Commons Sitting of 17 August 1909

Preamble
Mr. Speaker took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
NORFOLK BROADS AND RIVERS (PRESERVATION AND FREE OPENING).
Mr. G. H. ROBERTSpresented a Petition from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Norwich, and from certain inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk, and others interested in the preservation and free opening of the Norfolk Broads and rivers, pointing out that from time immemorial until about the year 1860, such parts of the rivers of Norfolk and Suffolk and the broadenings out thereof technically known as "Broads," were always used by any of His Majesty's subjects for purposes of passage, recreation, and fishing, without the let or hindrance of anyone, and that about such year certain claims began to be put forward by the riparian owners to prevent such public user; and praying that a Royal Commission with power to call and examine witnesses on oath may be set up, with a view to public and private rights being clearly ascertained and legally defined.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Affairs in Persia.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there had been any movement of the Russian troops at Kazvin in the direction of Tehran; if so, could he state the reason for such movement, and if it was due to the outbreak of an epidemic in Kazvin; and whether he was aware of any reason why these troops should not now be withdrawn altogether or marched to a position nearer their point of embarkation on the Caspian?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): There is no forward movement on Tehran, but I understand that the Russian troops at Kazvin have been transferred to a camp some eight miles outside the town, in the direction of Tehran, which is about 80
  1070
  miles distant from Kazvin. This step is believed to have been taken for purely sanitary reasons. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's question, I must refer him to statements already made and answers previously returned in this House, and to the declaration of the Russian Government themselves.
  Mr. J. D. REESasked whether the Anglo-Russian Convention justified interference by one of the two parties, as to the precise position in Persia to be occupied by troops of the other party, in a case in which the introduction of the troops of one party was authorised and approved by both parties?
  Sir E. GREY: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the text of the Anglo-Russian Agreement, which, as he is aware, has been published as a Parliamentary Paper, and from which he will see that the point is not mentioned.

  British Manufacturers' Interests in China (Tientsin-Pukow Railway).
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had received complaints as to the manner in which the tenders for the Tientsin-Pukow Railway were being manipulated; whether, in the case of tenders opened on 17th June for the 21 engines required by the Chekiang Railway, the railway company handed all the tenders over to one of the tenderers to open and adjudicate upon; whether he was aware that on the northern section of the Tientsin-Pukow Railway, which was under German domination, none but German tenders were considered, whereas on the southern section, which was supposedly under British domination, tenders were thrown open to the world; whether, as a protest against the discrimination exercised and the apathy displayed by the British Legation at Pekin, the Agent-General of the British and Chinese Corporation, through whom all the existing railway loans had been raised, resigned during the week of 18th June; and whether, under existing circumstances, he would say what action he proposed to take in the interests of British manufacturers in China?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the third part, we have no reason to believe that Article 18 of the Tientsin-Pukow Railway Agreement has not been fairly carried out. That Article is to the effect that German Asiatic Bank

  1071
  and the Chinese Central Railways shall act as agents of the railway administration during construction for the purchase of all materials, etc., from abroad; and that at equal rates and qualities goods of German and British manufacture shall be given preference over other goods of foreign origin for the northern and southern sections respectively. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, but the Railway Bureau ultimately decided to reject all the tenders and to purchase nothing. The irregularity in procedure referred to has already been the subject of representation. As to the last two parts of the question, the resignation of the Agent-General of the British and Chinese Corporation is a matter which concerns the corporation alone. We have received no complaints from them, nor have we any reason to suppose that they consider that His Majesty's Minister at Pekin has in any way neglected their interests in the Far East. I do not know of any case where Sir John Jordan has failed to display a zealous watchfulness over British interests, and any charge of this kind against the British Legation is entirely unfounded and unjust. I know no more strenuous and loyal public servant than Sir John Jordan, and I take full responsibility for his action. In any case which arises I am prepared to give full support to well-founded British claims, if it is required.
  Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this Article 18 has, or has not, been carried out?
  Sir E. GREY: We have no reason to believe that Article 18 has not been fairly carried out.

  Russian-Japanese War (Sinking of s.s. "St. Kilda").
  Mr. J. S. HARMOOD-BANNERasked whether there has been any opportunity during the last month to impress upon His Majesty the. Czar's Ministers the desirability of paying to a British subject the damages for sinking and destroying the steamer "St. Kilda," which were ordered and admitted by the Supreme Court of Appeal in St. Petersburg on the 24th December last?
  Sir E. GREY: The Supreme Prize Court have already given a decision admitting, in principle, the claims of the owners of the "St. Kilda" to compensation. The
  1072
  precise amount of that compensation was not settled by the Supreme Court, and remains to be assessed by the Libau Court, which, I am informed, will sit in the course of the ensuing autumn. His Majesty's Embassy at St. Petersburg have done all in their power to expedite the hearing of the case.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: Does that mean that it will be 12 months before British subjects will obtain any relief?
  Sir E. GREY: The question in principle has been decided in favour, but the amount of compensation cannot, I understand, be assessed till the court sits in the ordinary course.

  Religious and Charitable Endowments.
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary for India whether, in view of the dissatisfaction generally expressed by those interested at the malversation and misuse of religious and charitable endowments, it is proposed to take any steps whereby the Government can more properly discharge its duties as ultimate trustees?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (the Master of Elibank): The position of the Government in regard to Indian religious and charitable endowments was explained in an answer given to the hon. Member on the 27th July, 1908. The Secretary of State cannot accept the position stated in the question that the Government are "ultimate trustees" of these endowments: it was the express object of Act 20 of 1863 to divest the Government of any duties as such trustees. The Bill referred to in the answer of July, 1908, is still before the Legislative Council of the Governor-General, and has been circulated for the opinion of those concerned. The Secretary of State is not aware which course the Government of India propose to take in regard to it.

  Game Preservation and Sleeping Sickness (Central Africa).
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether the Government has yet acquired any reliable information regarding the relations between big game and tsetse fly in Central Africa; and, if so, what bearing such information had upon the policy of game preservation and of prevention of sleeping sickness?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The relation

  1073
  between big game and tsetse fly in Central Africa is a much debated question. A strong Committee has been recently appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to organise entomological research in tropical Africa, and I have no doubt that this question, among others, will receive their earnest consideration.

  Sewage Treatment (Royal Commission).
  Mr. W. CLOUGHasked the President of the Local Government Board when the Royal Commission, appointed to inquire and report what methods of treating and disposing of sewage may properly be adopted, held its first sitting; how many sittings has since been held; how many Reports have been issued, and at what price per volume, and how much taxpayers' money has been already expended upon this Royal Commission; and whether he can say how many more Reports will be issued, when the final Report may be expected, and what the total cost of this Royal Commission is likely to be?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): The Royal Commission held its first meeting on the 21st June, 1898. There have been 93 formal meetings for taking evidence, in addition to a large number of other sittings. Six Reports have been issued in several volumes, varying in cost from a few pence to 14s. 9d. Up to the 31st July last the total cost of the Commission was £57,578, including the net cost of stationery and printing, but excluding the cost of accommodation. I understand that it is hoped that the final Report will be issued in the course of the next 18 months, and that it is possible that in the meantime there may be a further Report on standards for sewage effluents. I am informed that an estimate cannot at present be framed of the further expenditure which may be required.

  Thames Steamboats (London County Council).
  Mr. H. W. CARR-GOMMasked whether the Local Government Board auditor has presented his audit of the financial transactions of the London County Council in connection with the sale of the Thames steamboats; and, if not, will he say when this audit will be made?
  Mr. BURNS: I understand that the sums paid for the boats have all been received during the financial year ending on the 31st March next. Hence the matter will
  1074
  come before the auditor when he holds his audit of the accounts for that year. This he will do as soon as practicable after its close.
  Mr. CARR-GOMM: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, considering the serious nature of the sale, he will give special attention to this matter, with a view to holding a public inquiry?
  Mr. BURNS: The whole of the facts and circumstances connected with the steamboats will be brought before the auditor when he holds his inquiry.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power to prevent the London County Council from selling steamboats which cost £6,000 for £300?
  Mr. BURNS: I sincerely regret I have not.

  Chiswick Urban District Council (Suspension of Councillor McConnell).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the urban district council of Chiswick has suspended one of its members, viz., Councillor M'Connell, for three months, in consequence of him disobeying the ruling of the chairman; and whether he had sanctioned any standing orders giving the council power to suspend one of its members for three months?
  Mr. BURNS: I learn that the circumstances are as stated in the question. The standing orders of a district council for the transaction and management of their business do not require any confirmation or approval on my part.

  Public Abattoirs.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board if he has received a memorial urging that, as four years have elapsed since the Committee appointed by the Admiralty to consider the humane slaughtering of animals reported that, in the interests not only of humanity but of sanitation and economy, private slaughter-houses should be replaced by public abattoirs, action should now be taken to give effect to that reform in the metropolitan district; and whether he will take the necessary steps to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, by legislation or otherwise?
  Mr. BURNS: I have received the memorial referred to. Legislation would

  1075
  be necessary to give effect to the suggestion of my hon. Friend, and the change proposed would involve considerable financial and other difficulties. I could not undertake to introduce legislation on the subject at the present time.

  Frozen Meat from China (Medical Inspection).
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Local Government Board if he could publish the report of the medical officer of health on the consignment of frozen meat landed by the Peninsular and Oriental steamer "Palermo" at the Royal Albert Docks from China?
  Mr. BURNS: I have no doubt that the medical officer of health for the City will ultimately deal with this matter in a report to the Sanitary Committee of the Corporation, which will be printed and issued in the usual way. No general report can be made for some time, as the carcases will not be thawed and examined all at once, but only as they are required for trade purposes. So far less than five per cent, of them have been thawed and examined.
  Mr. STANIER: Is it not the fact that the City Corporation medical officer of health is making an examination of these carcases, and, inasmuch as they may not be free from disease, is it not possible to publish the report?
  Mr. BURNS: It is perfectly true that the port sanitary medical officer is making a close examination of these carcases, and we have also instructed the medical inspector of the Local Government Board to pay special attention to this subject.

  Old Age Pensions (Manchester Pension Committee).
  Mr. CLYNESasked the President of the Local Government Board concerning David Elliott, Leng Road, Newton Heath, Manchester, who was 70 years of age in February, and who, to secure a pension, appealed from the decision of the Manchester pension committee, whether, seeing that the decision was in his favour, he will arrange that it shall date from his first application, and not from the date of the appeal which he was compelled to make?
  Mr. BURNS: In the case referred to the Local Government Board directed that the pension should accrue from the same date
  1076
  as that from which it would have accrued had the decision of the local pension committee been in favour of the claimant. Under the Act this would have been not the date of the application for a pension, but the first Friday after the claim was allowed by the Committee.

  Tobermory Mail Service.
  Mr. AINSWORTHasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the delays that are occurring in the mail service to Tobermory; and what steps he can take to remedy the loss and inconvenience which the public are suffering in consequence?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): The delay which has recently occurred in the afternoon Mail Service to Tobermory has been due partly to the late arrival of the mail train at Oban and partly to the loss of time on the steamer service, the delay in both cases being largely attributable to the pressure of holiday traffic. The contractors for the steamer service have, recently employed, during a temporary emergency, a steamer which is rather slower than that usually employed; but they have promised to replace the present steamer by a faster boat in the course of a few weeks.

  National Telephone Company (Discharges of Staff).
  Mr. CURRANask the Postmaster-General whether he was aware that reductions in the staff of the National Telephone Company still continued; that the users of the Company's system were suffering inconvenience owing to the negligence of the Company in the carrying out of alterations and repairs and the placing of new plant; and whether he was prepared to adopt some line of action which would obviate this systematic starving of the system prior to the Government taking it over?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I understand that the National Telephone Company have discharged a certain number of construction hands during the present year owing to a slight diminution in the amount of new work and orders. I have no evidence before me that the National Telephone Company are causing inconvenience to subscribers by failure to carry out alterations or repairs to their existing plant. The condition of the plant will be taken into account in the settlement of

  1077
  the purchase price in 1911, and the company have, therefore, a direct interest in keeping the plant up to date. I have just concluded an arrangement with the company for the continuance of certain new works involving the provision of spare plant for use after 1911; and I am in communication with them as to a further arrangement for the establishment of new exchanges in districts served by their system.
  Mr. CURRAN: Has any definite date been fixed for the valuation of the stock and plant prior to the Government taking them over?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: Under the agreement the question of valuation will arise in due course.
  Mr. CLYNES: Has the right hon. Gentleman kept the promise which I remember he made that steps would be taken to prevent dismissals of the staff?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: We are desirous of doing that.
  Mr. H. A. WATT: Is it not the case that the National Telephone Company have parted with their canvassers? Cannot some arrangement be made by the Postmaster-General whereby the services of these men can be retained?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: But surely that is not the case.
  Mr. H. BELLOC: Is it not the case that shortly after joining this House I warned the right hon. Gentleman that the National Telephone Company would do something of this kind?
  Mr. CURRAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept documentary evidence from me on this point?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I shall be very glad to do so. If my hon. Friend has any information to give me on this matter I shall be very glad to consider it. But it is to the direct interest of the National Telephone Company to keep the plant in a proper state of efficiency, as the question of price will depend largely on the efficiency of the plant.
  Mr. J. F. REMNANT: Is not the question of the extension of the system equally important with the maintenance of the efficiency of the plant?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: That is another point.

  Mosside (Antrim) Sub-Postmaster.
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGHasked the Postmaster-General what other occupation is followed by James Steel, sub-postmaster at Mosside, county Antrim; how far distant from Ballintoy is Mosside; and under which Government was Steel appointed sub-postmaster?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: Mr. Steele, the Sub-Postmaster of Mosside, county Antrim, is a publican, grocer and farmer. Mosside is 7½ miles from Ballintoy. The sub-postmaster was appointed in 1879.
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Did the temperance enthusiasts in county Antrim, who protested against the appointment at Ballintoy, protest against the appointment of a Unionist publican as postmaster?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have no information on that point.

  Jersey Education Bill.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Jersey Education Bill was carried, on its third reading, by 28 votes to 21; whether he is aware that the provisions of the Bill were contrary to the wishes of the Catholic population of the island, who had no representative in the States; and can he state when the Privy Council will be prepared to consider Petitions against the Bill?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): It is the case that there is no Roman Catholic in the States; but representative Roman Catholics were heard before the Education Committee, and afterwards by counsel before the States. The Act has been received from the States, and it is now open to persons concerned to present Petitions to His Majesty in Council.

  Mines Regulations.
  Mr. GLOVERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to cases in which His Majesty's inspectors of mines, having allowed too much time for lowering and raising the men in the mines, have refused to reduce that time; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have heard of no such cases.

  Hanley Gas Works Explosion.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary the result of the inquiries with reference to the explosion that took place on 19th July last in one of the purifiers at Hanley Gas Works?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have received a report with regard to this explosion, from which it appears that the purifier in question was last emptied on 9th March of this year, and that three quarters of an hour intervened between the lid being lifted and the men entering the purifier. It would appear that a longer interval should have been allowed; and I am arranging for further inquiries to be made as to the practice at other works, and into the subject generally. I may, perhaps, add, that the Inspector informs me that 54 purifiers have been dealt with in the same way during the last two years at the Hanley Gas Works without any mishap.

  Factory Act Regulations (Foundries).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Home Secretary the number of foundries on the registers of the Factory Department; the approximate number in which advantage had been taken by employers of the Statutory Order No. 934, exempting foundries from limewashing; and the approximate number of cases in which action had been taken by factory inspectors under paragraph 4 of the said Order by requiring the occupiers of such places to limewash or otherwise cleanse the whole or part of their premises?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: In 1904, the last year for which returns are available, there were 2,331 factories or departments of factories in which iron-founding was carried on, 1,790 in which brass casting, and 121 in which other metal founding was carried on. The information asked for in the last two paragraphs of the question is not available, and could not be obtained except at the cost of a laborious search through the registers and records of the different districts. If the hon. Member has any specific cases in mind, I shall be happy to consider them, if he will let me have the particulars.

  Imprisoned Suffragists.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Home Secretary if his attention had been directed by the Suffragists' Vigilance League to the case of
  1080
  Miss A. C. Laws, who was charged on 9th July with police obstruction and sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment in the second division; whether ha was aware that this lady was convicted on the evidence of an inspector, who stated that she carried a scroll of paper in her hand bearing the word Petition on it, and that it was denied by Miss Laws and the hon. secretary of the Women's Freedom League that such a scroll was ever used by them; and whether he would cause an inquiry to be made with a view to seeing if a miscarriage of justice had occurred in this case?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: My attention has been called to this case by the Suffragists' Vigilance League. I have made inquiry, and have seen the evidence. The inspector stated that Miss Hicks and Miss Cummins carried a petition which they wished to present to the Prime Minister, but he made no statement as to Miss Laws carrying anything. I see no reason to doubt the justice of Miss Laws' conviction.
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Are we to understand that these ladies were convicted and imprisoned for carrying a scroll?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have answered the question on the Paper.

  Von Veltheim's Sentence.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the extradition aspect of the case of Franz Von Veltheim, who was convicted on 12th February, 1908, of demanding money with menaces from Solomon Baa1-nato Joel, and sentenced to 20 years' penal servitude; whether he is aware that Von Veltheim was outside the King's jurisdiction at the date of the alleged offence, and that he was sentenced two months before the Court of Criminal Appeal was established; whether the new evidence which has been procured since his conviction has been considered; and if he will give the evidence which is now available his personal attention, with the view to some remission of the sentence of 20 years' penal servitude?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have carefully considered the case of Von Veltheim in all its aspects. The fact that Von Veltheim was outside His Majesty's dominions, at the time when he sent the blackmailing letter, appeared in evidence, and was consequently fully before the Court which tried

  1081
  him. Representations by and on behalf of the prisoner have been received in my Department since his conviction, and I have given them my careful consideration, but I am unable to find any grounds for advising any remission of his sentence.
  Mr. BELLOC: Is it not the fact that after the trial was over a certain amount of evidence was put in by the police likely to prejudice the prisoner, considering the character of the judge who tried the case? [Cries of "Oh! Oh!"]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I did not quite catch the last remark of the hon. Member, but I am very doubtful if it would be admissible. Perhaps he will put it on the Paper.
  Mr. BELLOC: I will do so.

  Cardiff Conviction (Stealing a Penny Fare).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been drawn to the case of a car conductor who had been sentenced by the Cardiff stipendiary to six weeks' hard labour for stealing a penny fare; whether he was aware that, if guilty, it was the man's first offence; and whether he would favourably consider taking action to secure a mitigation of the sentence?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I am still making inquiries with regard to this case, which presents difficulties of which I have not yet obtained any satisfactory explanation. If the prisoner was actually guilty I do not think it can be said that the punishment was necessarily excessive merely because the sum stolen was a penny. In such a case all the circumstances have to be considered, and not the mere amount which is the subject of the charge.

  Metropolitan Police (Sunday Duty).
  Mr. REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange that those members of the Metropolitan Police Force who are employed on Sundays on point duty should be released from such duty, especially during the summer; and, if so, will be arrange that such men be immediately utilised in making a commencement in giving one day's rest in seven to members of that Force?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I am sorry that this suggestion is not a practicable one. The number of men employed on traffic points on Sunday is already reduced as far as is
  1082
  possible; and having regard to the partial depletion of beats on Sunday—nearly one-fourth of the men being absent on ordinary or annual leave—it is necessary to maintain the fixed points at working strength on that day.
  Mr. REMNANT: Has the right hon. Gentleman made personal inquiry into this matter, or is this merely the report of the Commissioner?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I saw Sir Edward Henry yesterday.
  Mr. REMNANT: Are there not some hundreds of men who can be relieved?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Not according to the information communicated to me directly by the Commissioner.

