trouble of moving it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEindicated dissent.
  Mr. LAMBTON: Words like these are absolutely necessary. May I point out the case of two persons holding the land. One is an old man who came into the land 40 years ago, and is still living on it. He gets no deduction. In the other case a young man coming into property left by his father will be able to make the deduction.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I take it that the predecessor in title is interested in the land. We have chosen words which are not limited to the living person. There is no limitation to the living person.
  Mr. LAMBTON: May I just say that it would appear to be necessary to put in some words to make it so that a layman can understand it. The person interested in the land may be anybody.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: What we want is that anybody who has spent money on the land

  925
  should obtain the preference. So long as we obtain from the Government an intimation that that is their intention, it will, I think, be far wiser to leave the Bill as it stands—knowing thoroughly the intentions of the Government, and asking them to see that that intention is carried out.
  7 P.M.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. PRETYMAN Mr. PRETYMAN moved, in Section (4), Sub-section (a), after the word "land" ["interested in the land for the purpose of fitting the"], to insert the words "or arising from dedication of streets, passages, or open spaces on any part of the land by the same owner." I will not repeat the arguments which I have already used. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the rather irregular discussion we have had on this point, seemed to feel some hesitation in allowing for the value of land given by or dedicated for the purposes of streets. It is obvious that that is one of the just sources of expenditure of any man who buys a piece of land and lays it out for building. Part of it goes in streets, part in open spaces, part of it is actually built upon. The whole value of the land, so far as it is realisable, is concentrated upon that part which is only available for one of these three objects, namely, the land which is to be actually built upon. The owner takes the area of the land, and part of the land is used in order to develop the other part. Whether he has deducted his streets or his passages, or whether he has given up land for a square, for a garden, or for open spaces, it is obvious that the surrender or deduction of that portion of the land is one of the main expenses which will fall upon the owner who is developing his property. It seems to me obvious, if you are deducting expenditure upon land, you could not have anything more comprehensive than a road. Now, the making of a road consists of the direct expenditure of the material and labour which go for the construction of the road, and there is the indirect expenditure of giving up the land upon which the road is situated. If you are to allow one, you must also clearly allow the other. I cannot see that it is possible to avoid the principle which the Committee had adopted in dealing with this matter, which merely demands that this deduction should be allowed for indirect expenditure in the same way as direct expenditure is provided for.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: The argument just put forward is to a considerable extent based upon a fallacy. The expenditure involved is not direct expenditure, and it can hardly be called indirect expenditure, because it is done upon a business basis. You leave a certain space open and by leaving it open you increase the amenities of the place, and therefore the value. Consequently by leaving that space open there is no real diminution in the value of the property, because what you lose in one way you gain in another. It is for the latter object that the expenditure is made. If in addition to getting that value there is to be compensation in the way of deduction, then the owner has been paid twice over.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not sure that my hon. Friend behind me has met the case of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He admits that the deduction of the open spaces increases the value of the original site, and if you increase the original site value by what is practically an expenditure by the landowner, whether it is by means of the deduction of a space or by means of permanent works, I cannot see any difference in principle. I find this matter was debated on 20th July, and I think I did promise to consider it on that occasion. I must say I do not think it is quite in the same position now as it was at that time. The point pressed was that it is desirable to encourage landowners to create open spaces, and undoubtedly it improved the value of the land, but it improves the value of the land by a sacrifice on the part of the owner. I think it ought to be taken into account in the site value, but the street is a different matter. We are deducting the expenditure on converting a piece of land; we deduct the value which is attributable to the expenditure, and there is some little danger, if they accepted this Amendment, that it might be deducted twice over. That is not the case with open spaces. I think there it ought to be deducted. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would confine his Amendment to open spaces I think he will find that streets are already provided for. I agree with the hon. Member that it is desirable to encourage open spaces in the middle of large towns and such places.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am not quite sure whether I agree or disagree with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman. It is not a discouragement to have wider streets—not to make any deduction in the respective streets. The Chancellor of

  927
  the Exchequer does admit it would discourage open spaces not to make a deduction An consideration of open spaces. He says streets are in a different position. Nothing is worse in the construction of modern towns than to have narrow streets.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I dealt with that point. What I am contending is that that is already contained in the Bill. The value which is attributable to streets is already deducted, whatever that value may be. If it is a narrow street it would be smaller; if it is a wide street it would improve the value, but it is deducted already. You already deduct the value, whether the street is narrow or wide.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Does that act upon the assumption that the wide streets increase the value of the building sites? I do not speak as an expert on the matter, but I should have thought that was the case. I should have thought a man would make more out of a street, a plot of land with streets which were narrow, than out of a plot of land in which the streets were wide. Although I agree, the actual expenditure upon wide roadways is large, I should say that the method in which the Government have drawn this clause is a premium on narrow streets and a discouragement to wide streets, and it must be so unless you proceed on the proposition that the wider your streets the greater your value.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: All that the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment claimed was not that the value of the land should be deducted, whether the streets were narrow or wide, but that the value which is created by the street should be deducted. I claim I am doing that whatever be the value created, and I quite agree that the value created is not at all in proportion to the amount of land you may take up. It depends entirely upon the neighbourhood, and I have provided in the Bill that the deduction should be in proportion to the value created.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think the discussion has proceeded to some extent upon a fallacy which, perhaps, I may be allowed to point out. The hon. Member opposite pointed out that if we take away a part of the landed property for streets you still have the same value, and therefore you do not get any alteration with regard to the price; but suppose you
  928
  take a case where you give, say, £10,000 for a block of property for the purpose of development building, and you lay out the streets and dedicate this portion of the land to the public. If you can sell that property for exactly the same money as you gave for it, after taking into account the loss of area through your streets, then it is obvious you would lose your money, and I think that is the argument that led the hon. Member astray. But how is it to be done in practice? The estates usually are 30 or 40 acres in size. If the property is laid down for building, you start by making sewers, putting down kerbs and channels, and putting down roadways. The whole of the value of that is taken per yard. It is not taken as so much for the whole property, it is taken per yard, and for this reason, when the 20 or 30 pieces of the net land are sold, you have got to deal with each bit of the property per yard.
  Let me show how it will work out. You get 4s. per yard to start with for the whole piece. You make the roads and streets, and you have the net land left. You must take the net land at 5s. in order to get out the same total price, because you have lost the difference in area on the property. As you, develop the property, perhaps you allow an acre in the middle of the estate as a common garden, available for the whole of the property, and you make certain roads extra wide, lay down trees, and provide grass plots. Every time you do anything of that sort you are bound to put something per yard on to the net property in order to come out at the same total value, and that is just as much an expenditure as the money spent in making sewers or making roads or any other outlay. Anything in this statute, from one end to the other, which would tend to prevent or discourage people from making these amenities, such as extra wide roads and little bits of grass plots, would be a very great pity. In making up this schedule of allowances one of the first things should be the extra amount a man ought to have allowed in respect of land which he has voluntarily given up. The case is absolutely proved by the fact that it is conceivable that some portion of the land wanted for the road he may have to buy and pay money for to form part of the site for the road which he wants. That is allowed for, because it would be expenditure under the Bill. But we are told that because he supplies the land himself he is not to be allowed for it. Anything more absurd it would be difficult to imagine. But I will put the case a step