  Footpaths (Neidpath Castle).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Scottish Office has been drawn to the closing of paths through the precincts of Neidpath Castle, near Peebles; whether any communication on the subject has been received from the local authorities; and whether, in view of the frequency with which these public rights are now being set aside by the owners of land in Scotland, and the impossibility of defending them owing to the expense involved, the Scottish Office is considering the desirability of introducing legislation on the subject?
  The SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. A. Dewar): No communication on this matter has reached the Scottish Office; but I am informed that a special meeting of Peebles Town Council was called to consider the situation. It was stated that the Neidpath Grounds had been open to the public during living memory, and that the closing of them was regarded as a calamity to the neighbourhood. The town council unanimously passed a resolution thanking Lord Wemyss for having so long left the grounds open, and earnestly desiring him to reopen them. The preservation of public rights-of-way is an object with which the Scottish Office is in hearty sympathy, but at present it is not possible to give any undertaking to introduce legislation.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is the Scottish Office really aware of the facts stated towards the end of my question, and in view of the frequency with which

  1083
  these, public rights are now being set aside, may I ask whether the Scottish Office will not do something to protect the public?
  Mr. DEWAR: The difficulty indicated by the Peebles Town Council is very grave. It is a very great pity that the public should be deprived of the enjoyment of reasonable rights of way, but the hon. Member will see that the Scottish Office have nothing to do with the matter, and has scarcely power to interfere here, except by expressing a hope that the town council will be successful.
  Mr. COX: Will the Solicitor-General consult the Prime Minister as to the desirability of introducing legislation as to the whole of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. DEWAR: I will communicate the hon. Member's view to the Prime Minister.
  Mr. WATT: Is it not the case that the Scottish Office in the first year of this Parliament made a promise to deal with this question of rights of way in Scotland?
  Mr. DEWAR: That scarcely arises out of this question. This is a case where the privilege granted for a long time has been withdrawn. There is no right to interfere, or the Scottish Office would gladly do so.

  Royal Commission on Inland Navigation.
  Mr. STANIERasked when the Report of the Royal Commission on Inland Navigation will be published?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): As I informed the hon. Member for North Westmeath, on the 4th instant, the Royal Commission on Canals hope to be able to report on British canals before the end of the present year, and on Irish canals in the early months of next year.

  Glamorgan Colliers' Dispute.
  Mr. CLYNESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to disturbances in Glamorgan due to men being imported from Lancashire to take the places of colliers involved in a dispute; and whether in such cases in this country he will, as in the case of the labour troubles in Sweden, issue warnings against persons being taken to the area of serious trade disputes?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware of the dispute to which the hon. Member refers, which has been reported in the newspapers. I do not think that the circumstances are such as to call for any official statement.

  Importation of Potatoes (Tasmania).
  Mr. STANIERasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if potatoes are imported into this country from Tasmania; and, if so, what precautions are being taken to prevent Irish potato blight being imported from that island into this country?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): No potatoes have been imported from Tasmania for the last five years.

  French Agricultural Vote.
  Mr. STANIERasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can give the amount voted for agriculture by the Governments of France, Germany, United States, and Denmark?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I am afraid that it will not be easy to supply the information for which the hon. Member' asks, but we will bring his questions to the notice of the Foreign Office, and ask them to make inquiry on the subject. I will communicate with the hon. Member so soon as we receive a reply.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: Are not the figures asked for published in a Blue Paper, copies of which can be obtained by His Majesty's Government?

  Exportation of Old Horses.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether the Government will consider the advisability of placing a high export tax on old horses sold in foreign countries?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: If the hon. Member can show that any considerable revenue would accrue from the adoption of his proposal, perhaps he will bring it to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Board are not in a position to express any opinion on financial suggestions of this character.
  Sir G. PARKER: Will the hon. Gentleman secure for me the figures of exportation if I ask for them?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give notice of that.

  FINANCE BILL.

    STRIPPED TOBACCO.
    Mr. FELLasked how many persons were engaged in the United Kingdom in the work of stripping tobacco before the change was made in the duty, and how many are engaged in the work at the present time?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that the particulars asked for by the hon. Member are not available.
    Mr. FELL: May I say that I have seen them published?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can convey the information he wishes by letter.

    IMPROVEMENT OF MAIN ROADS.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked when the Bill will be introduced to provide for the administration of the proposed fund for the improvement of main roads?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend hopes that the Bill will be introduced shortly.

    VOLUNTARY ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked whether a voluntary allowance made by a father to his son or daughter will be liable under the Finance Bill to pay duty in respect of the last five years' payments before the death of the parent?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that a subaltern in the Army who receives £100 from his father will have to pay duty?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, if he is so unfortunate as to lose his father, and has been receiving a voluntary allowance from him.

    LAND TAXES (EXEMPTIONS).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that he has placed an Amendment on the Paper to exempt land used bonâ fide for the purpose of games or other recreation from Undeveloped Land Duty, it is also his intention to extend the exemption to Increment Value Duty so long as the land continues to be so used?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir.

    LAND VALUATION.
    Mr. RIDSDALEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have consulted any professional land surveyors or land agents as to the cost of valuing the whole of the land of the United Kingdom; if so, whether any of the gentlemen consulted have had any particular experience in the valuation of land on the assumption that it is deprived of the improvements attached to it; and, if so, whether he will lay before the House a summary of the information received from these gentlemen, including any records they may have communicated to the Government of actual sales either by private treaty or public auction of site values as denned in Clause 14 of the Finance Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend does not see his way to accede to my hon. Friend's request.

    TOBACCO DUTIES (DRAWBACK).
    Mr. GRETTON (for Sir William Bull): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the increased duties on tobacco under the Finance Bill have now been in force for over three months, and that a correspondingly increased rate of drawback has also been provided for in the Fourth Schedule of that Bill, but not paid by the Board of Customs, he will, having regard to the inconvenience and injury caused to manufacturers, take steps to confer upon the Board power to repay at once the full amount of the increased drawback in respect of goods that have paid the increased duty and due to those persons legally claiming the same?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot see his way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

    SUPER-TAX (FORMS).
    Mr. FELLasked if the forms relating to Super-tax on large incomes will be sent out and will have to be returned during September, whether the Budget is passed or not before that date; and, if so, why a more convenient time cannot be selected, instead of one when practically all the persons concerned are away from their homes?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No forms in connection with the Super-tax will be issued to taxpayers until the Finance Bill has been passed into law. It will be necessary to issue the forms at the earliest moment possible after that date.

    UNDEVELOPED LAND TAX (GREENHOUSES).
    Mr. HAROLD COXasked whether land upon which greenhouses have been built for market garden purposes will be exempt from the Undeveloped Land Tax; and, if so, whether that exemption will be confined to the actual area covered by the roofs of the greenhouses, or whether it will include the land occupied in conjunction with the greenhouses and used for carrying on the same business?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: There will be no such exemption.
    Mr. COX: Is not a greenhouse a building?

    CIDER MANUFACTURE LICENCES.
    Sir CHARLES W. DILKE (for Mr. Silcock)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the total yield of the proposed licences for the manufacture and sale of cider will, in all probability, be very small; and, if this is so, and having regard to the fact that the percentage of alcohol in cider is very low, and that the proposed licences would prohibit many farmers from continuing the manufacture, will he consider the advisability of excluding these licences from the Finance Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The only licence at present required for the sale of cider is a licence for the sale of cider by retail. It is proposed by the Bill to require licences to be taken out by manufacturers of cider and wholesale dealers in cider, so as to establish uniformity of principle as respects the requirement for licences to be taken out for the manufacture and sale of all liquors. The Bill contains provisions exempting from these new Licence Duties occupiers of land making and selling by wholesale cider from fruit mainly grown on their own land. My right hon. Friend does not suppose that a large amount of revenue will be received from the yield of the proposed new cider licences, but the establishing of uniformity in Licence Duties is a matter of principle which he is endeavouring to carry out in the Bill.
    Sir C. W. DILKE: Is it proposed to adhere to the present form? It is much higher in small cases than in beer.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That may be so. Any alteration will be in the direction of uniformity.

    SUNDAY CLOSING (DEDUCTION FOR LICENCE DUTIES).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that under existing licensing duties a deduction of one-seventh is allowed to retailers who do not keep open on Sundays, and a further one-seventh deduction to licensees who close earlier than the prescribed time; and if in the Finance Bill the same principle will be applied, so as to give Scottish licensees some benefit from the shorter hours for sale of drink in Scotland as compared with London?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The deductions from the ordinary duty on licences in respect of Sunday and Early Closing licences is under the present law as stated by my hon. Friend. No alteration is made by the Finance Bill in that law, and similar deductions will be allowed.
    Mr. WATT: Do we understand that Scotland is to be charged at the same rate as England though the licensee sells for fewer hours, and that the taxation, therefore, is to be on a higher basis?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That does not arise out of the question.

    RESIDENTIAL HOTELS (LICENCES).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the anxiety that prevails in the North of Scotland on the question of hotel licences and the impossibility of their being able to pay the licences proposed under the Finance Bill, he will take an early opportunity of stating what modifications he is prepared to grant to residential hotels, with especial reference to those whose trade is mostly seasonal?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend has received communications from various quarters as to the effect of the proposals in the Finance Bill in regard to licences for residential hotels, some of which are only open for short seasons, and these communications are being carefully considered, but it would be premature for me to make a statement in regard to them at the present time.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that it is intended to revalue all fully licensed premises, including hotels and on-beerhouses, throughout the United Kingdom, and that the licences will be charged on the basis of the trade done

    1089
    in spirits and beer, he will postpone the increased Licence Duty on residential hotels until such valuation is made?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend cannot undertake to postpone the increased Licence Duty on residential hotels, but he is considering whether the new valuation of hotels, not coming within Clause 31 of the Finance Bill (to which he gathers my hon. Friend principally refers), can be expedited so as to enable the duty to be charged during the year 1909–10 upon the basis of the valuation to be made under Sub-clause (2) of Clause 30 of the Bill.

    LICENCE DUTIES (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the differences between the rating systems of England and Scotland; and if he will state whether the licences will be charged on the gross yearly value of the rateable subject, or upon the basis of the assessment for Imperial taxation, when deductions are allowed for repairs and other outgoings in Scotland, as in England?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend is aware that there are differences between the rating systems of England and Scotland. With regard to licences upon which duty is charged according to annual value, the duty will be charged as heretofore according to the gross annual value of the premises.

    LICENSED PREMISES (VALUATION).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the fact that different systems of valuation of licensed premises prevail in England, Ireland, and Scotland, he will provide that under the increased Licence Duties a uniform basis of valuation and taxation will prevail throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is provided by Section (1) of Clause 30 of the Finance Bill that the annual value of premises for the purpose of the Licence Duties under the Bill shall be determined in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as the annual value of premises is determined for the purpose of a publican's licence. This annual value is determined under provisions contained in the Excise Acts which apply throughout the United Kingdom, and (subject to a special provision in regard to the application of
    1090
    Griffiths' Valuation to public-houses in Ire land) establish an uniform basis of valuation and taxation throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. WATT: Is it not the case that in England a deduction is permitted before what is called the rateable value is reached, upon which taxation is based, whereas in Scotland no such deduction is permitted?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, that is so.
    Mr. WATT: Is that the right hon. Gentleman's idea of fairness between the two nations?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have pointed out that in future the valuation will be on gross value.

    AGRICULTURAL LAND (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS).
    Mr. REESasked whether agricultural land included within the limits of a Parliamentary borough, of which the urban portion is a small proportion of the whole area, will be liable to Undeveloped Land Duty, because of any slight value it may possess over and above its agricultural value by reason of its proximity to such urban portion of such total area?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Undeveloped Land Duty wall be chargeable in any case which is not covered by the exemptions contained in the Finance Bill.
    Mr. REES: Is the Treasury aware that in a case like this the duty will press rather hardly?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It may press hardly, but I do not think unfairly.

    UNDEVELOPED LAND TAX (LAND NEAR RAILWAY TUNNEL).
    Sir HENRY KIMBERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has observed that, under Clause 14, Section (3), of the Finance Bill land held by conveyance from a railway company, subject to a covenant not to build within a certain distance from a tunnel, would be taxed by the Bill for not building, and yet the owner would not be protected from an injunction by the railway company if he does build; and whether this is intended?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend does not agree that the effect of the Bill would be as suggested by the hon. Baronet.

    LAND AGENTS AND PROPERTY DEALINGS (INCREMENT DUTY LIABILITY).
    Sir HENRY KIMBERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is intended in the case of land agents, part of whose trade is to buy and sell as dealers in land and houses, that, in addition to paying Income Tax upon the profits they make on the turnover, they shall surrender to the State one-fifth of those profits as Increment Duty; and would the same answer apply to dealers in options for purchase or sale of interests in land where no actual conveyances take place?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I may refer the hon. Baronet to my replies on the 7th and 15th ultimo to similar questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, in which I dealt fully with the points now raised.

    STAMP DUTIES (NEW DUTY ON BONDS).
    Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has come to terms with the Committee of the Stock Exchange on the new Stamp Duties to be imposed, especially in regard to the new duty on bonds; and if he will inform the House of any proposed alterations, and give an opportunity of consideration?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend does not think it would be desirable to make any statement on this matter at present.
    Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is intended to withhold information in regard to these changes until the last moment, and to announce them when there will not be time for their proper consideration?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I only meant to convey to the hon. Gentleman that negotiations were in progress in connection with the duties, and that it would be unwise to make a premature statement.

    INCOME TAX (APPEALS REGARDING SUPER-TAX).
    Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take for the purpose of setting up an absolutely impartial and independent body to hear appeals in regard to Super-tax, so as to retain the alternative right of appeal either to Special Commissioners or to General Commissioners of the dictrict which now exists in regard to Income Tax?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I may refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply of
    1092
    the 9th instant to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton, in which he dealt fully with this subject.

    IRELAND'S CONTRIBUTION FROM NEW TAXES.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the separate yield of each proposed new tax upon Ireland showing how he has arrived at the total of Ireland's estimated contribution to be £640,000?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The estimated Irish contributions under each head, so far as I have any material for calculating them, are stated in a reply which my right hon. Friend gave to a question by the hon. Member for East Tyrone on 3rd May last. I may perhaps refer the hon. Member to that reply, to which I am not in a position to add anything.

    Weeds and Agricultural Seeds (Ireland) Bill.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, on the second reading of the Weeds and Agricultural Seeds (Ireland) Bill he will accept an instruction to the Committee to extend the scope of the Bill to the United Kingdom?
    The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT Of AGRICULTURE (IRELAND) (Mr. T. W. Russell): The Bill in question has been drafted to meet the special conditions of agriculture in Ireland, and it would appear, from the answer given on behalf of the President of the Board of Agriculture to the question of the hon. Member for South Buckinghamshire, that the Bill could not be extended to England and Wales without considerable modifications; and I have also learned that it would be opposed. My only hope of getting the Bill passed during the present Session lies in the fact that so far as Irish Members are concerned it is unopposed.
    Mr. STANIERasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board are proposing to bring in a Bill on the lines of Part II. of the Weeds and Agricultural Seeds (Ireland) Bill?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: In view of the opinions expressed by the Departmental Committee of 1900, over which Lord Onslow presided, it must be very doubtful whether legislation on the lines suggested

    1093
    is required so far as Great Britain is concerned, but we propose to take steps during the recess to ascertain the views of representative agricultural organisations on the subject. The question of the cost of administration and of whether the work should be done by the central or local authorities will also require to be carefully considered.

    Fishery Investigation.
    Sir JOHN RANDLESasked the Secretary to the Treasury if, without any change of policy as to local rates being used for sea fisheries, he is prepared to make grants in support of fishery investigation on the Cumberland and Lancashire coast similar to those made from Imperial funds on the opposite side of the Solway in Scotland as well as for Irish administration and investigation in respect of sea fisheries?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Neither in Scotland nor in Ireland are grants for scientific fishery investigation made from Imperial funds to local authorities, and on present information I am not prepared to agree to such grants in England. I may, however, mention that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries make a grant of £200 to Liverpool University for Fishery research.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Do I understand that Ireland and Scotland do not receive very large sums from Imperial funds for investigation?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes; that is what the hon. Member is to understand.
    Sir JOHN RANDLES: Did not the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to my former question, inform me that sums were allocated, both in Ireland and Scotland, for fishery investigation and research, and by his reply now does he mean to say that similar amounts should not be available for use on the south side of the Solway, as well as on the north side?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The question asked is whether there is any subvention given from Imperial funds in England or Ireland or Scotland, with the exception of the sum which I mentioned of £200 to the University of Liverpool. No such payments are made from Imperial funds, either in the case of Scotland or Ireland. The grant made in regard to fisheries in respect to Ireland comes from the Old Church Funds, and not from Imperial funds.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will he say where the Scotch funds come from?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot say offhand, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will give him an exact answer, and he will find that they are not drawn from Imperial funds.

    Civil Service (Superannuation Bill).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the new scheme of the Superannuation Bill is based on any actuarial calculation as to the average expectation of life of such existing Civil servants as elect to come under the scheme; if the calculation is based on such an estimated average life, what is the necessity for a medical test of each candidate for admission to the scheme; and whether it is intended to refuse admission to candidates whose lives are not good lives from an insurance point of view?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The proposals as regards existing Civil servants are based on the assumption that those electing to adopt the new scheme are in average good health.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes; it is intended to exclude those who cannot pass a reasonable test.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is this scheme based upon actuarial calculations, and, if so, how does he defend it from the point of view of justice in excluding these people?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of debate.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it intended that they should submit to an examination?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certificates will be required from the heads of Departments. In accordance with the draft regulations before the House, which to some extent I mean to modify, all persons will have to submit a statement from the head of their Department who are beyond a certain age.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I shall call attention to the matter.

    Unemployed Workmen Act (Expenditure).
    Mr. HAROLD COXasked whether the expenditure of £200,000 upon the Unemployed Workmen Act was foreseen at the

    1095
    time that the ordinary Estimates for the year were being prepared or at the time of the preparation of the Budget; and, if so, why this expenditure was not included in the Estimates for the year and in the Budget statement?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Government had not decided at the time when the Estimates were being prepared whether it would be necessary to make a grant of £200,000 in the current financial year in connection with the Unemployed Workmen Act, and it seemed desirable to postpone taking a decision upon the point until a later period in the year.
    Mr. COX: I asked whether it was foreseen at the time of the preparation of the Budget.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Estimates preceded the Budget by nearly three months.
    Mr. COX: That is why I asked another question altogether.

    Land Taxation (Supplementary Blue Book).
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Supplementary Blue Book on Land Taxation will be issued; and if he will be able to include particulars relating to the leasehold system said to prevail in Turkey?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend hopes that the Supplementary Blue Book will be out shortly, but he has not any official information in regard to the land system in Turkey which could be usefully included in the volume.
    Mr. FELL: Will this Supplemental Blue Book be issued in time for us to enjoy the benefit of it on the discussion of the land clauses?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is a question which I cannot answer until the discussion of the land clauses is finished.
    Mr. REMNANT: When is it proposed to issue the Blue Book?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As soon as it is possible to get it.

    South Pole Expedition.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister if he can now state if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to aid Lieutenant Shackleton in meeting the cost of his recent South Pole expedition?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The matter is still under consideration.

    Territorial Force Training (Carmen and Requisitioned Horses).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, on the occasion of the training of the London Territorial Forces, a large number of horses were requisitioned from their owners, thus throwing temporarily out of work many men whose employment is connected with those horses; and, if so, whether the granting of some compensation to these men will be favourably considered?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. These horses were not requisitioned, but hired in the usual manner.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it a fact that many of the horses were supplied by contractors, and that in consequence a very large number of carmen were deprived of employment?
    Mr. HALDANE: The horses were hired from those who were willing to hire them in the usual way.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the carmen were deprived of employment in consequence of the hiring of the horses?
    Mr. HALDANE: No more than in any other case.
    Captain CRAIG: Is it not possible for the carmen to join the Territorials, and so solve the difficulty?

    Royal Army Medical Corps (Officers Serving in Ireland).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked how many officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps were serving at Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Kildare, and the Curragh on 31st March last; how many of these officers during the year ending 31st March last received their full leave of 61 days; how many of the remainder received more than one month; and how many under one month?
    Mr. HALDANE: Forty-eight officers were serving at these stations on 31st March last. Of these six had received their full leave, 21 had more than one month, and 21 had less than one month. Some of the last-mentioned had only recently joined the corps, and some officers

    1097
    had returned during the year from stations abroad where they had already had the leave to which they were entitled.

    Territorial Force and Rifle Clubs (Cheap Ammunition).
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked what decision has been come to with reference to the cheap supply of Government ammunition to units of the Territorial Force and to rifle clubs?
    Mr. HALDANE: This question has not yet been decided.

    Service Rifle (Breech-Action).
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked whether experiments have been carried out by the War Office with a view to providing a stronger breech-action for the service rifle and thereby enabling more powerful ammunition to be used, and with what results?
    Mr. HALDANE: Experiments have been carried out, but the alterations that would be involved by the use of a stronger breech action would necessitate the adoption of what would practically be a new rifle.

    Military Roads near Rye (Toll-gates).
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked what were the receipts from and expenditure upon the toll-gates on the military roads in the neighbourhood of Rye during the last financial year, and what was the cost of upkeep of these roads?
    Mr. HALDANE: The two toll-gates on the east and west sides of Rye are let to a tenant on an annual tenancy at a total rent of £210 per annum. The tenant carries out all repairs, and there is therefore no expenditure on the gates. The cost of upkeep of the Royal Military road from Winchelsea to Appledore was £222 during the last financial year.