  929
  higher. Supposing the man under a mistaken scheme of development had sold a piece of land which he afterwards found he wanted for another purpose, and he goes and buys it back again. Of course, it is obvious that that comes to the same thing as if he had never sold it or bought it at all, but if he had bought it from a stranger an allowance would be made for it. How can it be said that because it was his own to begin with it should not be allowed for on the same principle?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think that possibly the Government have forgotten for the moment that this is a matter that applies to Increment Duty as well. The dedication of land to a street will greatly increase the value of the remaining land, and yet there will be no expenditure at all. Take the ordinary street widening carried out by agreement with the owner of the land. The ordinary procedure is for the landowners to dedicate the land both for his own purposes and for the purposes of the public, and the whole expenditure of making up this street devolves upon the local authority. The landowner may have contributed a large sum of money towards improving the value of his land and also for public purposes. It is just as important to encourage that kind of operation as to encourage the creation of open spaces, and it is quite plain that unless some such words as have been suggested are inserted that operation will not be provided for at all. The oases of this kind in London are extremely numerous, and, as far as I know, they always take that form of dedication of the land by the owner, the expenditure falling upon the local authority in connection with the making up of the street.
  Mr. E. G. HEMMERDE: I think everybody admits that this matter is one of considerable difficulty, and I should like the Government to reserve the whole question. I am unable to understand the argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who says that if you give part of the land for a public purpose and dedicate it for an open space or road you are making an expenditure. It does not seem to me that you are doing anything of the sort, and I do not think you are making an expenditure. It is quite true that you are doing something to increase the value of the property. It seems to me that if you are going to make any allowance whatever as an expenditure in regard to land which is dedicated for roads or public purposes you are going to get into a very
  930
  difficult position. There are many cases where a considerable amount of land is laid out on estates to increase the value of the property around, but merely because you do a thing to increase the value of the surrounding property it does not follow that what you do is an expenditure, if you can do it without any sacrifice. [An HON. MEMBER: "But you cannot."] If you were to keep the land in your own hands it would probably be valueless. If in order to make the land more valuable you give a right of way, that is to be allowed for as expenditure. I cannot understand why in estimating the value that such a thing as that should be allowed for at all. It seems to me that you ought not to allow for it, because it is not an expenditure, and it is merely an attempt by the owner to increase the value of his property. We all know cases where a man has given land for a public park, and in the end has made an enormous fortune out of the fact that he has done so. I can mention cases where an enormous value has been given to the land round parks from the fact that land has been given for the parks. In my opinion, you are going by this proposal to make allowances quite outside the purview of the Bill.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the fact that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hemmerde) is not able to understand this proposal rather accounts for some of the speeches he has made in the country. I think I can make the matter clear. What we have to remember is that the dedication we are making is not the dedication of the cost or value of the thing, but that part of the value of the subject matter of taxation. I quite see the Chancellor of the Exchequer's point as to streets being of a different character, and the reason is because a street is a permanent work, and it is already allowed for. That I entirely admit. The open space, not being a permanent work, is not allowed for. Then comes the point raised by my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) where a permanent work, namely, the making of a road, has not been executed by the owner, and he has only surrendered the land. He ought to be allowed the value of the land. The whole point will be met by accepting the Amendment as it stands. We are not going to deduct the cost of the road or the value of the land he has given up for the road, but the part of the value of the taxable subject which is due to the road as it stands. It therefore cannot be deducted twice over. The two oases are the case of

  931
  the man who makes the road and the man who does not, and in both they will only be entitled to deduct the value due to the road, and not any additional value. There can be no additional value. If no deduction has been made for the road because it was not a permanent work executed by the owner, then under this Amendment he would be entitled to deduct the value of the land he has given up for the road, and that would be perfectly legitimate and proper. Having considered the matter very carefully, I think the case will be absolutely met by accepting the Amendment as it stands.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot accept the Amendment as it stands. The cost of the road is deducted in hypothetical value. When you are getting at the hypothetical value you take into account the fact that you have got to leave a certain sum out for making the road. I cannot accept it at the present stage. If I did accept it I should certainly insert the word "road" on the Report stage. I will promise, however, to give consideration to the matter. I think I have met the hon. and gallant Member very fairly.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am quite prepared to accept that suggestion. The Amendment will be accepted so far as open spaces are concerned, and the question of the road will be left until the Report stage. I admit it will be easier for us to put in the words on the Report stage. I understand the matter will be considered, and I feel perfectly confident when it comes to be examined closely that the right hon. Gentleman's advisers will tell him that what I have just stated to the Committee is the correct interpretation. I have therefore great pleasure in acceding to his suggestion.
  The CHAIRMAN: Will it not be necessary to alter the Amendment? Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman propose that alteration?
  Mr. PRETYMAN Mr. PRETYMAN moved to leave out from the proposed Amendment the words "streets, passages, or"
  Mr. J. W. HILLS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I understand him, agrees that you ought to deduct all the present value of the road to ascertain the taxable value. The value of this street is made up of two parts. You have in the first place the value of the land used to form the street, and, secondly, you have the cost of the actual making of the street. If I
  932
  understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly, he said the true value of the street ought to come off the value of the land. I do not think the clause says that. The value you can deduct is that of works of a permanent character, executed on the land, and I am perfectly certain that value would not include the value of the land. All you can deduct is the actual cost of making the street, and the deduction will not include the value of the land taken for those works. Surely part of the value, of the street is made up of the land, and you ought to include that, in the value you take off.
  Question, "That the words, 'streets, passages, or,' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether it is desired to raise the question of agricultural land on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley), or later.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer is ready to make some concession on this point to meet the case which we raised the other night.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Before we come to that I have an Amendment. I move to leave out from Section (4), Sub-section (a), the words "fitting the land for use" ["for the purpose of fitting the land for use as building land"], and to insert instead thereof the words "improving the value of the land."
  Question, "That the words, 'fitting the land for use,' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, at the end of Section (4), Sub-section (a), after the word "agriculture," to insert the words "or to the expenditure of money on any redemption of Land Tax, or any rent-charge as defined by this Act, or other fixed charge not being an incumbrance within the meaning of this Act, or on the enfranchisement of copyhold land or customary freeholds, or to goodwill or any other matter which is personal to the owner, occupier, or other person interested for the time being in the land."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I now move the Amendment which was promised last night. The object is to make it perfectly clear that where reclamation works make land more valuable for building as well as agricultural purposes, the cost shall be deducted, whether for building or for agricultural value.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I am not quite certain whether the Amendment does actually cover the point I raised last night. I am inclined to think that it does not go far enough. But perhaps if it does not cover the pledge the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to deal with it on the Report stage.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my hon. Friend will assent. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to submit the Amendment to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) and myself, and we certainly thought it met the point.
  Mr. G. HARWOOD: Will the whole cost be allowed, or only the cost so far as it has contributed to the site value?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not the amount spent, but the value created.
  Question proposed, after Sub-section (a), Section (4), as amended, to insert the words:—
  "Provided that where any works executed or expenditure incurred for the purpose of improving the value of the land for agriculture have actually improved the value of the land as building land, or for the purpose of any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture, the works or expenditure shall, for the purpose of this provision, be treated as having been executed or incurred also for the latter purposes."
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not wish to make a long speech on this subject, but I do not think we can leave this clause without saying that it is really and inherently absurd, and it is absurd on the very principle advocated by its framers. I understand that this clause is intended to work out a scheme by which we shall know exactly what nature did, and then be able to
  934
  subtract what man did, and make the difference between these two things the basis of all sorts of calculation for taxation. That is the theory of the clause. I say it is not carried out by the clause. The second section proposes to give us what the value of the land would be as it came from its Maker. It does not, and nobody who reads it can believe that it does. The fourth section which we have been discussing professes to tell us what the owner of the land has done to give it its present value. That again it does not do. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has constantly urged in this House and elsewhere that it would be quite preposterous that the owner of building land should claim untaxed the additional value given to land by the opening up of towns. He gives us his theory of social value, but I say that neither in reason nor in logic does he get in Section (2) the original site value, or the value as modified by the industry and enterprise of man. The Government are not only plunging at the bidding of theorists into a perfect quagmire of foolish and costly finance, but they have not even succeeded in carrying out the abstract principles to which they give all this lip-service. That, Sir, is my final blessing, which I beg to give to this clause and, in deference to a natural desire on the part of an exhausted Committee to get a little food and a little sleep, I do not propose further to extend my observations.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think I may say one word in reference to the final malediction pronounced by the right hon. Gentleman upon this clause. He has said that it is absurd, that it cannot possibly be done, that it is quite unworkable, and that it is unjust and inequitable, and he has piled up the adjectives. I would commend to him a small document, written by the late Commissioner for New Zealand, where the same epithets, adjectives, and maledictions were pronounced on an exactly similar proposal made in New Zealand. It was said that no one could work it, and that any human ingenuity was quite incapable of dealing with the difficulty.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I did not say that; I gave it my brief blessing.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then that was reserved for the Noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Cecil) to say. At any rate, the same arguments that were used to-night were used in New Zealand. It was said that there would be a bureaucracy of extortion, headed by some modern John of Cappadocia, to make life un-