    Service Rifle (Aperture Sight).
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the proved superiority of aperture sights for rapid shooting at moving or disappearing objects, he proposes to adopt and aperture sight for the service rifle; and whether experiments have been carried out with aperture sights at the Hythe School of Musketry or elsewhere, and with what results?
    Mr. HALDANE: For military purposes the superiority of the aperture sight has not been definitely proved. Experiments
    1098
    have been carried out, and the Small Arms Committee reported against the adoption of the aperture sight for the present rifle; but it will be again considered in the event of any new pattern rifle being adopted.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: May I ask when the Small Arms Committee carried out the experiments?
    Mr. HALDANE: I think they were carried out recently.

    Meat Supply (British Garrisons).
    Mr. GOULDINGasked whether Chinese pork forms part of the rations issued to the garrisons at Hong Kong and Singapore; and, if not, will be explain why?
    Mr. HALDANE: Chinese pork does not form part of the rations issued to British troops at Hong Kong and Singapore or elsewhere. Beef or mutton only is issued as the meat ration.
    Mr. GOULDING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if Chinese pork is considered deleterious to the troops abroad, whether he will take steps to prevent the importation of this beastly stuff for consumption by the poor people of this country?
    Mr. HALDANE: I never said it was deleterious. On the contrary, for anything I know, it may be a great delicacy. We are very conservative in the Army.
    Major RENTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Chinese pork is considered unfit for Europeans in the Far East?
    Mr. HALDANE: I know that there are great prejudices against it.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry as to the method of feeding?
    Mr. HALDANE: The Army is not at present concerned with Chinese pork.

    Suicides of Soldiers.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of soldiers who committed suicide at the Curragh, Ireland, between 30th June and 31st July; and if he is prepared to cause an inquiry to be made with regard to so many suicides taking place in the regiments in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. HALDANE: Only one case of suicide occurred among the troops at the

    1099
    Curragh during the period mentioned, and the hon. Member was given full information in regard to that case. It is not considered necessary that any general inquiry of the nature suggested should be held.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that statements have appeared in the Irish newspapers to the effect that seven suicides took place in the period mentioned?
    Mr. HALDANE: I have seen reports in a great many newspapers, and not merely in Irish newspapers, but I cannot accept the statements as correct.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this statement was made by the Coroner at one of the inquests?
    Mr. HALDANE: I would rather see what the Coroner said, and not take what somebody says he said.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply for the information?
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether soldiers sent to military prisons are allowed to take shaving razors, etc., to prison with them; and, if so, in consequence of so many suicides with razors taking place in prisons, does he intend taking action in the matter?
    Mr. HALDANE: The razor, which formed part of the man's necessaries, is taken to prison or detention barracks by him with the other necessaries. It is not the case that there have been many suicides with razors in military prisons. The recent case at the Curragh was an isolated one, and I think that, under the safeguards which exist, the practice of allowing a soldier to take his razor with him to prison or detention barracks may continue; he retains the razor only while shaving.

    Curragh Prisoners (Food).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War if he can state the amount of food supplied to prisoners in the Curragh regimental detention prison?
    Mr. HALDANE: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to paragraph 74 of the Allowance Regulations, where he will find the scale of diets in detail.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a very poor and low diet?
    Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is very easy for any person to keep from this particular diet?

    Territorial Forces (Northern Command) Shortage of Stores.
    Mr. RENWICKasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the shortage of camp equipment and ordnance stores available for the Territorial Forces in the Northern Command, which shortage caused the abandonment of a week-end camp recently after great trouble had been taken in preparing for it; and whether steps will be taken without delay to provide an ample supply of such stores for immediate future use?
    Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Member appears to be alluding to a case where the Territorial unit failed to forward its requisition in sufficient time to allow of the equipment being delivered at the camping ground by the hour selected for the opening of the camp. A restricted issue of equipment which happened to be available in the vicinity was consequently resorted to. There is an ample supply of camp equipment in the command for immediate future use.

    Post Offices on Licensed Premises (Ireland).
    Captain CRAIG (for Mr. Fetherstonhaugh)asked in how many instances in Ireland are post offices conducted on licensed premises; has any step been taken to reduce the number of such public-house post offices; are old age pensions paid in all such offices, and has, in any instance since the passing of the Old Age Pensions Act, a licensed person been appointed postmaster or sub-postmaster, though there were other applicants for the post who were not licensed and had suitable premises; are licensed postmasters allowed to pay out old age pensions over one counter and receive the money for drink over another counter in the same shop; and, if not, what steps are taken to prevent such a proceeding?
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: One hundred and seventy-eight post offices in Ireland are now conducted on licensed premises, as compared with 197 a year ago, being a reduction of 19. Old age pensions are payable at all such offices. Since the passing of the Old Age Pensions Act, one

    1101
    licensed person has been appointed sub-postmaster; in this case there was no satisfactory alternative. In the great majority of cases the post office business is carried on in an apartment distinct from that used for the sale of drink.
    Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Were the overwhelming majority of the publicans who were appointed postmasters appointed by the Tory Government?
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have not got the figures.
    Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that no more are appointed?
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am entirely in accord with the view which the hon. Gentleman has expressed. Except in very exceptional circumstances a sub-post office should not be on licensed premises. As far as I am concerned I have not made any such appointment except when I have not been able to obtain other applicants who were suitable.
    Captain CRAIG: A short time ago was there not such an appointment?
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have explained to the House the reasons why, to my great regret, I felt obliged to make that appointment.
    Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Were the objections taken to the appointment of the postmaster in Ballintoy, first, that the man appointed was a Nationalist; and second, that he did not sell Dunville's whisky?
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have explained to the House the reasons that necessitated that particular appointment. The latter part of the reasons for objecting to it had not occurred to me.

    Piccadilly Hotel (Crown Property).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the statement by the directors of the Piccadilly Hotel, Limited, now in liquidation, that alterations in the designs of the building were insisted on by the representatives of the Crown, as landlord, which entailed an expenditure of about £160,000, and a further large loss owing to the diminished rentals of shops sub-let in the building; and whether it is proposed to continue this system?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have seen the statement referred to; but there must, I think, be some mistake in it, as I am advised that the Crown requirements (which were, in the main, settled by the previous Government) could not in themselves have entailed the extra cost or loss in rental alleged. It is clearly desirable that, in the case of large rebuilding schemes on Crown property, due regard should be paid to the architectural result; and I am not prepared to say that a slight additional expense is not sometimes justified for this purpose. At the same time, I can assure the hon. Member that care is taken that commercial considerations are not overlooked—indeed, I am at the present moment considering the best method of securing these two objects in another important rebuilding scheme.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why what is justified in the case of the State is not justified in the case of an individual owner?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think that there is anything unjustifiable in requiring a lessee of property to conform to architectural requirements.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly give that information to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

    Riots in Portadown.
    Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, in the absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, a question of which I have given private notice—whether he has any information which he can give the House with reference to the Orange attack upon the police in Portadown on Saturday and Sunday, and whether he can say how many police and how many civilians were injured, and how much property was damaged by the loyalist riot?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Two police telegrams which came from Portadown, and one from Lurgan, constitute all the information possessed by the Government regarding this lamentable occurrence. An excursion of the Irish Nationalist Foresters from Portadown to Newry was announced to take place on Sunday last, 15th August. Owing to recent party disturbances in Portadown, and to the fact that party feeling is regrettably high in the town at present, it was deemed necessary to assemble an extra force of 500 police under Assistant

    1103
    Inspector-General Ball for the preservation of the peace and the protection of the excursionists. On the Saturday evening preceding the day of the excursion Mr. Wright, a leading Orangeman, was struck on the head and cut by a bottle thrown from a house. Mr. Wright was at the time remonstrating with some of his own party in the interests of peace. The assault upon Mr. Wright appears to have accentuated the ill-feeling against the excursion party.
    On Sunday morning the excursionists proceeded in a body from their place of meeting to the Portadown Railway Station to take train for Newry. The party was surrounded by police and amply protected. They had no band or banner and wore no regalia, but some members of the party cheered in triumph at being protected by the police. On the way to the railway station stones were thrown by crowds of the opposite party at the excursion party and the police at two places. The stone-throwing was very serious and determined at one place. One constable received serious injury to the eye from a stone, and, it is feared, will lose his sight. He has been removed to a Dublin Hospital. The county inspector, two district inspectors, and about five men of other rank were struck and injured by stones, but not seriously. None of the excursion party was injured so far as is known to the police authorities. The police promptly dispersed the crowds by baton charges. After the excursionists had left by train a crowd attacked the house from which the bottle had been thrown the previous night, and smashed the windows. The police also dispersed this crowd by a baton charge and cleared the street.
    Upon the return of the excursion in the evening the excursionists were escorted to their homes by the police, and no further rioting occurred.
    One hundred of the police were detailed for the purpose of protecting the line while excursion trains were passing through Portadown. A mob beat off three policemen at one point and wrecked the windows of an excursion train from Londonderry. Two shots were fired from this train at a row of houses occupied by Orangemen (whether before or after the train was wrecked is not stated).
    A telegram received from Portadown last evening (Monday) stated that matters were then quiet.
    Captain CRAIG: Have the persons who threw the bottle at Mr. Wright out of the house, or any of those who fired shots out of the train containing the Nationalist party been arrested?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: These two telegrams constitute the entire information in the hands of the Government. I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to postpone his question.
    Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Is this the same Portadown which was described by the hon. and gallant Member for East Down (Captain Craig) the other day as one of the most peaceable places in Europe?
    Captain CRAIG: Has it not hitherto been quiet and peaceable? Very obnoxious questions are put in this House sometimes.
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I know Portadown very well. I should require notice of the question.
    Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Has the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Russell) any information as to the outbreak of Orange hostilities in another town in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh (Mr. W. Moore)?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have to give notice of that question.
    Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: I have given private notice of it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is now past the time allowed for questions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make as regards the business for this week and next week? It is desirable, if possible, that Members of this House should have full warning of the general scheme of business and of the Government's intentions.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am sorry I cannot give a definite reply until to-morrow as to the business which the Government propose to take on Friday. We are most anxious that the remaining clauses of Part I. of the Finance Bill (Duties on Land Values) should be passed by to-morrow night. In that case we should not contemplate proceeding with the Finance Bill again this week, and

1105
any business we should propose to take on Friday would be, more or less, of an un-controversial character.
Mr. BALFOUR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, excluding minerals, there are 13 clauses remaining in Part I.?
The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) intends to ask the House to postpone the mineral clauses. The others are mainly machinery clauses.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that among the machinery clauses is the Definition Clause, to which we have been referred as affording an opportunity of raising a great number of points which we were not allowed to raise earlier? There is the whole question of appeal, and the courts to which appeals should be sent. There are also the Exemption Clauses and the entirely new proposals of which the Government gave notice only the other day with regard to valuation.
The PRIME MINISTER: The new clauses of which I gave notice are machinery clauses, and they were put down in the hope that they would meet the views of hon. Gentlemen.

IRISH LAND BILL.
Mr. J. GORDON: Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with the Irish Land Bill on Monday?
The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather defer until to-morrow making any definite statement.

BILLS PRESENTED.
The following Bills were presented, and read the first time:—
Bill to amend the Colonial Naval Defence Act, 1865.—[Mr. McKenna.]

NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
Bill to make better provision respecting Naval Establishments in British Possessions.—[Mr. McKenna.]
To be read a second time upon Monday next, 23rd August.

FINANCE [EXPENSES] (CONSOLIDATED FUND).
Resolution reported:
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenses or remuneration payable in connection with any valuation of land or premises for the purposes of any duty charged under any Act of the present Session relating to Finance."
Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: Since this Resolution was introduced last week, there has been a little time for the House to examine it, and it certainly is rather a striking light which it throws upon what we may perhaps be allowed to call the old Resolution. It would not be in order to discuss Clause 12, and the old method of valuation; but, on Clause 16, I do think it is desirable to point out what would have been the effect upon owners of land, and what would have been the burden imposed upon them by the original proposal of the Government if it had come into operation. We have the statement by the Prime Minister that the cost of valuation by the State is to be £2,000,000, and that a staff of 500 highly trained valuers are to be employed to carry out the valuations. That is the measure of the burden to be thrown on the private owner. I am not really correct in saying that is the measure; it only gives a sort of test by which we may measure what the private owner will have to do. It is perfectly obvious that the private owner has not got access to a staff of 500 trained valuers. The State, no doubt will obtain some economy by working their highly trained staff by time over the whole country. But the private individual would have had to get the work done by piece, and would have had to pay piece rates for the valuation of his property, so that the expense to him would have been gigantic. Further than that, there would have been no supply of valuers available; therefore, it is quite obvious that the Government must have been perfectly aware, before they introduced their Bill, what would be the heavy cost entailed upon private owners. It is only now, and in response to an Amendment put on the Paper on this side of the House, that the Government have changed their minds, and have found it obviously just and necessary that if a tax is to be imposed requiring a valuation, that valuation should be made by the State, and should not be thrown upon the private individual.

1107
Now the Government have assumed that there would be no further discussion, and no opposition. In regard to our reception of the new proposals, I think the Prime Minister used the word "ingratitude."
The PRIME MINISTER: I said that I did not expect any gratitude.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I am not unwilling to express gratitude to this extent, for what it is worth. I entirely admit that the new machinery has removed an injustice from the private owner. To that extent I think we have the right to accept the change as satisfactory. But it is only a partial relief to the owner, because the whole of the expenses of valuation will not be removed from his shoulders. It is obvious that he will have to incur considerable expense to test the value which will be put upon his property by the Commissioners. Therefore, the burden is only partially and not wholly removed. But there was not only the injustice, there was the folly, and although the injustice is largely removed the folly is in no way lessened. What does this valuation amount to—what are we going to spend? From the point of view of the folly of it, it is immaterial whether you put it on the owners or on the State, but from the point of view of injustice it is very material.
4.0 p.m.
We have to consider from a purely business standpoint what it is going to cost to get the valuation, and what tax you are going to get out of it. The statement of the Government is that they are going to value the whole land of the country for two millions of money. Not only those interested in the land, but professional people who are also concerned, besides the landowners, are anxious to know on what authority and by what calculation the Government arrived at their estimate of two millions for valuing the whole of the land of the country. I think we have a right to demand an answer to that question. Naturally all the owners of land, professional valuers, and all those who have to do with great valuations, whether carried out by the owners or by the State, have, ever since the introduction of this Bill, been applying themselves to the problem from the point of view as to what the valuation would cost, and they have made various estimates. I have seen estimates made by different professional valuers of eminence and standing, and they have varied from the highest estimate I have heard of, namely, 1 per cent. down to 5s.,
1108
or a ¼ per cent, on the valuation. It is estimated that the value of realty in this country which will have to be valued for the purposes of this Bill is £4,000,000,000. If you take the lowest estimate of any professional valuer I have heard of, 5s. or ¼ per cent, on four thousand millions is £10,000,000. The Government estimate that they will be able to value the whole of the land of the country for one shilling per cent. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us what professional adviser has told him that he can value all the land of the country for one shilling per cent, of its total value? Remember that the one shilling per cent, does not merely cover the ordinary valuation which is to be obtained, but it also covers the obtaining of the site value, and that the obtaining of the site value is a new process extraordinarily complicated and extraordinarily difficult. Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer convince the House and the country he is going to get not only the total value, but the site value, making all those deductions and divesting the land of all the things of which it is to be divested, and going through the whole complicated process we have been discussing for the past two weeks, that he is going to be able to do that at a sum of 1s. per £100 of value? I cannot conceive it possible. That goes to the root of the whole Bill and to the whole of these taxes, and it is obviously necessary for the Government to say something more than they have said to substantiate the accuracy of the estimates which they have made. That is the first point on which we require definite answer—the justification of the estimate.
The PRIME MINISTER: The cost of the valuation?
Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes. We do want some justification of the cost of the valuation. Let us for a moment assume that the Government figures are correct. What is to be said against that as to the yield of the taxes? The Government figures probably are correct as regards the present year, they are going to spend £300,000 in valuing this year. I do not think that we have any reason to quarrel with that figure, because the Government, in putting their machinery in motion, whatever may be the ultimate cost of valuation and over how many years it may be spread, I do not think are likely to spend more than £300,000 during the current year. We do not quarrel with that

1109
figure, but let us come to the yield of the taxes against which that has got to be put in regard to the present financial year. The Prime Minister stated, and the Committee will remember the figures—£50,000 for Increment Tax, £100,000 for Reversion Duty, and £175,000 for Undeveloped Land Tax, making a total of £325,000. But that was the original estimate made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the total yield of this tax when he introduced his Budget, and on their original basis on 12th May. His original claim was that the yield of those three taxes which alone are concerned in the valuation would be £325,000. A great many concessions have been granted since, and particularly the 10 per cent. of deduction which has been allowed in regard to Increment Value Duty. On last Thursday and Friday very considerable amendment was made in the method of valuation as to the expenditure which the owner or his predecessor in title have incurred upon the development of land, and which was all to be excluded. There have been many Amendments carried in Committee which must have materially reduced the value of that estimate, but no deduction whatever is made from it. Will the Government tell us at what figure they value the concessions they have made in Committee because, it is obvious, whatever value they place on the concessions made in Committee should be deducted? I noticed that when the Prime Minister was addressing a meeting in the City he made reference, and in fact the greater part of his speech was addressed to the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making in Committee. He referred constantly to the tenderness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and expressed the fear that he had given away too much. Then he comes down to the House of Commons three weeks later, and tells us the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given away nothing. It does seem to me that those two statements cannot be reconciled as they now stand. As we have confidence that the Prime Minister will not tell the financial authorities in the City that he has given away a great deal, without warrant, and he will not come down to this House and claim without warrant to have given away nothing at all, we think, therefore, that it is due to his credit, and to the authority which his statement as Prime Minister ought to possess, that those statements should be reconciled here in the answer he is going to give upon this question.
1110
I would just point out, and I am sure this cannot be contradicted, that it is perfectly unwarrantable to claim any part of the new Mineral Duty under the new Clause 12, which we shall come to discuss at the end of the Bill, and which is now on the Paper. It is impossible to claim that any part of that tax is due to the valuation, or in any way concerned in the valuation. The Prime Minister did make such a claim in his speech the other day. I will not waste the time of the House by quoting his speech, as it will be in the recollection of the House. I am sure the Prime Minister will not contradict that he did make a definite claim that the new Mineral Value Duty would to some extent owe its product, or its fruitfulness, to this valuation. He will find when he examines the clause that it is absolutely impossible to connect it with valuation in any shape or form. The new clause is concerned with the value of minerals which are raised from the soil, and which is an ascertained sum. It is on a return which has to be made by the owners of those minerals whether they are royalties or whether they are the people who are working the minerals, and are at the same time owners. What they have to do is not a question of valuation at all. They have to make an actual return of the total sums which they receive by way of royalities, or as owners of those minerals. On that basis the new tax is to be levied, and it has nothing whatever to do directly or indirectly with the valuation. The next thing we want to ask the Prime Minister is to justify that statement, to justify that claim, and to tell us on what ground he associates the valuation with the proposal to levy a tax on minerals under the new clause. Therefore I am justified in assuming that that Mineral Tax is altogether out of the purview of valuation, and that the total sum now claimed by the Government, and which I have proved most clearly to be an excess of the sum which can be raised, is £325,000.
In what financial position does the country stand? The Government state that they are going to spend £300,000 in the current financial year upon valuation, and they only claim £325,000 as the total produce of the tax for which that valuation is made. It is clearly demonstrable that £325,000 is largely in excess of the proper claim, so that it comes to this, that you clearly must deduct more than £25,000 for the concessions which have been made here in this House. Clearly that is so. If the £325,000, the original estimate, was

1111
a correct estimate, then the present estimate must clearly be below £300,000, and must, therefore, be below the cost of valuation for the current year. I am no constitutional authority, but it does strike me as a constitutional point whether it is proper or constitutionally correct to include in the Finance Bill, for the purpose of raising revenue, a proposal which is not to increase revenue at all, but which is actually to cause a loss to the revenue. It is obvious that the imposition of this tax and the cost of valuation will for the current year cause a loss to the revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head. I know only the event will prove it. Ft must be a matter of opinion, and it is quite easy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister to get up and tell us that will not be so. But no impartial person studying the figures, which they themselves have presented to the House, and looking at the matter from a totally unprejudiced and impartial point of view, no arbitrator brought in would hesitate to come to the conclusion on the Govvernment figures, that they are going to spend more on valuation than they get in revenue in regard to these Land Taxes during the current year. That brings me to the question of future revenue. The Prime Minister claims that these taxes are going to greatly increase in fruitfulness in the years that are to come. That statement has been carelessly accepted here in the House, and we have assumed on the present basis that those taxes are going to yield a great deal more in the years to come than in the present year. I think that statement is very open to examination.
Let us take Increment Value Duty. Increment Value Duty is not, as is perhaps too lightly assumed in the first instance, going to be a constantly increasing revenue, and that you are always going to hark back to the original duty, and get the difference between that and each subsequent valuation. That is not the position at all. Increment Value Duty is a duty from which you are constantly going to be deducting something, and all you are ever going to get in the future is the difference between the valuation on the last occasion of passing and your valuation on the new occasion when duty is leviable. It is perfectly true that for perhaps five or six years it will be a growing duty up to a certain point, simply because the occasion upon which the duty will be payable will not arise so frequently in the first year as in the subsequent years. As
1112
soon as you get out of the few years now and enter the average number of occasions on which Increment Value Duty is leviable your Increment Value Duty will not be an increasing tax at all. I do not think it will produce a very large sum in view of the concession and alteration made in it. Then you have Reversion Duty. The Reversion Duty clearly will not be a growing duty, because Reversion Duty is simply a duty that will be levied on the difference of value when the lease falls in. No more leases are going to fall in next year than the year after. The number of leases which fall in are going to be a fairly even number every year, and there is no suggestion that the leases which were granted 80 or 90 years ago, and which are going to fall in next year, are of less value or of more value than the leases which were granted a year or two later. Therefore, I see no reason to suppose that the Reversion Duty is going to be a tax bringing in an increasing sum of money.
Then we get to the Undeveloped Land Duty. That is obviously not an increasing duty, because it is simply a tax upon un-built upon land of a certain value throughout the country at a given moment. There is no reason to suppose for one instant that the value of that land at any given moment in the future is going to be of any greater value than its value to-day. There is no reason why it should be. The process of development is that one plot of land, which to-day is chargeable with Undeveloped Land Duty, has a house put upon it and so passes out of the tax. Another piece of land which has not been subject to the tax comes in and takes its place. That does not involve a general increase. I, for my part, entirely fail to see on what ground the Government base a claim, which they are constantly putting forward in the country, and which is constantly received and accepted, that these taxes are going to grow in fruitfulness. There was no claim more ardently made by the Prime Minister, and I hope to-day he will go a little more into detail, and that he will define the claim he made. Of course, if the Government say that these taxes are only a beginning, that is another matter. I am bound to say that to those of us who look closely into these taxes this is a factor which greatly increases the feeling of insecurity. When we look closely into the matter, and see that by this proposal for valuation the Government are in the current year going to spend more money than they can possibly get in return; when we look for any

1113
reasonable period ahead, and see that they are going to get little if any more money than the cost of their valuation, we fail to see any possible inducement to them to add these proposals to their Budget, and to find ourselves, as we do, still sitting after the middle of August in a year which the Government told us was to be a year for raising money, but in which, as far as I can make out, not a single penny of money has yet been raised for any purpose whatever voted by the House. Therefore, we cannot help feeling that this proposal cannot be justified on its present basis. It cannot be justified to us on this side for reasons which are very obvious, and have been frequently stated; it cannot be justified to those who propose to place heavy burdens upon land for the purpose of meeting expenditure upon old age pensions and "Dreadnoughts," because, as I have endeavoured to show, there is no money for "Dreadnoughts" or for old age pensions in the present proposals of the Government.
I would mention one further point of complication in regard to valuation. The valuers will have a task of unprecedented difficulty. In our proceedings on Friday we settled, as was only fair, that any expenditure incurred by any previous owner affecting the value of any land should be a deduction. That involves harking back to the past any distance, and examining an enormous area of expenditure to discover what deductions are reasonable and proper. Take a concrete case which does not involve any delving into the past. At Eastbourne the Duke of Devonshire, clearly for the purpose of increasing the value and amenities of the town, for a considerable time kept a band at his own expense. Under this Bill any person who in the past has bought a piece of land for development from the Duke of Devonshire, and is now developing it, would be subject to this tax, and entitled to claim a deduction for the Duke of Devonshire's band.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)was understood to dissent.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer says not. Then we do not know what we were doing on Friday last. The Duke of Devonshire, as the owner of the land, and for the purpose of increasing its value, keeps a band. Somebody comes and buys a piece of the land and proceeds to develop it. It is perfectly clear that that action of the previous owner of the
1114
land has directly increased its value. Therefore the present owner will be entitled to a deduction. If that is not so I do not know where we stand.
It is perfectly clear that one of the greatest difficulties with which we shall meet in regard to valuation is that of future identification. You are going to value separate occupations. How many separate occupations there are in the country no man can say. The task is a gigantic one. These occupations are perpetually changing hands and being mixed up. It will obviously be necessary in this valuation to have a separate plan of every occupation or of every unit that is valued, otherwise how can you identify the piece of land in the future? It may be part of one occupation to-day and part of another occupation to-morrow, and mere descriptive words will not provide a sufficient means of identification. Unless you have a plan carefully marked and annotated available for reference both to the owner and to the Commissioners it will be quite impossible for this valuation to carry out the object you have in view.
One other claim of the Prime Minister was that this valuation would yield a large sum in the increase of Death Duties. If that is so, it must mainly be at the expense of agricultural land. That is a very serious consideration, because agricultural land is now held by people who accept a very low rate of interest by reason of their heavy expenditure upon the land. I am only restating a fact which was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, namely, that the owners of agricultural land spend upon it a very large proportion of the income derived therefrom, so that the net interest which they derive as owners of agricultural land is extremely small.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I said that their expenditure was very heavy.
Mr. PRETYMAN: It is only another way of stating the same thing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that their expenditure was very heavy, and from that I deduced the very obvious corollary that the net interest which they receive is extremely small. They have had some advantage hitherto in the calculation of Death Duties in having the value of the estate calculated not upon the whole capital value, but upon a certain number of years' purchase of the very small interest which they receive. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to do away with

1115
that privilege, apparently for the sole purpose of squeezing the last drop out of agricultural land. That can be the only purpose of the new clause on the Paper. It will be the last straw. The Death Duties have almost extinguished the small owner or squire, and if this squeezing process in regard to valuation is carried out there will absolutely be an end of the small squire, and the ownership of agricultural land will be purely a matter for very rich people, who can afford to pay Death Duties out of other resources, and treat their agricultural estates as a playground. Therefore I do not think the proposal of the Government to squeeze up the Death Duties on agricultural land by means of the new valuation will commend itself to anybody interested in agricultural land, or to the country at large. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has to some extent adopted Amendments which I myself placed upon the Paper for the purpose of obviating gross injustice. As the Bill originally stood the cost to the State would not have been justified. As the Bill stands now, after taking out the minerals, it is obvious, certainly from the points of view of the taxpayer, the revenue, and ordinary business sagacity, that the Government, in proposing this valuation for the amount of money which they intend to get out of it, are proposing something which is against the interests of the revenue, which can do nothing but cause trouble and expense to a great number of people, and give salaries to gentlemen who are probably excellently occupied now, and who would remain admirably occupied in conducting valuations in the ordinary run of trade and business, but whose business now is completely estopped. Evidence accumulates daily that the land market is in a state of chaos owing to these proposals. All that the Government's proposal amounts to is that valuers who would be legitimately occupied in carrying out valuations for the development of industry in this country are to lose their job at that, and to be employed at the expense of the taxpayer; while no result of the slightest value to the State or to the individual will accrue from any point of view whatever.
The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made, as he always does, an interesting and, in some respects, a suggestive speech. I cannot share his gloomy estimate, still less his yet gloomier prognostications, as to the condition of the land market. The information which comes to me is in an entirely opposite
1116
sense. I do not believe that, within recent years at any rate, there has ever been a time when there was so large a demand for land, when such good prices were being realised, when land changed hands so quickly, and when the market was so brisk and vigorous as has been the case during the few weeks which have elapsed since my right hon. Friend introduced his proposals. Be it observed that land is being sold at an enhanced, and not at a diminished, price. But that, after all, is more or less incidental, and does not affect the principle of the Resolution we are now considering. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has attacked the principle upon two grounds. There are two counts in his indictment. The first is an allegation of injustice; the second is an allegation of unwisdom, or, as he calls it, folly. As regards the first, I take note that, so far as the concession upon which the hon. Gentleman started his speech was compared with the original proposals of the Bill, we have advanced a considerable step along the road to what he regards as ideal justice. The owner, he admits—and this was the gravamen of the charge made against the original proposal—is no longer required by his own labour, or the labour of those whom he employs—at any rate, at his own expense—to make a valuation of his land. The State has taken over from him that burdensome and no doubt expensive operation. From the point of view of justice, the only shred which remains of the original indictment preferred against this Bill is, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the owner would have to make his corrections, to establish his deductions, and, it may be, to undertake the cost of an appeal. But that is incidental to any system of valuation. It happens now in the case of rating. If the Assessment Committee rates your property higher than you think it ought to be, you have the trouble, first of all, of making the necessary corrections, and then, if the matter is contested, of establishing the justice of your contention before the tribunal appointed by law. When we come to consider, as I hope we shall very soon, the appellate tribunal which my right hon. Friend proposes, and the provision as to awarding costs in the case of a successful appeal, I hope that whatever remains of plausibility in the argument against the justice of this part of the Bill will be found to have completely disappeared.
I shall, therefore, address myself entirely to the second count of the hon. Gentleman's indictment, namely, what he

1117
calls the unwisdom or folly of our scheme. In the first place, he asks, Upon what authority do you found your estimate that the total cost of the State valuation will not exceed £2,000,000? He has adduced figures, to which he has referred before, showing that in the opinion of other authorities a complete valuation of the land of this country cannot be effected for less than something like £10,000,000. The hon. Gentleman asks what is our authority. I will tell him at once. It is the Board of Inland Revenue, who have gone most carefully into this matter. They have been reinforced of late by an addition to their staff of gentlemen specially conversant with the work of valuation, including at its head a very distinguished Civil servant, who for many years past has undertaken the valuation of Crown property for rating purposes. After going most carefully and minutely into the whole matter, with all the information at their disposal, they have come deliberately to the conclusion that in estimating £2,000,000 as the ultimate total cost of valuation they are rather within than outside the mark. And let me point out this to hon. Members who are sceptical, or inclined to be sceptical, of an estimate so much lower in its total figure than those which have been current during our Debates, and indeed of late years. There is an enormous potential saving, I think everybody will admit, from a business point of view, an enormous realisable saving, when you carry out a work of valuation, as now proposed, by a systematised and organised body of men, acting under the control of a central Department, 500 in number, carefully divided in point of area into 120 districts, working each within his own area as regards the properties there situated, but all subject to the inspection and control of superintendent inspectors, who are responsible to the central authority, and whose duty it will be to bring co-ordination and system into the arrangements which they are employed to supervise. No, what I may call, individual system of valuation, in which each landowner, for instance, had to value for himself, or by which a local authority had to value for itself, or in which even a group of local authorities—take the county—had to value for themselves, could compare—I will not say in point of efficiency, but in point of economy—with the carefully organised system of the kind I have spoken of pervading the whole country. Each district is taken—so far as the staff is concerned—
1118
with regard to its own special requirements and difficulties, and the parts are brought into relation to the whole by the supervising central body. I am satisfied—of course, this is only an estimate, and experience will show whether it is justified or not—I am satisfied that with some little experience in these matters—I have gone into the matter as carefully as I could—that the Board of Inland Revenue have taken every possible means, first of all to inform themselves, and then, by taking a cautious estimate with the materials at their disposal, and that the House will not be running any risk of embarking upon an indefinite and incalculable expense if it accepts the estimate given by the Board of Inland Revenue. More than an estimate, of course, in the nature of the case, it cannot be. Let me point out further to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in a very large number of cases it will be to the interest of the owner, and a course which you may expect prudent and well-advised owners to pursue, to themselves furnish in advance, as they are empowered to do under the Act, the necessary materials to enable the valuers of the Inland Revenue to come to a judgment as to the rate at which the property should be assessed. They have in their possession in their offices, or their agents, stewards, and so forth, have plans, rentals, and all material particulars necessary for enabling a true valuation to be arrived at. It is not to be supposed that in any spirit of jealousy, or any desire to delay the operation of the law, they win not be spontaneously ready to furnish any information of that kind which is really at their disposal.
I come now to the second point with which the hon. Gentleman dealt—the question of the yield. Here I must enter a protest against what, so far as I understand it, appears to be his Constitutional proposition. That proposition, if not expressed, at any rate implied in the whole of his argument, was this: that unless the yield of a tax, or taxes, in a given year exceeds the cost of assessment and collection in that year they are not taxes which the House of Commons has any Constitutional right to impose. Is that the proposition?
Sir FREDERICK BANBURYassented.
The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London says "Yes." I do not find the propo-

1119
sition is generally cheered on the benches opposite. I am not surprised at it. The hon. Gentleman did not say it, but is it not implied in his argument?
Mr. PRETYMANindicated dissent.
The PRIME MINISTER: Any such proposition strikes at the very root of the control of this House over the taxation of the country. If you were to limit the power of the House of Commons to tax by a consideration of what the yield of the tax would be in the succeeding year, as compared with the cost of raising it in that year, you would rule out at once as entirely outside the Constitutional purview of this House a tax like the Legacy Duty, the yield of which cannot in the nature of the case be foreseen. There is a great deal of cost in the collection of the Legacy Duty. You have to have machinery to be able to test the returns that are given you. Still more is that the case with the Succession Duty imposed by Mr. Gladstone in 1853. There you have a most elaborate machinery for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of Succession Duty. The immediate yield, as I pointed out the other day, of the Succession Duty, small as it was estimated to be, was very much less than the estimate. It was the same with the Death Duties in 1894. This House is perpetually assuming, what is indeed essential and almost elementary, that if it is to have the power of taxation at all, there goes with it the right to set up machinery which may for the moment be more expensive in its working than the actual yield within the next six or twelve months of the taxes in relation to which that machinery exists. But it is justified in the long run, because the cost of the machinery does not increase. In this particular case the cost of the machinery will largely diminish, and the yield of the taxes will be progressive year after year. I want to know if what I have said is not the Constitutional proposition of the hon. Gentleman? If it is not, then I do not know what it is, or why he introduced the word "constitutional" at all. I do not think he will dispute—I doubt very much whether any responsible critic of the Budget will dispute—the argument which I have addressed to the House. But let us assume that it is within our right, and strictly in accordance with Parliamentary precedent, to set up machinery for the assessment and levying of a tax, the tax itself being one which, at any rate during the remainder of the financial year—that
1120
is all we are dealing with to-day—may not be greater than the actual cost of the machinery. Assuming that, let us see how it applies under the present head. The hon. Gentleman has enumerated these taxes—the Increment Duty, the Reversion Duty, the Undeveloped Land Duty, and the Mineral Rights Duty. He asks whether we are entitled to set up any part of the cost of machinery required as against the Mineral Rights Duty. I think I spoke very cautiously on that subject the other night. I do not know, and cannot admit, that for some purposes of the Mineral Rights Duty the valuation might not be abused, particularly, I think, in the cases that come under Section (2) of Clause 15, where the minerals are not being worked by the lessee, but where they are being worked by the owner himself for his own purpose. I can conceive that in a dispute as to what sum should in that case be charged to the hypothetical tenant for working the minerals, the valuation of the minerals under the clauses which are under discussion now, might provide very valuable and useful material. But I leave that out of account. It is not essential for my argument. I take the other three duties—the Increment Duty, which does apply, and in regard to which the valuation of minerals is absolutely essential, the Reversion Duty, and the Undeveloped Land Duty. The hon. Gentleman has asked whether we should take the original estimate by my right hon. Friend with regard to these three duties as being unaffected in amount and quantity by the concessions he has made. So far as the remainder of the present financial year is concerned, my own impression is that the monetary value of the concessions will be very small. The greater part of the concessions which my right hon. Friend has made in the course of the Committee stage—I think I am right in saying, he will correct me if I am wrong, for I am speaking from recollection—have been in regard to the Increment Duty. The Increment Duty is estimated at the present time to yield an almost nominal sum—not more than £50,000. And the concessions to which my right hon. Friend referred must of necessity relate rather to the future than to the immediate yield from that particular source of revenue. But let me forecast for a moment what these taxes are likely to do in the future. If I understand the hon. Gentleman's proposition, it is this: that we have no right to estimate as regards any one of these three heads of revenue—I leave out the mineral rights—that there is a reasonable

1121
prospect of a substantial increase in the years that lie before us. I entirely differ from him, and the Government entirely differ from him. Just let me give two illustrations. I will not deal with the Reversion Duty. It is no doubt a very difficult thing to estimate. I take the other cases—first of all the Increment Duty; then I will take the Undeveloped Land Duty. As regards the Increment Duty, can anyone who knows such a simple fact as this: that the value of the land in London is rising in any given year by something like a million sterling, and, probably a great deal more—I am stating the most modest figure which is at all relevant to the tax—can anyone, I say, who knows that the same process is taking place in almost all the great urban communities, and knows further that land which is at present rural or village land, or land only beginning to be occupied and inhabited, that in those cases also the increase of population and the amenities of social life is constantly raising the capital value of the soil, can anyone who takes all these facts into account doubt that a duty like the Increment Duty is likely in the years to come to be a progressive source of revenue?
I take the Undeveloped Land Duty. I have dealt with this point before, but I may perhaps be allowed to reiterate what I have said. The Undeveloped Land Duty, in my view, and so far as I can form any estimate of the social and industrial future of the country, is of necessity a progressive tax. What do you see in addition to those phenomena to which I referred a moment ago, to which I applied the Increment Duty, and now apply the Undeveloped Land Duty? In addition to those you will see—I think it is a most healthy and helpful sign of our industrial development—a constant tendency for industries, to some extent old industries, still more new industries, the one to export themselves and the other to plant themselves in land which is at present not only not urban land, but is not occupied land. As I said a few nights ago, you have only to go along any of our trunk lines of railways, along the London and North-Western, and you see on what was countryside on each side of the railway factories, sometimes small, sometimes large, establishing themselves. With the building of the factory there comes a demand for land for cottages for the workmen and for ancillary works of every kind and description, which transforms that which was—which is at the present moment—purely agricultural
1122
land, and with no other value except for agricultural purposes, into the category of what in this Bill is called undeveloped land. That land is of higher value than ever it was before for agricultural purposes, and it is ripening for receiving an urban population. Without importing any kind of controversial matter into this consideration of the question, I do submit to the House that if you look at the existing and at the prospective condition, social and industrial, of this country as we find it at the present time, you have the best ground for assuming, both as regards Increment Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty that you have a large potential reservoir of resources which the figures estimated by my right hon. Friend for the few remaining months of the present year bear no relation to in regard to its possible value.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the year's increase in the value of the land is?
The PRIME MINISTER: The figures as supplied to me are from the county councils.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Are not these for land and buildings, and not merely land?
The PRIME MINISTER: I think they are land and buildings together, but my argument does not depend on a particular figure. I may be wrong; my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Office (Mr. Masterman) thinks I am very wrong, and that I have very much understated the figure, and he knows more about it than I do; but, whatever the figure is, it is a very large sum. In Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Glasgow, and all other great urban communities, you will find corresponding phenomena to be taken into account when estimating the yield of these taxes. Finally, let me point out, when dealing with the question raised by this Resolution, it would be—I will not say unfair, but altogether irrelevant to deal with on the footing of the produce of this tax for the remainder of the present financial year as compared with the cost of collecting it. You must take the larger and longer view. Just as in this Budget you provide, or at any rate enable your successors to provide for prospective liability over two or three years or more, so in the same way when dealing with the tax we are imposing as compared with the cost of collection we must not confine the scope of our vision to the five or six remaining