  935
  bearable for the poor plundered farmers and landowners. Exactly the same arguments as were used by the Noble Lord were used in New Zealand.
  Lord R. CECIL: I do not know who John of Cappadocia was.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Noble Lord and his Friends have dwelt upon this particular clause as an instance of the extortion which will be practised, and all these things have been said about practically the same things in New Zealand, and, according to the Commissioner, the reforms there are working smoothly, both parties have adopted them, and the result has been that they have been able to promise us a "Dreadnought" out of their taxes. The proposals as to site value and its separation and divestiture from other values are exactly the same as in the New Zealand Act, which has been very carefully drafted, and it has worked so very well, that I am convinced that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will some day or other be congratulating himself upon the ample revenue arising out of the taxation which he has now denounced with such exhaustive ingenuity and eloquence, but which he will find so very useful when he wants to get money for his own particular purposes.
  Lord R. CECIL: I cannot think that the discussion this afternoon, especially for the last hour or two, has really been quite adequate to the importance of the subject. I do not blame anybody, but I think there have been a great number of Amendments put into this Bill about which the Committee have very little knowledge of what they are going to do, and an equally great number refused about which the Committee is equally in the dark. But I do not rise to go into that. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested—I do not know why he selected me—that my objection to this Bill was that it was unworkable. I do think that the Bill is unworkable, as a matter of fact, but that is a matter of minor importance, so far as I am concerned, and that is not my main objection. My main objection is that these
  clauses are founded upon wholly erroneous economic theory, in the first instance, which is entirely novel and quite unsound, and the fact that it exists in New Zealand, or even Australia or anywhere else, does not convince me of its economic soundness; and, secondly, and still more important, I do not believe this is an honest Finance Bill. That is the real objection that I have. I do not think it was meant to devise a scheme for the taxation of land, which would be the case in any honest Finance Bill, but this, as I have said, is not an honest Finance Bill, because it appears to me, for reasons which it is unnecessary to enlarge upon, that the cost of carrying out this very clause is going to be so enormous and overwhelming that it is quite absurd to imagine that any return will be thrown into the coffers of the State which is at all commensurate with the expenditure incurred.
  I know that people say that Clause 14 is the most important clause in the Bill. I do not in the least agree. It is a mere matter of machinery. It is, I think, bad machinery, but it is not, I think, the most important clause, although I shall vote against it, I do not regard this as the vital clause in the Bill, but I do say it is quite grotesque of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get up and ask the Committee to believe that our objection to these clauses is merely because they are unworkable. That is not the ground of our opposition, nor is it that these clauses will inflict an undue burden upon our political friends and allies. Our objection is, that the clauses are founded on a wholly erroneous economic theory, and still more and mainly so far as I am concerned, because I do not believe that this Bill is introduced, and that this clause itself is brought forward for the purpose of carrying out a real financial object, but in order to achieve a second object, which I do not think is a proper one, to be introduced into a Finance Bill.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 112; Noes, 38.

  Division No. 450.]

  AYES

  [7.55 p.m.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Alden, Percy

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Clough, William

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Beale, W. P.

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Crooks, William

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Cullinan, J.

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lamont, Norman

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Seely, Colonel

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Snowdon, P.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M' Callum, John M.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M' Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Massie, J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Mond, A.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wardle, George J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O' Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Henry, Charles S.

  O' Malley, William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Partington, Oswald

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Hodge, John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hudson, Walter

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gordon, J.

  Rawllnson, John Frederick Peel

  Ashley, W. W.

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bowles, G Stewart

  Hills, J. W.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Starkey, John R.

  Clyde, Percy Archer

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord R. Cecil.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Tuesday (17th August).
  Whereupon MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, in pursuance of the Order of the House of this day.
  Adjourned at Five minutes after Eight o'clock.

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were presented during the week and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
MONDAY.
Temperance (Scotland) Bill—Petition from Beith, in favour.

TUESDAY.
Finance Bill—Petitions against, from Aldford, Ashton, Barrow, Bolesworth, Chester (two), Farndon, Frodsham, Kingsley, Malpas, Nantwich (three), Newport, Tarporley (two), Walsoken, White-church, and Winsford (two).
Finance Bill—Petition from Glasgow, for alteration.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill—Petition from North Somerset, against.
South Africa Bill—Petition of the Representatives of the Coloured and Native British Subjects in South Africa, for alteration (praying to be heard at the Bar of the House).
Temperance (Scotland) Bill—Petition from Newburgh, in favour.
Trade Boards Bill—Petition from Walsall, in favour.

WEDNESDAY.
Burial Places (Exemption from Rates) (Scotland) Bill—Petition from Cathcart, in favour.
Finance Bill—Petitions against, from Exwick and other places, New Seaham, and Yoxford.
Finance Bill—Two petitions from Aberdeen, for alteration.
Khoda Yar Khan—Petition of Khoda Yar Khan, for redress of grievances.
London Electric Supply Bill—Petition from Kensington, against, praying to be beard by counsel.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill—Petition from Burnham, against.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill—Petition from Park Village, in favour.

FRIDAY.
Finance Bill—Petitions against from Chester (two), Harrow, Herne Hill, Malpas (two), Nantwich, Ribchester, Samelsbury, and Walton-le-Dale.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill—Petition from London, in favour.
Temperance (Scotland) Bill—Petition from Dundee, in favour.