1123
months of the year that lie before us, but must take account of the future. If I am right in the proposition I am endeavouring to make good, namely, that the cost of collection will not depend on the yield, but, on the contrary, when the valuation is once completed the expenses of collection will have enormously diminished—you will have made your valuation once and for all, after which the machinery will work after an automatic fashion—while the cost of collection is a diminishing figure, on the other hand, for the reasons T have given, taking into account the probable, indeed certain and necessary, increase in the yield of these taxes, and having regard to the social and economic conditions of the country, I think we shall find we have a sufficient answer to the temperately expressed criticisms of the hon. and gallant Member and a sufficient justification for the proposals of the Government.
Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman began his remarks by a statement that the land market had never been in a more satisfactory condition than at the present time. I should like to ask him this question. Among the information which has reached him has he considered the deputation which waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject? I happened to read a report where I find that one member, who is himself engaged in this trade of the development of land, stated that his wages bill was already half what it was before the Budget was introduced, and that by the end of this year, unless some change took place, he would be paying no wages at all. If that is not sufficient to set against the information of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall give one fact which anyone can verify for himself, and which proves with absolute truth that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is entirely without foundation. Since the Budget has been introduced there have been exposed in the ordinary auction markets the usual number of building estates in and around London. As a matter of fact, since the Budget was introduced, not a single one of these estates has been sold; and to show how far the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that in these cases they are getting higher prices, I may mention in the case of one of those estates which was offered by auction—the estate of Selwyn, near Richmond—it was put up at a reserve price of £21,000 this year and
1124
failed to find any buyer, while for the same property last autumn £25,000 was offered and refused by the owners.
There is, I think, no doubt about the statement made by my hon. and gallant Friend that this class of operation is entirely stopped, and therefore the valuers have got a right to look for some other employment, because their ordinary employment is taken away from them by the present Government. What I want to do is, what has not been done by the Government, namely, to look at this Resolution from the point of view as if it was a purely fiscal proposal. I shall, therefore, look at it from the point of view of how much revenue the Government is going to get in, and how much they are going to pay for the collection of that revenue. In the first place I shall take the figures exactly as they are given by the Government, and I shall put them before the House as a question of simple arithmetic. Later on I shall have a little to say by way of criticism as to the way in which the Government has arrived at them. These are the figures as put before us by the Prime Minister. He told us, when introducing this Resolution, that the amount of the cost of collection this year would be £300,000, and the revenue would be £675,000; that is to say, he makes a respectable addition from this tax of £375,000 to the revenues of the country. How does he arrive at that? I should like to have the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this. He takes the full year's taxes, but only half a year's expenses of collecting them, and thus arrives at the figure of £375,000. But even if this figure is reached, when does the tax begin? These are the estimates of a year's yield. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the tax is to date from?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I intended to reply to all these questions later on, but if it will help, I do not mind answering now. Taking the Undeveloped Land Tax at £175,000, that certainly is not the full year's yield—
Mr. BONAR LAW: When does it begin?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: You cannot possibly get a full yield this year. Assuming the Budget is through by the end of October, you cannot possibly get a full year's yield from the Undeveloped Land Tax. In a full year I expect £350,000 from the Undeveloped Land Tax.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Every time the right hon. Gentleman rises we get new light upon his proposals. He has not in the least answered the question I put to him, which was, What is the date on which the tax begins? I said there was a full year included in this estimate of £675,000. After arriving at £675,000 the Prime Minister included £350,000 for the new taxes upon royalties. He attempted to justify that in the speech he has just made, but I doubt very much that he succeeded. It is perfectly obvious that for the purpose of raising taxes on royalties no valuation is necessary, and no 500 valuers are required. If you take the existing royalties the whole information is in the hands of the Inland Revenue Commissioners; returns have to be given for the sake of income, and there is not the slightest difficulty in obtaining the figures. The right hon. Gentleman said in the case where the Royalty Tax is paid by the man working the mine a different system applies. Here again there is not the slightest doubt that the present staff at Somerset House would be perfectly competent to do that without any addition. Let us assume that this Royalty Tax had been a fair tax introduced by itself without the other Land Taxes. I am certain there is no Member of this House but agrees with me when I say that no addition to the valuation staff would have been required, but that the tax would be collected in the ordinary course. To boil down the figures of the right hon. Gentleman, it amounts to this: the cost of collection, according to his own estimates, is £300,000 for the half-year. If we take the whole year, the cost will be double, that is to say, it will amount to £600,000, and the amount of tax collected is £375,000. In other words, the statement made by my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) the other day that the Government propose to spend 2s. in order to collect 1s. is entirely within the mark; but that by no means exhausts the total cost of collection that will have to be paid. Nobody who knows anything about valuation can for a moment doubt that the owners of land themselves will have to go to a great deal of expense in order to test the valuation made by the Government. To put it very mildly, it is well within the mark to say that for every 1s. this tax will give, the Government will have to spend 2s., and the people subject to the tax will have to spend another 2s. I quite admit the constitutional doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister, and, so far as I know, nobody on this side of the House
1126
has questioned it. We quite admit that if the system of taxation you propose is going to give a revenue in the future which will be a complete equivalent to the expenses of collection, then it is not a sufficient answer to that proposed taxation to say that for the first year it is levied, the amount of revenue will not greatly exceed the cost of collection. I quite admit that, but that is the whole point. The Government say this new tax is not going to give very much this year, but it is going to be a most fruitful tax in the future. I shall be interested to hear on what ground the right hon. Gentleman will substantiate that statement. He attempted to prove it, but his attempt was not very convincing, not even to his own Friends. Let me do what the right hon. Gentleman tried to do; let me take these taxes one by one and consider what is the likelihood of any substantial increase in any future to which we can reasonably look forward to. Take first the Increment Value Duty, I quite admit that with regard to the Increment Value Duty it is quite reasonable, on the assumption of the Government, to say that this is a tax which will pay more in the future than in the first year, and for this obvious reason: that the land on which you begin in the present year will be less than in future years, and the return, therefore, will not be so great. There are two or three considerations which I should like to put to the House. The Prime Minister minimised the effect of that consideration. In the first place he must remember that as the years go on the Increment Duty is not levied from the present year to the date at which the transaction takes place, but it simply goes back to the last transaction, and that must tend to diminish the increase which is expected from this tax. The whole assumption that there is going to be a big increase from this tax is based, if I may say so, upon begging the whole question under dispute in connection with the land taxes. The right hon. Gentleman said that the increase would be normal, regular, and continuous in the price of land. We have been discussing this subject for many weeks, I believe for almost a month, and there has been no evidence of any kind put before the House of Commons to show that during recent years there has been any rise in the value of land close to towns, although many instances have been given to the exact contrary. I gave an instance which ought to be of some weight with hon. Members opposite, because it applies to the corpora-

1127
tion of a city which is in favour of this land tax. The Corporation of the City of Glasgow hold building land in the centre of the city for which something like 30 years ago it paid £370,000, and yet it was admitted by a committee of the corporation that that land to-day is not worth what it was when they bought it. In the face of this figure what ground is there for assuming that a constant rise is going to take place in regard to such land?
There is another reason which has not been sufficiently realised by the Government. We have been told that these concessions made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are not going to make any great difference in the amount of the tax except in the first year. I wonder how in the world anyone could come to such a conclusion. It seems to me that by any process of arithmetic known to me, if you give a discount of 10 per cent. you cannot receive the same amount as if you allowed no discount. What is proposed here is a discount of a great deal more than 10 per cent.; in fact it is a discount which takes away any reasonable expectation of a large amount of revenue from this tax. Perhaps it will be easier to put the effect of this tax in the form in which it will affect the return to the revenue. Suppose £100 is collected from six transactions, five of which represent an increment of 10 per cent., and one of them an increment of 50 per cent. Under the Bill, as it was introduced, that would have meant £100 subject to taxation, and the Government would have got £20. But what is the position now? In five of these cases they will get nothing, and on the other case 10 per cent. is deducted. Therefore, they get the taxation on £40 instead of £50, and the net return is £8 instead of £20 as it would have been under the Bill as originally introduced. The effect of this concession is not to take off 10 per cent., but a great deal more than £50, because it is very rare indeed that site value will rise so much as 10 per cent., and all cases under 10 per cent. are to be exempted. As a proof of the immense value of this Increment Tax, the Prime Minister told us that the land in London is rising in value by £1,000,000 a year, but he gave no figures, and I suppose somebody has guessed it. But before the Prime Minister attaches any value to that statement he must ask what is the total value of the land in London. Is that £1,000,000 more than 10 per cent. of the
1128
total, or is it less? If it is less then there is absolutely nothing comes to the revenue, and therefore the Government have no right whatever to expect any large addition to the revenue from this tax. I am willing to admit that there is a possibility of some increase in future years from the assumption that land is constantly rising in value. When the right hon. Gentleman came to consider the Reversion Duty he left it in the position in which my right hon. Friend placed it, namely, that there is not likely to be a greater number of transactions one year than another, and as it is retrospective there is not likely to be a greater yield from one year to another. Therefore, the prospect of any greater taxation from this source is gone even by the admission of the Prime Minister himself.
With regard to the Undeveloped Land Tax, the right hon. Gentleman did say that this was going to be a growing tax, and how did he attempt to prove it? He used what seems to me to be a most extraordinary argument. He said that if you travel along a railway you will see new works spreading out into the country. I suppose you will, but has it ever occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that one of the effects of this Bill is to prevent than class of operation going on in the future? Only the other day there was an Amendment down on the Paper which provided that factories which were moved out of the towns into the country on account of obtaining cheaper land should not be taxed on the land which was bought with the view of afterwards developing those factories. The House will remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have nothing to do with that Amendment because he is going to tax those people in the future. Therefore that operation is going to be stopped to a considerable extent by this Bill. But what in the world has that got to do with it unless there is a total increase all over the country of the land used for industrial and other purposes? In the case of works which are taken out of London into the country the land they leave must be used for some other purpose, and therefore the land they take in the country only fills up the gap they leave in the town. Anyone who chooses to consider the likelihood of this development tax increasing will have to consider for a moment that when this tax comes into operation land suitable for building becomes subject to the tax at once, and unless you assume that five years hence there will be, in addition to

1129
the land that is actually built upon, a much larger amount of land ready to be built upon than is the case now, it is obvious there can be no increase from this source of taxation. What really happens is that when the land which is the subject of taxation to-day is taken over for building purposes, from that moment, if a certain amount of money has been paid upon it, it escapes your tax. It is quite true that other land further out immediately comes in to take its place, but all that happens is that the gap caused by building is filled up by the other land which comes in. That is why there is no reason to suppose that there will be a larger amount of taxation available from this source ten years hence than is available now. Hon. Gentlemen opposite shake their heads, but they have done nothing to disprove my statement, and I think it will be very difficult to disprove it. If I am right in this contention, then for the present year, and probably for future years, we are face to face with this position, that the Government are going to spend on the collecting of the revenue from these taxes at least as much as they are going to get out of them, and in addition to what they are going to spend, the people who own the land which is going to be subjected to this taxation are also going to spend a great deal on their own account. The result will be that in future we may look forward to the collection of these taxes costing more than the State will get from them in the shape of revenue. I quite admit that from one point of view the Government have the right to consider this as likely to prove a fruitful source of taxation in the future. The Prime Minister used at Bletchley the other day the same argument as he has used to-day. It was evidently not very convincing to his audience, because someone shouted out, "It is the principle we want to establish." Of course, that we understand. One hon. Gentleman below the Gangway told us at the introduction of these taxes that if the Government only take 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. they are robbing the community in one case of 80 per cent. and in the other case of 90 per cent. I remember that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil told an audience in the country that if the number of Labour Members in the House of Commons had been twice as many that these taxes would have been twice as heavy. I think that is extremely probable, and if that is what the Government mean, then these taxes may prove in the future prolific sources of revenue. In
1130
the meantime, judging by what the Government say, they are spending two-pence to get one penny. We are aware that when everything else fails the Government and their supporters tell us "this is a great democratic Budget." That argument remains whatever else disappears. How does the democracy come in here? It takes this form, as I understand it: that the Government is going to tax the user of tobacco—the poor man's tobacco—and they are going to put an additional tax upon it in order to gratify the extreme section which sit below the Gangway who are supposed to be in favour of land nationalisation.
Mr. G. D. FABER: The Prime Minister not long ago told us, on the information of gentlemen who have deliberately gone into the matter, that £2,000,000 will be an amply sufficient sum to ascertain the cost of the land valuation of this country. This includes not only all urban land, but every kind of land north, south, east, and west within these islands. I should like to put against the set of gentlemen the Prime Minister has called in another set of gentlemen who also examined into this matter, though not perhaps in quite so comprehensive a way. The gentlemen I allude to are the skilled witnesses who were examined before the Royal Commission upon Land Values in regard to land assessable to rating. The Bill brought in in the year 1905 by the present Secretary to the Board of Education was only a plan applied to urban districts separating the site value from the total value in the urban districts, and what was the cost of that operation? I will venture to read a quotation from the speech of the Secretary to the Local Government Board when he was summing up on behalf of the then Conservative Government:—
"With regard to the cost of the assessment proposed by this Bill, the evidence given before the Royal Commission shows that it would run into millions for separating site from structure. In London alone the cheapest estimate was £400,000 and the estimate of other surveyors varied between £2,000,000 and £4,000,000; but the net result to the whole country was that the valuation separating site from structure will cost £18,000,000."
Although the Prime Minister told us that this matter had been gone into carefully and deliberately by the Board of Inland Revenue, he did not tell us—and we are entitled to know—whether the matter had been examined by experts. If not, such a calculation is hardly worth the paper and ink expended upon the operation. The expert witnesses whom I have just quoted

1131
were placed under the fire of cross-examination before the Royal Commission, and those are the figures which emerged from that ordeal, and I venture to put them against those of the Prime Minister. Unless the Prime Minister is prepared to tell us much more definitely the character of the experts, if they were experts, who told him that this enormous operation, unparalleled in the history of this country, can be done for £2,000,000, I venture to say the immensely larger figure I have just quoted still holds the field.
I should like to try and drive home another point touched upon by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bonar Law). The Prime Minister said the land market has never been more brisk. That was an extraordinary allegation to make. For the last few weeks or months land transactions have not only been not brisk, but they have gone far more in the direction of a slump. I hold a letter in my hand from to-day's "Daily Telegraph" by a gentleman, a great expert in the South of London, Mr. Edwin Evans. What does he say about this briskness in land transactions during the last few months? I venture to quote him:—
"May I be permitted as an auctioneer in practice for the past thirty years to draw the attention of your readers to the unprecedented state of things in the London suburban land market? During the seven weeks from 29th May this year (when the text of the Finance Bill was published) up to 17th July, fifteen suburban building estates within a radius of ten miles of London have been offered for sale by public auction in the City of London (some of them the best I have seen in the market for a long time), and not one of them has found a purchaser. In many cases no biddings at all have been made. The total amount at which they were declared unsold was over £150,000, and as a proof that the absence of sales is not owing to the fact that the sellers were unwilling to take low enough prices, I may mention that for one of the estates, which was withdrawn at £21,0 0, my firm offered £25,000 a year ago, and the price was declined. I quite admit it is not unusual for a percentage of all kinds of property to be withdrawn, but I venture to say there is no 'Mart' record of seven weeks in the very best selling season which will show anything approaching such a disastrous result. I estimate the out-of-pocket expenses alone of offering these fifteen estates at from £1,200 to £1,500."
So much for the briskness of the London land market. I venture to set this statement of one of the best known experts in the South of London against the mere assertion of the Prime Minister. Admitting for the purpose of argument that the cost of valuation will only be £2,000,000, the most that can come into the Exchequer upon the Government's own showing is a paltry sum of £25,000, which will have to be divided between the local authorities and the Exchequer. The amount to be realised by the mineral royalties has gone
1132
by the board. It has never had any right to be included in the calculation at all. The very terms of the Resolution show that mineral royalties were never intended to be included in the cost of valuation. The words of the Resolution are: "It is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses or remuneration payable in connection with any valuation of land or premises for the purposes of any duty."
All that is asked for by this Resolution is money to pay the cost of the valuation of the land or the premises, and the mineral royalties cannot come within the category "land or premises." You cannot bring them into one side of the account and not bring them into the other side. It leaves you, taking the Government's own figures as the amount likely to accrue from the Undeveloped Land Tax, the Reversion Tax and the Increment Tax, £325,000 in all. The cost of gathering that will be £300,000. It is, at any rate for the purposes of this year, an absolutely fatuous stroke of business from the financial point of view. Any financier would laugh you in the face if you told him you were going to set up this enormous and cumbrous piece of machinery which was going to bring beneath its harrow all the land of the country for the purpose of drawing in only a net sum of £25,000. It is also evident that unless this tax is increased the yield is not likely to be so fruitful next year or the year after as the Prime Minister has led his audiences in the country to imagine. The truth is hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway and ardent land reformers such as the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyne (Mr. J. C. Wedgwood), lie quiescent, because all they care about is the principle. They have said so, and the Lord Advocate has said so. Once establish the principle and once establish the machinery, and then you have only got to turn the screw. The cheers of hon. Gentlemen have let the cat out of the bag. The Government must know that is the motive. If they think they are going to delude the country by telling them it is only a halfpenny tax they are mistaken. It is the principle. I agree with the criticism of the hon. Member for Dulwich when he referred to an interpolation by a simple member of the Prime Minister's audience at Bletchley the other day. The Prime Minister remarked that even the Leader of the Opposition himself had said, "Why,

1133
you are going to collect so little, it is not worth collecting," and the simple member of the audience cried out, "But it is the principle you want." That is what you do want, and that is why we say that at the bottom of this whole matter is a principle we do not believe the country will have for a moment, when it sees it fairly and squarely, the Socialist principle. If you are going to take 10 per cent., why should you not take 100 per cent.?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to objections to the Resolution.
Mr. G. D. FABER: My remarks really proceeded out of the hypocrisy of the Government pretending they are going to stop with land taxation initiated in this way. If they are going to stop there, it is not worth having, and, if they are not, it is the most dangerous principle ever put in a Budget in the history of this country.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 92.

Division No. 451.]

AYES.

[5.25 p.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Fenwick, Charles

M'Callum, John M.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Ferens, T. R.

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

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Micking, Major G.

Armitage, R

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Mallet, Charles E.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Markham, Arthur Basil

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Marnham, F. J.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Gill, A. H.

Massie, J.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Masterman, C. F. G.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Glendinning, R. G.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Barnard, E. B.

Glover, Thomas

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Barnes, G. N.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Barran, Sir John Nicholson

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

Beck, A. Cecil

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Myer, Horatio

Bell, Richard

Hancock, J. G.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Partington, Oswald

Bowerman, C. W.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Brace, William

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Branch, James

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Bright, J. A.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Perks, Sir Robert William

Brooke, Stopford

Hazleton, Richard

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Helme, Norval Watson

Pointer, J.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Bryce, J. Annan

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Henry, Charles S.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Rees, J. D.

Byles, William Pollard

Higham, John Sharp

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Richardson, A.

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hodge, John

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hornlman, Emslie John

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Cleland, J. W.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Clough, William

Hudson, Walter

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Clynes, J. R.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Idris, T. H. W.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Jackson, R. S.

Rowlands, J.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jardine, Sir J.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Jenkins, J.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Crooks, William

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Crosfield, A. H.

Jowett, F. W.

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Crossley, William J.

Kekewich, Sir George

Sears, J. E.

Cullinan, J.

Laidlaw, Robert

Seely, Colonel

Curran, Peter Francis

Lambert, George

Shackleton, David James

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lamont, Norman

Sherwell, Arthur James

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lehmann, R. C.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Snowden, P.

Duckworth, Sir James

Levy, Sir Maurice

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lewis, John Herbert

Steadman, W. C.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Erskine, David C.

Lupton, Arnold

Strachey, Sir Edward

Essex, R. W.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Summerbell, T.

Evans, Sir S. T.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Everett, R. Lacey

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wardle, George J.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Thorne, Wm. (West Ham)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Tomkinson, James

Watt, Henry A.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Toulmin, George

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Winfrey, R.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Verney, F. W.

Wiles, Thomas

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

Vivian, Henry

Wills, Arthur Walters

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

Walton, Joseph

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

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

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Baldwin, Stanley

Hamilton, Marquess of

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Renton, Leslie

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renwick, George

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hill, Sir Clement

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bull, Sir William James

Hills, J. W.

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Salter, Arthur Claveil

Carlile, E. Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Clive, Percy Archer

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stanler, Beville

Clyde, J. Avon

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Starkey, John R.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Talhot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Doughty, Sir George

Magnus, Sir Philip

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Fell, Arthu

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Fletcher, J. S.

Newdegate, F. A.

Winterton, Earl

Foster, P. S.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Younger, George

Gardner, Ernest

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Gordon, J.

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Gretton, John

Pretyman, E. G.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 92.

Division No. 452.]

AYES.

[5.35 p.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Byles, William Pollard

Erskine, David C.

Ambrose, Robert

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Essex, R. W.

Armitage, R.

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Esslemont, George Birnie

Atherley-Jones, L.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Evans, Sir S. T.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Charming, Sir Francis Allston

Everett, R. Lacey

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Fenwick, Charles

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cleland, J. w.

Ferens, T. R.

Barnard, E. B.

Clough, William

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Barnes, G. N.

Clynes, J. R.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Barran, Sir John Nicholson

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Beck, A. Cecil

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Bell, Richard

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gill, A. H.

Bellairs, Carlyon

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

Gladstone, Rt Hon. Herbert John

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

Crooks, William

Glendinning, R. G.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Crosfield, A H.

Glover, Thomas

Bowerman, C. W.

Crossley, William J.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Brace, William

Cullinan, J.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Branch, James

Curran, Peter Francis

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Bright, J. A.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Hancock, J. G.

Brooke, Stopford

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Bryce, J. Annan

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Duckworth, Sir James

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Marnham, F. J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Massie, J.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Hazleton, Richard

Masterman, C. F. G.

Snowden, P.

Helme, Norval Watson

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Steadman, W. C.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morrell, Philip

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Strachey, Sir Edward

Henry, Charles S.

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

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hernert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Myer, Horatio

Summerbell, T.

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Hodge, John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Partington, Oswald

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Tomkinson, James

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Toulmin, George

Hudson, Walter

Perks, Sir Robert William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hyde, Clarendon

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Verney, F W.

Idris, T. H. W.

Pointer, J.

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Jackson, R. S.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Vivian, Henry

Jardine, Sir J.

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Walsh, Stephen

Jenkins, J.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Walton, Joseph

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Wardle, George J.

Jowett, F. W.

Rees, J. D.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Kekewich, Sir George

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Laidlaw, Robert

Richardson, A.

Watt, Henry A.

Lambert, George

Ridsdale, E. A.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wiles, Thomas

Lehmann, R. C.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Lupton, Arnold

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rowiands, J.

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Russell, Rt. Hon T. W.

Winfrey, R.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

M'Callum, John M.

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

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

Sears, J. E.

M'Micking, Major G.

Seely, Colonel

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

Mallet, Charles E.

Shackleton, David James

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sherwell, Arthur James

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Gretton, John

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Pretyman, E. G.

Ashley, W. W.

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

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Baldwin, Stanley

Hamilton, Marquess of

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renton, Leslie

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Renwick, George

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bull, Sir William James

Hill, Sir Clement

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hills, J. W

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hunt, Rowland

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cave, George

Joynson-Hicks, William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

Kerry, Earl of

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Clive, Percy Archer

Kimber, Sir Henry

Stanler, Beville

Clyde, J. Avon

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Starkey, John R.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Doughty, Sir George

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Fell, Arthur

Magnus, Sir Philip

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Fletcher, J. S.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

Forster, Henry William

Mdmay, Francis Bingham

Winterton, Earl

Foster, P. S.

Morpeth, Viscount

Younger, George

Gardner, Ernest

Newdegate, F. A.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Gordon, J.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Mr. G. D. Faber and Mr. Watson

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Rutherford.

Question, "That Clause 15 be postponed," put, and agreed to.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee—[20th Day].
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(In the Committee.)

VALUATION FOR PURPOSES OF DUTIES ON LAND VALUES.

  CLAUSE 15.—(Application of Provisions as to Total and Site Value to Minerals.)
  (1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, the total value of minerals means the amount which the fee simple of the minerals, if sold in the open market by a willing seller in their then condition, might be expected to realise, and the capital value of minerals means the total value, after allowing such deduction (if any) as the Commissioners may allow for any sums which are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been spent on boring or other operations carried out by the owner or his predecessor in title for the purpose of bringing the minerals into working, or where the minerals have been partly worked, such part of those sums as is, in the opinion of the Commissioners, proportionate to the amount of minerals ungotten.
  (2) Except where the context otherwise requires, any references in this Part of this Act to the site value of land shall, in cases where the land consists solely of minerals, or comprises minerals, include a reference to the capital value of the minerals.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I think it will be very desirable that all the mineral clauses should be taken together, and therefore I move to postpone Clause 15. There are many questions to be raised on that clause which, if taken now, might have to be discussed two or three times over. I beg to move to postpone Clause 15.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I support the right hon. Gentleman in this Motion. He did me the honour late last night, at the end of business, to consult me as to the course which in my judgment would be most convenient in view of the fact that the mineral clauses are, for the most part, at the end of the Bill. If we were to take Clause 15 now we should be discussing the question under extraordinary conditions. I think everybody will agree with me that the most desirable course is to postpone this clause, and I hope the Motion will, therefore, be supported.
  Sir E. CARSON: Until when is it proposed to postpone the clause, and when will it be taken? Will it be before the new clauses?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think where a clause is postponed it must be taken at the end of the Bill, and the new clauses are taken at the end of the Bill. They will, therefore, be taken close together.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I just make the order of proceeding quite clear. Am I right in understanding that both these clauses and the new clauses will come after the Schedules? Perhaps I may ask the Chairman to state, as a point of order, whether the new clauses or this clause, if postponed, will come after or before the Schedules, and whether this clause, if postponed, comes alter the new clauses or before?
  The CHAIRMAN: All the new clauses come before the Schedules. With regard to this particular clause, it would in the ordinary course of things be taken before the new clauses, but it can again be postponed at that point, and taken after them.
  Mr. F. W. LAMBTON: The Committee has been in great difficulty about these mineral clauses, which time after time have been postponed. Clause 12 was postponed without any discussion. Again, on this occasion, private Members came down to this House without any knowledge that this clause was going to be postponed. The Leader of the Opposition was perfectly within his right, and is justified, no doubt, in agreeing to the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed; but I think that hon. Members should have a little earlier information of these arrangements. It appears that my right hon. Friend was not, however, consulted till 11 o'clock last night, and I do not mean to cast any reflection upon him, but only upon right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must admit that throughout this Bill the mineral clauses have been placed in a most unhappy position. Time after time we have endeavoured to raise this question and get a little information as to what the Government mean. As time went on, however, I suppose they have found that their clauses were absolutely unworkable and foolish, and they are, therefore, postponed. Then, we are told, that this clause, when it is postponed, may come after a new clause or before a new clause, and perhaps on Christmas Eve or Boxing Day, when

  1141
  this matter conies before us, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will propose to postpone it till 1st April or to some other day. I must protest against the way in which the Committee is being treated.

  CLAUSE 16.—(Returns as to Value of Land from Owners.)
  (1) The Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, cause returns in such form and containing such particulars as the Commissioners may require to be obtained from all owners of land, declaring the total value and the site value respectively of their land as estimated in each case by the owners, that value being declared separately as respects each piece of the land which is under separate occupation, and if the owner thinks fit, as respects any part of any land which is under separate occupation, and being estimated as on the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and nine.
  (2) Where land comprises minerals a separate return shall be made under this section of the value of the minerals.
  (3) If any owner of land is required by the Commissioners to make a return under this section, and fails to make such a return within the time, not being less than thirty days, specified in the return, he shall be liable to a penalty under Section fifty-five of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and that section shall apply accordingly, but the penalty shall only be recoverable in the High Court.
  (4) Owners of agricultural land in Ireland may, if they think fit, make, but shall not be required to make, returns under this section.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to ask your ruling, Sir, on a point of order, in connection with Clause 16, and I think it is time to ask it. The original Clause 16 has a marginal note to it which describes it. It is "Returns as to the value of land from owners," and the original Clause 17 is described as "Ascertainment of the original total and the original site value of land." I am well aware that these marginal notes have no authority and are altered by the authorities when they proceed to the printing and publishing, if the contents of a clause are so amended in Committee as to require that alteration. I only refer to the marginal note because it is the shortest way of describing
  1142
  what were the original contents of this Clause 16. It dealt with returns as to the value of land, and these returns, were to be made by the owner. The initial words of the clause are: "The Commissioners shall … cause returns … to be obtained from all owners of land." The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put down Amendments, which by common consent, according to the description given of them by the Government themselves, entirely alter the character of the clause. The first words of the clause, as it would run, instead of providing that the Commissioners shall cause returns to be obtained from the owners of land, will say: "The Commissioners shall … cause a valuation to be made of all land in the United Kingdom." I submit that that is to make so complete a change in the clause as to be in effect the introduction of a new clause, and that that cannot be done by an Amendment of the existing clause. Perhaps you will permit me to say, after taking some trouble to acquaint myself with the precedents, that I am bound to admit that they appear to be very contradictory, and that is one more reason, Sir, for asking a ruling from you on this occasion.
  I will not trouble to deal with the whole of the precedents which have come under my notice, but I will give you those which are necessary to show upon what I found my case. In the case of the Tithe Rent Charge (Rates) Bill of 1899, an Amendment was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Monmouth, now the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. McKenna), and drew a ruling from the Chair. It was the first clause of the Bill, and its object was to exempt tithe rent charge from half of the rates. The right hon. Gentleman moved to substitute for that, by means of two Amendments which had to be read together, a fixed allowance of some £70 from the valuation on which the rates were paid, and the Chairman then made the following ruling:—
  "The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Monmouth must be taken with another Amendment which appears lower down on the Paper, which applies a wholly different class of relief as an alternative to this clause. It would, therefore, be the proper course to move to strike out this clause and embody the proposal in a new clause."
  I submit that the original Clause 16 had nothing to do with valuation, but only with returns which were to be obtained by the Commissioners from the landowners, and on which the valuation was to be founded. If, however, you, Sir, were against me on that point, I should

  1143
  still submit that it provided for a wholly different class of valuation, just as the clause on which the Chairman was ruling in the Tithe Rent Charge Bill provided for an entirely different class of relief as an alternative to that in the clause, and it must not be used as an Amendment but as a new clause. An even closer parallel is to be found in the case of the Education Bill of 1906, when a series of proposed Amendments to Clause 1 of that Bill were ruled upon by the Chairman. The first Amendment stood in the name of a Gentleman who, again, is now a Member of the Government—no other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should say that the principle and object of the first clause of that Bill was to establish in every county a committee of the county council as the public education authority. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, at that time enjoying greater freedom and less responsibility, proposed to substitute for the county council the provincial council. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Sir Francis Channing) proposed to establish a universal system of school boards as the public education authority instead of a universal system of county council committees, and Mr. Allen, who was then the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, had also a series of Amendments, the effect of which would have been to establish universal school boards instead of universal county council committees. The Chairman ruled as follows:—
  "The next Amendment, that of the hon. Member for Carnarvon, is really the substitution of a fresh clause for Clause 1, and cannot be raised here. If Clause 1 is negatived, then the hon. Member may bring his clause up as a new clause. The same remark applies to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. With regard to the series of Amendments by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme …"
  I would ask your particular attention, Sir, to these words:—
  "they raise a scheme alternative to that contained in the first clause, and an Amendment which raises an alternative scheme is not properly an Amendment. Therefore the proper course for the hon. Member to take would be if this clause is negatived, to bring forward a new clause."
  I do not think it will be contended by anyone that the series of Amendments of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given notice, do not raise a scheme of valuation alternative to the scheme of valuation in the Bill, and I submit that that ruling exactly covers the present case, but even if it does not exactly raise that point, there is a further ruling by the Chairman in regard to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the hon. Member for
  1144
  Northamptonshire (Sir Francis Channing) upon which I shall rely. While declining to rule upon hypothetical Amendments, which he had not seen, the Chairman said:—
  "In my opinion the Amendments on the Paper before me, and to which I have referred, are of such a character as not to be Amendments to the clause, but suggestions for wholly different machinery. These matters cannot be introduced as Amendments to a clause, because they practically destroy the whole clause by substituting machinery of a totally different character. That can only be done by introducing a new clause."
  Every word of that ruling applies to the Amendments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are suggestions for a wholly different machinery of valuation, and substitute a machinery that destroys the original clause, because it is of a totally different character, and I submit to you, therefore, that if these precedents hold good, these Amendments cannot be proposed to Clause 16, and that the proper course will be for the Committee, if it so desires, to negative Clause 16 and then bring up the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals as a new clause.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: On the point of order, may I just say a few words? I submit to you, Sir, that this is not a change which is irrelevant to the clause as it appears in the Bill now. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly admits that marginal notes are purely a clerical matter. The House of Commons have nothing to do with them, and they are simply inserted by the draftsmen and may be altered. They have nothing whatever to do with the question. With regard to the clause itself, there were Amendments already on the Paper by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite intended to carry out exactly the operation which we have undertaken to submit to the judgment of the Committee, and evidently they were then under the impression that they were in order, and I submit it would have been in order to discuss those Amendments if the Government adhered to the Clause as it appeared on the Paper. The only difference is this: The Government would invite returns from owners. These returns are voluntary. In substance they were voluntary before, because, if the owner did not choose to make a return the ultimate responsibility for the valuation still rested on the State, and the only difference is this, that we invite them in the first instance to make a return, not merely of particulars which would enable the State to value, but to make returns which gave their own view as to what the

  1145
  Valuation ought to be. The State proceeded then to check. The State now invites returns of particulars which will enable it to value. It then proceeds to value, and then the owner checks. I submit that there is no fundamental difference such as the right hon. Gentleman has submitted, and that the Amendments which the Government have submitted to this clause are just as much in order as the Amendments which would have been submitted by the Opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am not at all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this question, and I am grateful to him for having given me ample notice of his intention to do so. The real meaning of the clauses as they stand in the Bill is that returns are to be made by the owners, that these returns are to be checked by the Commissioners, and that failing a return by the owner the Commissioners are to have a valuation made for him. That presupposes a machinery for valuation. The real meaning of the clauses as proposed to be altered by the Government is, I think, that the Commissioners are to make a valuation, and the owners are to give certain returns of particulars instead of making the valuation themselves. These differences, I think, are differences rather of degree than of kind, taking the clauses as a whole. Of course that does not entirely settle the very difficult question of whether the actual Amendments proposed on this Clause 16 are in order or not. It is only after very careful consideration, and not without a great deal of hesitation, that I have come to the conclusion that the Amendments should be allowed. I admit that precedents can be quoted, as the right hon. Gentleman has quoted precedents, in which it is possible it can be argued that the Amendments which were refused by the Chair did not go further in the alteration of the clauses in question than the Amendments proposed on this Clause 16. On the other hand, as the right hon. Gentleman has very frankly acknowledged, there are other precedents, where very great variations from the original form of the clause have been allowed, and the determining consideration with me in regard to this matter has been that I certainly should have allowed the Amendments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) and the right hon. and learned Member (Sir Edward Carson) if they had come before me, and I should have allowed them because if the Government
  1146
  were going to stand by the original form of this clause the only way in which this issue, which is one of great importance, could be clearly raised would be by allowing these particular Amendments. Otherwise they could not be allowed, except in the discussion on the question that the clause stand part. After the clause had stood part the question could never be raised again, because the clause itself would stop it. That is the real reason which has made me come to this decision. But I have another reason. At a very early stage of Clause 2 I allowed art Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) to the effect that, "For the purposes of this part of this Clause the increment value of any land shall be deemed to be the amount, if any,"—then comes the Amendment—"as ascertained by Commissioners specially appointed for the purpose." The word "ascertained" clearly involves valuation, and I therefore allowed the Amendment, which went, as regards valuation, as far as this, and as regards other points further than this. Therefore, having done that, I really could not at this stage refuse Amendments like these from the Government.
  With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. Ashton), that Amendment, taken in conjunction with a later Amendment, which I take to be consequential, raises a question which is in order as an Amendment to this clause—the question of whether devaluation is to be on all agricultural land or only on such agricultural land as is likely to be liable to one of these taxes. I mention this Amendment particularly because other hon. Members raise the same point at a later stage, and the particular way in which it is raised by the hon. Member here and in his consequential Amendment raises the matter in the right way, so if anyone desires to move it it can be moved here, otherwise it can only be raised within these lines at a later stage.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: There is a manuscript Amendment in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Clavell Salter) on the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Except land exempt from any duty under this part of this Act." It raises rather the same point, and I wanted your ruling whether that would be covered by this, and whether the whole question should be debated on this Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Verney) or whether the other Amendment should be reserved, which covers wider ground.
  The CHAIRMAN: The reason I mention this Amendment particularly is that his consequential Amendment gives the exact lines on which the thing can be debated. We cannot debate the whole question whether agricultural land is to be exempt from valuation, because we have decided that it is to be subject to the tax. I do not care at all whether it is debated on the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) moves or on the Amendment having a similar purpose which is on the Paper in the name of the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil). I merely indicated that it would have to be debated within the proper lines, not as to the whole of agricultural land being exempt from valuation, but as to that part of agricultural land which is unlikely to be taxed.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I quite understand and agree with that limitation, but the other limitation is that there is other land, not agricultural, which is exempt under this Act, and that is where the discussion will require to be widened or less partially reserved.
  The CHAIRMAN: It had better be raised on the later Amendment then.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Section (1), to leave out "returns in such form and containing such particulars as the Commissioners may require to be obtained from all owners of land, declaring," in order to insert the words, "a valuation to be made of all land in the United Kingdom showing separately."
  Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I rise to move to leave out from the proposed Amendment the word "all" ["made of all land"], with a view of raising the question, and I think it is a question of enormous importance, whether this valuation shall be applied to all the land throughout the country or whether it is only to be applied to so much of the land as is taxable, with the addition, perhaps, of that portion of the land which must be valued for the purpose of laying the foundation for future taxes. I quite recognise that it is simplest to strike out from the valuation all land which is not going to be immediately taxable—for instance, to strike out all land which is of an agricultural nature, and which is mainly valuable for agricultural purposes now, if it had in addition some other
  1148
  value, and which would evidently have to be valued for the purpose of arriving at the tax payable in respect of so much of its value as was not attributable to agriculture. In the same way I see a difficulty in striking out all land which belongs to a small owner, because it is evident that it might at some future time become the property of a large owner, and would then no doubt be subject to Increment Duty. But it is clear that some land may safely be left out, and I think a very large tract of land in this country may be left out from the valuation without interfering in any way with the financial efficiency of these clauses, and I submit, with some expectation of acceptance from the Government, that their valuation must be conditioned by the consideration whether in a Finance Bill the valuation is necessary for financial reasons and no others. Unless they can show that the valuation of the whole land is really necessary in order to obtain these taxes some exception to the generality of the clause must be inserted. This clause is rather curiously drafted. It does not seem to me to provide for all the valuations that are necessary, and I do not understand how the Government propose that these valuations can be carried out under the expenses Resolution which we have arrived at. It does not provide for the valuation for the increment occasions except death, which is provided for under the Death Duties, nor that a valuation shall be necessary in the case of reversion. I do not see that either of these is provided for by the machinery of the clause at all, and I do not know how the Government propose to deal with that, but though it does not provide for that it certainly does provide for some valuation which does not seem to me to be necessary at all. I cannot see why we want to value the whole of the agricultural land in this country. Take the mass of the agricultural land of the country. The site value of it will be less than £50 an acre. It will therefore not come under the Undeveloped Land Duty, nor will it come under the tax for Increment Duty. I quite agree that we must have for the purpose of the Increment Duty the standard of the original site value, but there is no reason in the world why under any valuation you should not have a conventional original site value for the great mass of agricultural land in this country. There is no reason why you should not say that it should be taken at £50 per acre as original site value on which shall be built the claim for Increment Duty. There is every reason

  1149
  why, so far as Undeveloped Land Duty is concerned, a valuation should not take place. So far as small owners are concerned, I do not see myself how you are going to deal with them without a valuation. It is a great blot on the scheme that you have to submit the whole of the small owners to the duty of making the valuations, and it will make the friction greater than the Government has any idea of. I do not myself see what method can be devised to relieve them from the duty of making the valuation. You could not take it as a conventional figure, for the land might become the property of somebody else, in which case the Increment Duty would arise.
  As to the other considerable class of exemptions provided for in Clause 25 of the Bill, I do not see why you should have a valuation. I do not see why they should not be free from valuation, and I am fortified in this view by the terms of a new clause of which the Government have given notice. I may be allowed to refer to it as an example of the kind of thing I have in my mind. It frees a statutory company from valuation altogether, and gives them the liberty of allowing their land to be taken at a conventional value. In this case I think the value is to be the amount they paid for it, or something of that kind. It may be necessary to vary that in other cases, but I cite the new clause as an admission of the principle of my Amendment. Here you have in the one case statutory companies who are free from the burden of valuation. I do not know why they are free from it except that they can exercise a considerable amount of electoral force, or it may be that they have been able by their advocates to convince the Government that they have a strong case against valuation. I press upon the Government the principle of my Amendment to leave out the word "all." It is open to the Government to provide any machinery they like in order to carry out the principle after the word "all" is left out. If "all" is included, it may be more difficult to deal with the question on subsequent occasions. This raises the question: Do you want a universal valuation or do you not? I regard this as a crucial Amendment. If the Government have really provided these taxes for the purpose of raising money, it is quite plain that they ought to confine the valuation strictly to the purposes of their taxes. I think they must recognise that the valuation
  1150
  of all land would be a great burden on those who were subjected to the operation. It would be felt much more by the small man than by the big man, because the big man would be able to get someone to do it for him. It is not right to impose that duty on people in a Finance Bill unless you want it for financial purposes. This is the parting of the ways. If the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, then they will have much more to say for themselves when they try to convince the House of Commons that this is a Finance Bill and nothing else. If they insist on a universal valuation, it will be absolutely incredible that this is only a Finance Bill. It will be clear that they want these clauses, not for the purpose of finance in the present year, but for the purpose to which they really wish to apply them, namely, the laying of the foundation for other schemes of legislation in future. I ask the careful attention of the Government to this Amendment. I hope they will not needlessly and provocatively refuse this Amendment, thereby confirming those who hold the view that this is not a real Finance Bill, but a Bill which seeks to attain other than financial objects—to attain certain party purposes and not the purposes of finance.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Noble Lord concluded his observations by introducing, as he is rather in the habit of doing, a good deal of party recrimination. I really think the Committee ought to consider this clause as a purely business proposal. What is the proposal? We have got to consider the question of valuation from the point of view of the taxes we have already passed.
  Lord R. CECIL: I said so.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the Noble Lord will admit that. Is a valuation required for the purpose of these taxes in all cases or not? I submit that it is, and that it will be quite impossible for any Government having received instructions from the House of Commons to impose these taxes to face the administration of the difficult duty of collecting them without getting a complete valuation. The Noble Lord admits that in cases of urban sites you must get your valuation. What he suggests in the first instance is that you ought to exempt agricultural land, and that in the second place you ought to exempt the small holder.
  LORD R. CECIL: I expressly said that I saw great practical difficulties in exempting the small owner.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Very well, I leave that out. It is quite impossible to exempt the small holder from valuation, because at some future moment his land might come into the hands of a man who is not a small owner. In the second place the Noble Lord thinks that charitable trusts ought to be exempted. His third point was that we do as a matter of fact exempt statuory companies. It is quite clear that land held by statutory companies forms a very small proportion of the land in this country, and, therefore, it is comparatively speaking a small portion at any rate when you begin to compare it with agricultural land. What do we do in their case? We substitute a new kind of valuation simply because these statutory companies have not complete freedom in their disposition of then land, and, therefore, you are bound to take that into account. For that reason we have substituted a totally different basis as long as the land is in their possession. But they are not exempt from valuation. We simply substitute a different basis of valuation, and I think that is fair. I do not want to discuss that until we come to the new proposal. I am simply dealing with the fact that they are not exempt from valuation. A value in respect of their land will have to be placed on the register, and it will have to be ascertained. There will be original site value, but you ascertain it on different principles, because the land is governed on different principles under Acts passed by this House. I now come to the case of charitable trusts. Charitable trusts are not exempt from valuation. Why does the Noble Lord say that they are?
  Lord R. CECIL: I was talking of those which come within Clause 25. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has not followed the argument I addressed to the Committee. I am sure that is entirely my fault, and I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of any discourtesy.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: What is the point?
  Lord R. CECIL: Clause 25 provides for the exemption from the tax of certain charitable trusts.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think I can put the Noble Lord right.
  Lord R. CECIL: No, I do not wish to be put right by an erroneous correction. Clause 25 provides that "No duty under this part of this Act shall be charged in respect of land or any interest in land held by any person or body of persons carrying on any undertaking or institution without any view to the payment of any dividend or profit out of the revenue thereof …" under certain conditions.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Read on.
  Lord R. CECIL: I will read the whole of it, if you like. The rest of the clause is as follows: "For purposes which in the opinion of the Commissioners are public purposes or charitable purposes, while the land is occupied and used by that person or body for those purposes, but nothing in this Section shall prevent the collection of Increment Value Duty where any such land is sold or ceases to be occupied or used for the said purposes." Now turn to the Amendment with respect to statutory companies, and you will find precisely the same provision. The second section of the new clause says, "The Commissioners shall not require a statutory company to make any returns with respect to any such land for the purpose of the provisions of this Part of this Act as to valuation other than as to the actual cost to the company of the land, and that cost shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be substituted for the original site value of the land." That is the point. If that is good enough for a statutory company, why is it not good enough for a charitable trust?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Noble Lord objected to be put right by an erroneous correction, but he has proceeded to put himself wrong by an incomplete quotation and an absolutely mistaken accentuation of the part he quoted. He has not read the whole of the clause.
  Lord R. CECIL: I read every word of it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: He simply skipped over what is by far the most important part of it. The charitable trusts are not to be charged "while the land is occupied and used by that person or body for those purposes; but nothing in this Section shall prevent the collection of Increment Value Duty where any such land is sold or ceases to be occupied or used for the said purposes."
  Lord R. CECIL: There is the same provision in the clause dealing with statutory companies.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Really the Noble Lord does not know what he is arguing. What has he to prove? He has to prove that a valuation is not necessary, and in order to prove that a valuation is not necessary, he must also prove that under no conditions will Increment Duty be collected on the basis of original site value. What happens in this case? If these charitable trusts sell any part of their land, they are liable for the duty. How are you going to ascertain the Increment Duty unless first of all you get the original site value of that property?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: These very words occur in this new clause as to statutory companies: "Nothing in this Section shall prevent the collection of Increment Value Duty where any such land is sold or ceases to be so held." There you have not the valuation in the sense which is provided for in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had done me the honour of listening to my original speech, he would have found that I always recognise that you must have an original site value. The question is whether you are to arrive at that without a valuation. In the case of a statutory company it is arrived at without a valuation. I say that principle ought to be applied to all valuations where it is applicable, where the land is exempted from tax.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Noble Lord is putting a totally different point now. He takes three categories of landowners, and he says, "Here is agricultural land; here is the statutory company; here is the charitable trust. You are exempting the statutory company. There are special provisions in regard to valuation. When you come to the charitable trust why should you value it because there is no tax?" That was not the point raised by the Noble Lord. I am in the recollection of the House on this. The point that the Noble Lord did raise was that there is an Increment Tax which must have an original site value before you can estimate it. The Noble Lord has said, "That is not my point. My point is not that there is no tax; my point is that there is a tax, and you ought to ascertain the original site value in the same way as you do with a statutory company." That is a totally different point, but I am quite willing to take it. The Noble Lord says, "Why do you ascertain the site value as regards the statutory company?" In the first place, it is on a totally different basis. The statutory company is a company which buys as
  1154
  a rule under compulsory purchase, and pays extra; in fact, it pays three times its original value and a good deal more; and it would be unfair to take the real value of the land in the ordinary sense of market value in that case. There is nothing of that kind in a charitable trust. A charitable trust may be hundreds of years old. They may have no value at all. Take the statutory company. There is the value imposed by Act of Parliament—a very different proposition. But I am glad the Noble Lord has taken other ground, because he has seen that there is a case for valuation in the case of the charitable trust. I come now to agricultural land. Every piece of agricultural land to-day may ten years hence be the most valuable building land. Take, if you like, East Ham. Twenty years ago that was agricultural land. There are towns in England which were not on the map 100 years ago; and you constantly find land, which is purely agricultural at one period, every few years completely changed. Take the land along the Great Central Railway. Until the Great Central line ran there it was purely agricultural land, which was very largely a drug in the market; but now it has grown in value to £200, £300, £500, and £l,000 an acre, and I have been given one case of £2,000 an acre. You would not have had £50 an acre given for it until the Great Central Railway was constructed. How are you to discover what land is going to become good building land in the course of the next 10 or 15 years?
  Mr. G. S. BOWLES: How are you going to in the case of a company?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am quite willing to go back to the statutory company, but that is a totally different case. It is the case where they produce title deeds showing they paid three times the value of the land, and that is taken as the original site value. How can you do that in regard to agricultural land unless there is a valuation? How are you to give title deeds? In many cases you cannot get title deeds. They may go back before the flood. You cannot trace them. The Noble Lord says, "Why do not you set up some sort of artificial standard?" An artificial standard is not fair to anyone. The standard of the statutory company is a real standard. It represents money which they have actually paid, and it would be unfair to get any other standard. But you have agricultural land worth £100 an acre or worth £150 an acre which is really agricultural land. If you take a £50 standard

  1155
  when the real value is £150 that would be unfair to the owner. Take land, on the other hand, where the agricultural value is not worth £5 an acre. I know a whole village built on land which for agricultural purposes was not worth £5 an acre. It was more or less rotten swamp. If you are going to credit the owner with a £50 value that is unfair to the State; and you are unjust to the State in one case and unjust at the expense of the landowner in another case. It is not fair to anyone. It is said we should not ascertain the real value. What is the unfairness of it? Suppose the land increases in value; suppose it is only worth £20 an acre, and you sell it for £100, what is unfair in taking the real value? Why should you make your increment an artificial one of £50? Suppose the land is worth £100 an acre for artificial purposes and you sell it at £110, why should you say to the owner, "You must pay on an increment from £50, because we have taken a purely artificial line?" If you take the real line of value nobody is injured. You are dealing with the real facts of the case. The Noble Lord says it is not fiscal, but it shows you are trying to arrive at a pure fiscal basis of taxation, instead of an artificial one. You are trying to arrive at the facts of the case. For that reason I think the Government are doing what is fair to the owners, what is fair to the State, what is fair to everybody all round, by taking what is the real value of the land, and not some artificial estimate, as suggested by the Noble Lord.
  Mr. A. C. SALTER: I have listened, with some regret, to the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just made. I hope that I, at any rate, will not be charged with importing party feeling into this matter if I say that the lines the Government take in regard to this exemption from valuation of this agricultural land will be considered in the country as a great test of the sincerity of those professions with regard to agricultural land of which we have heard so much. This Amendment raises the point—is, or is not, the whole of the land of the United Kingdom to be subject to the 1909 valuation? It is open to all of us to indicate classes of land which we say should be taken out. I do not desire to trouble the Committee, except in regard to one class of land. I have the honour to represent a Constituency (Basingstoke) which is very largely agricultural, and I desire to urge upon the
  1156
  Committee and again upon the Government the question of the exemption o£ valuation of agricultural land. And when, I say agricultural land, I mean land which is from the valuer's point of view purely agricultural land, agricultural land which has in it on that hypothesis no element of value at all except that which is due to the capacity of the land for agricultural purposes. My submission is that, in view of the professions to which we have listened, purely agricultural land is entitled to exemption, not merely from the tax, but from the valuation. In the case of an ordinary tax, no doubt, if you speak of exempting from the tax, you merely mean it shall not pay the tax, but in speaking of a particular tax like this, which has attached to it costly and vexatious machinery, there will be in this country an enormous number of cases in which the expense put upon the owner of land due to the machinery will be a very great and a very important matter. I quite agree that there is not a foot of land in this country to which the Government valuer must not go, and which he must not look at, and to which he must not apply his mind and his trained judgment. But purely agricultural land is entitled to exemption from valuation in this sense, that it is entitled to the exemption from the machinery of valuation which is contained in Sections 16 and 17, and all the expense incidental to it, which is thrown on the land. That is to say, that in the case of purely agricultural land we are entitled to this, that the Government valuer who goes and examines that land and comes to the conclusion that that land is land which has in it at the present time no element of value whatever, except its purely agricultural value, should go away from that land, and that no returns and no information and no expenses will be thrown upon the landowner in regard to that value. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that for the purposes of the taxes which we have sanctioned the valuation of all land—I am only concerned with purely agricultural land—that the valuation of all purely agricultural land for the 1909 valuation, is necessary. Take first the Increment Value Duty. He says that "It is necessary, to recover this Increment Value Duty, that you shall make a 1909 valuation of purely agricultural land." I think I am right in saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put upon the Paper, in pursuance of pledges which he gave, a new clause which exempts purely agricultural land from

  1157
  Increment Value Duty. I cannot repeat the exact words, but I shall correctly summarise them when I say he proposes to enact that purely agricultural land, so long as it remains purely agricultural land, shall not be liable to Increment Duty; that purely agricultural increment shall not be taxed. Therefore, so far, you do not need a 1909 site value valuation. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer also says a time will come when that land will have acquired a value outside its purely agricultural value, a building or industrial value, and I quite agree that we must contemplate that condition. But I submit that that does not require a 1909 valuation. As soon as the land acquires ever so minute an extra agricultural value it will leave the class with which we are dealing; it will cease to be purely agricultural land and will become liable not only to Undeveloped Land Duty, but will become liable to Increment Value Duty.
  But on what are these two duties to be paid? On the non-agricultural element and the non-agricultural element only. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "When that event happens where shall we be? We shall be casting about to assess these two duties, and we shall have no guidance as to the non-agricultural value of the land." Certainly you cannot get it now, because it is not there, but you will have it, because every five years the whole of the land in the country is to be looked at to see whether or not it comes within the clause as to undeveloped land— every five years for all future time. No sooner will any field in this country have, in addition to its purely agricultural value, ever so minute an element of non-agricultural value than the Government valuer will be down upon it, and he will assess it both for the purposes of Increment Value Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer is wrong in saying that the 1909 valuation is not necessary. In the case of the Reversion Duty the Government have accepted an Amendment of mine which will alter the nature of that tax very much. The Reversion Duty is paid upon the total real value of the land at the beginning of the term, and the real total value at the end. That is to be furnished by the owner and checked by the Government, but certainly no valuation of the land is incidental to that valuation at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is wrong in his only point that there is no necessity for the 1909 valuation in regard to purely agricultural
  1158
  land. I press this consideration all the more earnestly because I am greatly impressed with the illusory character, even if we carry this clause, of this promised exemption of agricultural land. In my own Constituency there is a very large amount of typical agricultural land. There is an area there, I suppose, of some 200 square miles of purely agricultural land in the conventional sense of the word; but it is land within an hour of a town, land not far from a main line of railway, and if you were to go to any competent valuer with local knowledge and ask him to prepare a map of the land in my Constituency, colouring pink that which he was prepared to stake his reputation upon as having no element of value except that which is purely agricultural, he would colour extremely little land. So far as one can see, every yard of that land really has a very minute value apart from purely agricultural value which would take it out of this clause, and which would cause a man to give a little more for it because it has attached to it a remote building contingency.
  These areas of agricultural land throughout the country, which have a remote building value attached to them, are enormously large, and they are being increased rapidly every day by the use of motor cars. I have recently seen advertisements of land for development in which it was made a positive inducement that it was a long way from any railway station. People are now buying, to develop, land which is a long way from railway stations, on the strength of the use of motor cars. I quite agree that that land must be dealt with, but what will be the effect? The effect will be that over very large areas in this country you will have the valuation of that class of property, for the sake of the miserable sum which will be paid upon a small fraction which has a remote building value. There is the maximum cost to the country, the maximum cost to the landowner, and the minimum of revenue. It is in view of that consideration that I press on the Government not to decide hastily to include purely agricultural land. Purely agricultural land is very large in area, and it will mean an enormous cost to the taxpayer to include it. It will mean an enormous cost to the owner. It is idle to say that since the owner is not liable for the tax he need not trouble whether he is assessed or not. He will be a very unwise man if he did not contest it, although no immediate tax depends upon it. I, also, am no authority on constitutional matters, but I suggest

  1159
  that it is a doubtful course for this House, even from the high constitutional view, to set up a costly fiscal machinery which is not now incidental or necessarily incidental to any tax which you are setting up. Agricultural people are watching this Amendment very anxiously. What will they think is behind it? Agricultural land is not to be taxed, and yet it is to be valued. Why do you want to value it if there is no tax coming from it? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that we ought to keep demonstrating that it is not necessary. That is not the real reason. Agricultural people will ask themselves what is the real reason, and they will say that you intend before very long to put on new taxation which you have not now disclosed, but for the imposition of which you will find this valuation a very useful ground. If there is any real proof of sincerity in all these professions we have heard of benevolent intentions towards agriculture in this country, then purely agricultural land ought absolutely to stand outside this welter of dispute, difference, uncertainty, and expense, which you are setting up and applying to all other land.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: I desire to ask one or two questions of the Government in regard to agricultural land in Ireland. In the first place, almost the whole of Ireland is agricultural land in the ordinary sense, and I want to know specifically from the Government whether every acre of agricultural land in Ireland is to be valued under this Bill. Have the Government considered that in relation to Ireland the proposals of this Bill mean that hundreds of thousands of people who have bought their farms under the Irish Land Acts will be victims in the matter? Have they realised that it means that the Government valuer will go to each of these individual farmers, who will be put to considerable expense in litigating these questions? The Government themselves, when they originally framed this Bill—although, I dare say, they have forgotten it—saw the necessity of drawing a distinction in relation to Ireland. They put a provision into the Bill which they now propose to leave out, that in relation to agricultural land in Ireland the owners were not obliged to send in any return. Although it is not possible to say what is agricultural land, and what is not, apparently when the Government originally framed the Bill they thought that what was impossible in England was quite possible in Ireland. The possibilities
  1160
  absolutely depended not so much on the nature of the land as upon the number of Members from Ireland who would vote in favour of the Budget. The Nationalist party have now been squared, and they take no interest whatsoever in regard to the question of the taxation or valuation of the land of those tenants in Ireland to whom they are so absolutely devoted. Since Nationalist Members have gone away to Ireland it is apparently now thought just as desirable to ascertain the value of agricultural land in Ireland as in England. I do not know why that change has been made, but it certainly has been made in the Bill. There is another point to which I would like to call attention. As far as I can see, this tribunal that you are going to set up, with Referees, is also to apply to Ireland, where there is a Valuation Department already. There has been a general valuation of the whole of Ireland. They have got the machinery there. It was set up at a cost of thousands and thousands of pounds. They have directions under an Act of Parliament as to how valuation is to be carried out—far more accurate directions than anything that is going to be set up by this Bill. And what are you doing? You are throwing over the whole of the Valuation Department in Ireland, and you are setting up a new Department in England winch is to control the valuation of Ireland, though there is a valuation authority already in existence there. That seems to be an absurdity. To say that you are to have a tribunal of Referees appointed by judges and the chairman of the Surveyors' Institute, or whatever he is called, seems to me to be an absurdity. The truth of the matter is this: This Bill takes so many forms from day to day, the Government are so much at sea every moment when questions of this kind arise, and the Irish Nationalist Members no longer attend as they did to their business in relation to this n after, that the Government forget that there is such a place as Ireland at all. If they have forgotten it, I propose to make myself a nuisance in regard to the matter. That is the only way in which you ever get the Government to attend to Ireland at all. I say it would be a perfect scandal to set up this machinery in relation to Ireland, having regard to the fact that adequate machinery is already in existence, but, above and beyond that, comes the other question which I hope will be noted in Ireland, namely, are you really and seriously in regard to purely agricultural land

  1161
  such as that in Ireland going to ask the tenants who are now paying their instalments in order to enable them to become owners to go to the expense of this valuation?
  7.0 P.M.
  I believe it would be very much resented; and I believe the moment you began to try and carry it out, and when the Members from Ireland have received whatever favour you are going to give them this Session, I believe you will not be allowed by the Members from Ireland to carry it out. Therefore, I do ask the Government, not the Attorney-General or any of the hon. or right hon. Gentlemen I see opposite for the moment, to tell me about those matters, and I do ask to have the matter fully considered to see if they cannot leave out of consideration the agricultural land in Ireland which requires no valuation. In fact, I may say that for the last twenty-five years we have been doing nothing but valuing Ireland. We have in Ireland at the present moment the Land Commission Courts and the Land Purchase Courts. In this country anybody can value land. In Ireland it takes a court of three, presided over by a lawyer, with two skilful valuers, while there is a further court of appeal. We have as well the Valuation Board and the Land Purchase Commissioners for the purpose of valuing what ought to be paid on land purchase from the State. Now you set up a third valuation department with your Referees and your Revenue Commissioners. I hope before we pass from this clause that some intimation will be given as to how agricultural land in Ireland is to be considered, and that the country will not be put to the unnecessary expense of making a valuation in those cases.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying that this is a business question. What we have to consider on this side is whether or not the valuation of all the land of England is honestly and really, as a business tribunal, necessary for the purposes of the financial year. Some of us have fears that the reason for the valuation of all the land has some ulterior motive, such as land nationalisation. Let me come to the details and see whether there is any possible reason why all the land should be valued, and let me refer to the land which I sometimes have to deal with—that is, land owned by municipal corporations. By Clause 24 of this Bill all property which belongs to a rating authority is
  1162
  absolutely exempt and free of taxation under this part of the Bill, and, further than that, it goes on to say that if at any time in the future any question arises as to such land, then the Increment Value Duty is to be taken as having been paid during the time. I would ask any right hon. or hon. Gentleman on the Government Benches if they can give any reason why it is necessary to value that land? The London County Council propose to build a great edifice on the other side of the river, and for the purposes of this Bill what would be the object of valuing that on which no duty is to be charged? Clause 24 provides, "Any Increment Value Duty in respect of any such land which would have been collected from the authority shall, for the purposes of the provisions of this Act as to the collection of Increment Value Duty, be deemed to have been paid." Therefore any valuation would be absolutely useless, and where is the necessity for this valuation of the property of each municipal authority? If you are going to nationalise the land, there is every reason why you should have this valuation, because you will have to buy all the property of the corporations. I use the word "buy" as a euphemistic expression, and perhaps I should say "acquire" all the land of the corporations. Then to take another example. Of course you have to get the value of Westminster Abbey, and to go through the extraordinary calculation of valuing when you have taken away all the structure, which would be a matter of no difficulty to an expert valuer, the Government tell us. I should add that the Abbey is exempt from taxes under this Bill as it comes under the head of charitable purposes. Can anyone suggest any return on the great expense that will be gone to in making this capricious value, or any defence for such a valuation? Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer get any three business men from any quarter of the House on such a point as this to get up in their places and say that they would look upon this as a sound financial transaction? I ought to add I am interested to a certain extent in this question, and that is as regards university property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has very kindly and fairly met the Universities in certain ways, and has said that certain exemptions will be given to certain college properties, such as the Senate House at Cambridge, certain college chapels, and college halls in the University of Cambridge. He has met us quite fairly on it, but incidentally I may say that is

  1163
  part of Clause 25. We are to have Amendments on this question, and I have asked frequently for them. We may possibly have to discuss them to-night or to-morrow, according to the programme of the Prime Minister. We were promised ample time, and that, of course, is ample time, to discuss mere Amendments dealing with intricate points of law. Does anyone seriously suggest it is necessary to value those buildings? Does there not in some suspicious mind lurk the idea that this valuation is not honestly made for the purpose of finance, but that it is made from some ulterior object?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson): I think we can scarcely argue with those who are determined to suspect some ulterior motive in the minds of those who are putting forward what is, after all, a plain business proposition. If hon. Members opposite are determined to suspect that all we desire is to have a basis upon which to put still further burdens, all that we can do is to leave them with their suspicions. It is sufficient for us if we justify the necessity for the valuation. That is all that we have got to do. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) put the matter at an early stage on what seemed to me its proper basis. He said, "Before you can justify your valuation you must show that it is necessary. You have no right to put into a Finance Bill that which is not a necessity of your tax." That is the proposition upon which we rely. Is the valuation necessary for the tax? If so, then we must have a valuation or we cannot have the tax. It would be a preposterous thing to say that there are some taxes to be for ever ruled out because a valuation is necessary, or because a valuation might include land which ultimately may not come under the charge. That would be an absurd proposition, both constitutionally and fiscally. Either the tax is right and proper or it is not, and for present purposes we assume it is right and proper. Then if you have got to ascertain the value in 1909, when is the right time to do it? Obviously you should do it as soon as possible. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] An hon. Member asks "Why?" The whole scheme of the Bill, not devised in the interest of the Exchequer, but very largely in the interest of the land-owning classes as well, is that the value on 30th April,
  1164
  1909, should be exempt. That is an enormously important concession from a fiscal point of view to any class called on to pay taxes. Ordinarily no such exemption applies when you are putting taxes on other forms of property. What we are doing here is saying, "Your property as it existed on the 30th April, L909, shall be absolutely exempt from Increment Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty." That fixes a date on which we must have a valuation, not only because it is the date for the Increment Tax, but because it fixes exactly the amount of exemption to which the taxpayer is entitled. It is his interest as well as ours that there should be ascertained at the earliest date, as precisely as possible, the exempt value of his property. To leave that over until 30 or 40 years hence would be possibly unfair to him, and possibly unfair to the State, and certainly it would be a most inadequate way of dealing with the value which is so important both to him and to us, namely, the value which is not to be taxed. That shows, at all events, the necessity for the valuation. The Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord R. Cecil), in asking us to find out some other means of ascertaining the original site value, gave as an instance what we have done in the case of statutory companies. I may point out that in that case we do take the original site value. Would it be fair in the case of property which cost them £l,000 an acre on the supposition that it would be developed for building, but which, in fact, has never been developed, for us to take a valuer's valuation, and charge duty on the whole of the value? Obviously not. What we do is to take as the original site value the sum actually paid by the company. But how does that form any basis for dealing with the rest of the property? It offers no basis at all. The right hon. Member for Dublin University asked. "What are you setting up this machinery for in Ireland?" We are setting up for Ireland as we are setting up for England a panel of Referees, and we are giving the Irish landowner, if he desires to avail himself of it, the same appeal that we are giving to the English landowner. But beyond that every bit of the machinery in Ireland will be available to the Commissioners so far as they need it at all. The value, however, is pretty well ascertained, and it will not need much revision. But if any revision is needed, the existing valuing machinery in Ireland will be used by the Commissioners, with the addition that, if

  1165
  the Irish landowner chooses to avail himself of it, he will have the panel of Referees to which I have referred.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I wish to put this case with regard to agricultural land which, valued as pure agricultural land, has a site value of £5 or £10 an acre. There will be a great area of land in that position. That land may be agriculturally improved by the owner going to great expense in chalking it, which will double the value of some land, but has no influence upon its value as building land; or other expenditure may be incurred, and its agricultural value may rise to £40 or £50 an acre. If, for some reason, it subsequently becomes building land and subject to Increment Value Duty, will the owner of that land under the Bill as drawn become liable to Increment Value Duty, not only on the difference between the agricultural value and the building value, but also upon the agricultural increment which has accrued from the time when the original site value was fixed? It is obvious that the owner ought to pay only on the building increment, and not on the agricultural increment. If the Attorney-General will say by what words in the Bill the owner is saved from having to pay on the purely agricultural increment I shall be grateful.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Attorney-General defended the position which the Government have taken up by saying that this valuation was a plain fiscal proposition; but I have grave doubts whether it is, or is really intended to be, a fiscal proposition at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not said a single word in reply to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). On the contrary, he actually adduced an argument which is in entire confirmation of my hon. Friend's speech He said that the whole justification of this valuation is the existence of the tax. "Very well," says my hon. Friend, "the absence of the tax is a justification for the absence of valuation." To that the Attorney-General made no answer, and I do not believe there is any answer. May I point out the absurdity, from a business point of view, of this valuation as applied to Scotland? It is not an ordinary valuation as for the purpose of Income Tax. It is a survey of every plot of land, with its value in the year 1909. What on earth is the use of making such a survey of land in the middle of the moors which abound in the North of Scotland? The owners with whom you are going to deal are not only dukes and so on,
  1166
  but crofters. The boundaries of every single croft will have to be defined and the valuation fixed. I do not know how many crofts there are, nor whether the Government have considered the difficulties which will face them. I do not know what the crofters will say when the valuer comes upon them; but I know what they will think and say to themselves. They will say, "It is all very well to talk about exemptions from the tax, but what does the Government mean by valuing the land in this way? It looks very much as if they were going to impose taxation upon us at some time or other"; and I do not know that the crofters will be very far wrong.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The new clause says: "Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only." What is the effect of that? We get the original site Value now of land which has a very low value. If that land passes out of the agricultural category into the building category, we take the building value, and the building value only. Supposing, in the meantime, the land has been subjected to a process of improvement in value, not only of a building character but of an agricultural character, the moment the land acquires a building value it really changes its character and becomes subject to taxation. We tax it on the whole of its building value, ignoring its agricultural value.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Its new agricultural value?
  Sir W. ROBSON: Ignoring its new agricultural value.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Under what provision?
  Sir W. ROBSON: That is how the scheme works.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Not on the words just quoted.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Yes. You charge no Increment Value Duty at all while the land remains purely agricultural, but when the land has ceased to be merely agricultural, and began to have a building value, we put the tax on the whole building value.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That, I think, clearly establishes my contention and confirms my fear. In the words quoted by the

  1167
  Attorney-General there is nothing about deducting the agricultural value at the time the new valuation is made. You deduct only the original site value at the low agricultural figure, and if that land subsequently becomes liable to this building tax the whole of the difference between the original agricultural value and the improved agricultural value, which may be entirely due to the exertions and expenditure of the owner, will be taxable.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not understand the relevance of this discussion to the particular Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. GEORGE CAVE: I do not propose to discuss the new clause to which reference has been made, but it is clear from what has passed that it will have to be amended before it becomes part of the Bill. I wish to press a point which arises directly out of the discussion which has just taken place. The Attorney-General admits that there should be no valuation, unless one is required for the purpose of the tax. Take purely agricultural land. Must it be valued for the purposes of the tax? Clearly not for the Undeveloped Land Duty, because it is exempt from that altogether. And clearly not for the purpose of the Reversion Duty, because that does not depend on value. Therefore there remains only the Increment Value Duty. Need you value agricultural land for the purpose of Increment Value Duty? The new clause says this:—"That Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land, while that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only." Therefore, until it attains a value higher than the purely agricultural value, that land cannot be taxed at all. Why not then postpone the valuation until the moment when it begins to have a value higher than agricultural? That is the whole point of my hon. Friend's argument. It is said, How are you to find it out? It is perfectly easy to find it out. The Commissioners look at the land now and say they are satisfied by ordinary means that it is purely agricultural land, and that they need not value it at all. But every five years, under Clause 18, there must be a new return of all undeveloped land, and the moment agricultural land begins to have a building value there must be a return under Clause 18 for the purposes of Undeveloped Land Duty. The moment that return is made and there is building
  1168
  value in this land is the rime to make your valuation. I think the point raised by this new clause is a strong argument in favour of the view that you should not value that land at all which is purely agricultural. No answer yet has been given to the point made as to Clause 24 by the hon. Member for Cambridge, who showed quite clearly that in the case of the land there referred to, belonging to rating authorities, there is no need whatever to value that in 1909. It is free from all the three duties, and even when that land is sold by the rating authority Increment Value Duty is not charged on the increased value. That being so, there is no excuse whatever for valuing the land. The point, I repeat, turns mainly on the two cases— that of purely agricultural land and land belonging to rating authorities.
  Mr. JAMES TOMKINSON: I should like to know the intentions of the Government on the point that has been raised. Take the case of land worth £20 an acre. It is not good agricultural land, but rather poor. In course of time—I have seen it done—it passes into an orchard, and then at once it acquires a larger value; its value, indeed, being increased, when let for market gardens or orchards, two-fold, three-fold, and even four-fold. That land may be worth £20 to start with, and it goes up to £100, and even £200 if it is let for the purposes of orchards or market gardens, at a rent of, say, £7 per acre. But the proprietor of that land, although it is worth £200 an acre to him, thinks it would be still more valuable if he turned it into building land. He puts it into the market and gets £500 an acre for it. I want to know, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite wants to know, whether the increment value will be charged upon the difference between £20 and £500, or between £200—
  The CHAIRMAN: That point, as I said, is not before the Committee. The only point relevant is that of valuation.
  Mr. BALFOUR: On the point of order, the words of the clause say that the valuation shall be taken immediately for all land. If the valuation of agricultural land were omitted, and deferred to a period when it was on the verge of becoming building land, the point raised by my gallant Friend, by the hon. Member opposite, and by my hon. and learned Friend behind me would be met, and it would be, and could only be met, so far as I can see, by the acceptance of the Amendment. I

  1169
  would venture to ask whether—instead of dwelling upon it—it is in order to find out whether really the Government may charge the Increment Value Duties upon the lowest point—or what is by a hypothesis the lowest point—or upon the higher point?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEwas understood to say that the question raised was not before the Committee at the present time.
  The CHAIRMAN: This is an Amendment to leave out "all" agricultural land. I really do not see that the question can be properly raised here.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I understand, Mr. Emmott, on the point of order, that for the general convenience that you decided that we should on this Amendment take the whole question, including agricultural land. If you remember your first suggestion was that this particularly refers to agricultural land. I submit that it is only in this way that we can arrive at a satisfactory conclusion by accepting what arises out of this Amendment in regard to agricultural land, namely, that the valuation shall not be taken now at the lowest point, but that it shall be taken at a later period, at the moment when agricultural land passes from the agricultural area into the building area; and that by that very action of deferment the agricultural value would all be credited which had accrued in the intermediate time up to the building period. That is the only form in which we can move a satisfactory Amendment dealing with this point. That does bring it within the purview of this Amendment as agreed upon to cover agricultural land.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his explanation. It seems to me that the matter should be raised on a taxing rather than a valuation clause.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: How many separate valuations does the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplate under this clause? Can he tell us how many separate valuations the Commissioners will have to make?
  The CHAIRMAN: How does that question arise upon this Amendment?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: If all the land is to be valued the number of assessments will be entirely excessive, and cannot possibly be done within any reasonable time. It appears upon the best figures I have been
  1170
  able to get that there are some 118½ millions of acres of land in the United Kingdom. The next question that arises upon that is what average unity of valuation you can take. I know that is a very difficult question. You have, on the one hand, enormous spaces such as moors, and so on, covering many hundreds of acres, and, on the other hand, you have acres sub-divided into small plots covered by a single cottage. May I suggest that probably the average unity of valuation would be 20 acres. If that be so you would arrive at some nearly 6,000,000 of separate valuations divided between 118½ millions of acres. There is a certain light thrown upon the question by a return of the owners of land called for by Parliament in 1872, and presented in 1876. It appears that the Local Government Board was the authority for making this return. They said that they had to deal with 5,000,000 separate assessments. If the Local Government Board had to deal in that year with 5,000,000 separate assessments, I do not think I shall be above the mark in saying that the Commissioners now would deal with 6,000,000. This particular return is rather instructive for the purpose of showing the extraordinary difficulties of valuation. What was the return? It was a return merely of owners of land in England and Wales, and all that was asked for was the name and address of the owner, the extent of his land, and the gross estimate of rental. The instructions were issued in September, 1872, but it took two years actually to get the last answer for this comparatively simple return. An examination of the papers disclosed the fact that there were a quarter of a million of defects in them. The greatest difficulty was found in ascertaining who the owners of the land were, and this necessitated exhaustive inquiry. The inquiry then goes on to refer to the question of when a long leaseholder becomes an owner, and the Board decided that they would only admit as an owner anyone who had a lease of more than 99 years. In the case of the present Bill it is 50 years. They could not deal with the question of joint ownership. Where there was a joint ownership they only gave one of the names. There was a peculiar difficulty in one part of the United Kingdom. The Summary Digest says:—
  "A reference to some of the Welsh counties where there are large numbers of owners of the same Christian and surname, e.g., the county of Cardigan, where the name David Davies occurs above 53 times, and John Jones above 70 times, will show the labour involved in, this branch of the inquiry, and it may be added that

  1171
  independently of other inquiries upwards of 300,000 separate applications had to be sent to the clerks in order to clear up questions in reference to duplicate entries."
  They go on to say the actual acreage of the holdings was in some cases very doubtful, and they point out that they have not included property that did not appear in the parish lists, and they have not included mines and woodlands, and then they add: "From the foregoing statements it will be seen that the present Return is simply a compilation from public documents existing in each parish throughout England and Wales." They then go on to apologise for the undoubted errors into which they have been led. That was not a valuation; it was merely a Return of land in England and Wales, not including London, and it took two years to obtain it, and similar difficulties were found in Scotland and Ireland. What is to be done by the Commissioners under this Bill? They have not merely to get a Return of different classes, but they have to make a complete valuation and survey; and then they have to duplicate their valuation between site value and total value, they have to consider all lessees of over 50 years as owners, they have to consider all the in
  terest of the land to make apportionments, and they have to do innumerable other things. And they have to take into account what is the exact amount that may be attributable to the value of the land. From this it will be seen that the task before these Commissioners is enormously greater than the very simple task which from the years 1872–74 occupied the Local Government Board, with all their powers. I do submit that the Government should undertake this task piecemeal and by degrees. Let them begin, if they like, with the county boroughs. They had better not attempt this gigantic task, for which there is no precedent, and they will be far wiser if they confine their operations within certain limits. This would be all very well if there was suggested a great Imperial Roman census, and that in the eighth year of the reign of King Edward a decree came forth from the Treasurer that all the land should be enrolled.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 94.

  Division No. 453.]

  AYES.

  [7.50 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Harwood, George

  Armitage, R.

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

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Crooks, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Crossley, William J.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Henry, Charles S.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Beauchamp, E.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Bell, Richard

  Elibank, Master of

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Erskine, David C.

  Hodge, John

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Essex, R. W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hooper, A. G.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Brace, William

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Branch, James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Bright, J. A.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brooke, Stopford

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Hudson, Walter

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

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

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Jackson, R. S.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gill, A. H.

  Jenkins, J.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Glendinning, R G.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Glover, Thomas

  Jowett, F. W.

  Causton, Rt. Hen. Richard Knight

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lambert, George

  Cleland, J. W.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lamont, Norman

  Clough, William

  Hancock, J. G.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Marcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Taylor, Jonn W. (Durham)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Radford, G H.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Maclean, Donald

  Rees, J. D.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Richardson, A.

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Toulmin, George

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Verney, F. W.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Vivian, Henry

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Massie, J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walton, Joseph

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wardle, George J.

  Middlebrook, William

  Rowlands, J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Morrell, Philip

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Scarlsbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Myer, Horatio

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

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Napier, T. B.

  Sears, J. E.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Seely, Colonel

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Grady, J.

  Simon, John Ailsebrook

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  O'Malley, William

  Snowden, P.

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Partington, Oswald

  Steadman, W. C.

  Winfrey, R.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Summerbell, T.

  Pointer, J.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Guinness. Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Ed.)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Percy, Earl

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harris, Frederick Leverton)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hills, J. W.

  Renton, Leslie

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Renwick, George

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cave, George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Salter, Arthur Claveli

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Keswick, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Doughty, Sir George

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Fell, Arthur

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Foster, P. S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W.

  Gordon, J.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Guilding, Edward Alfred

  Oddy, John James

  Forster.

  Gretton, John

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Question put, "That the word 'all' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 96.

  Division No. 454]

  AYES.

  [8.0 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Armitage, R.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Radford, G. H.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Rees, J. D.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Bell, Richard

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Richardson, A.

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hodge, John

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Brace, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Branch, James

  Hooper, A. G.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Bright, J. A.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Rogers, F E. Newman

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Hornlman, Emslie John

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rowlands, J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hudson, Walter

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Jackson, R S.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jenkins, J.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Johnson, John (Gateshead

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Sears, J. E.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Seely, Colonel

  Cleland, J. W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Shackleton, David James

  Clough, William

  Laldlaw, Robert

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Clynes, J. R

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Simon, John Alisebrook

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lambert, George

  Snowden, P.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lamont, Norman

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lehmann, R. C

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Crooks, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Summerbell, T.

  Crossley, William J.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Macdonald, J R. (Leicester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Maclean, Donald

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Elibank, Master of

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Toulmin, George

  Erskine, David C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Essex, R. W.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Verney, F. W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Marnham, F. J.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Massie, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Fenwick, Charles

  Middlebrook, William

  Walton, Joseph

  Ferens, T. R.

  Molteno, Percy Aiport

  Wardle, George J.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Morrell, Philip

  Watt, Henry A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Myer, Horatio

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Glendinning, R. G

  Napier, T. B.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Glover, Thomas

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G (Hull, W.)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  O Grady, J.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Hancock, John George

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Winfrey, R.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Harwood, George

  Pointer, J.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Cave, George

  Ashley, W. W.

  Bowles, G Stewart

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Clyde, J. Avon

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Ccates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  1176

  1177

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Rasdles, Sir John Scurrah

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Kerry, Earl of

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Doughty, Sir George

  Keswick, William

  Renton, Leslie

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Renwick, George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lock wood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Foster, P. S

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Gibb, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Gordon, J.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Starkey, John R.

  Gretton, John

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Oddy, John James

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Hills, J. W.

  Percy, Earl

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord R. Cecil and Mr. Lane-Fox.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Question, "That the words 'and distinguishing that portion of the site value which is due to the value of the land for agricultural purposes' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE claimed to move, "That the Main Question be now put."
  Amendment made, in Section (1), to leave out the word "their" ["their land as estimated"] and to insert instead thereof the word "the."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER Mr. CLAVELL SALTER moved, in Section (1), after the word "land" ["land as estimated in each case"], to insert the words "and distinguishing that portion of the site value which is due to the capacity of the land for agricultural purposes."
  I do not think I owe any apology to the Committee for handing in this Amendment in manuscript, because, having regard to the circumstances under which this Committee is now being conducted, it is impossible to have all the Amendments handed in in time to be placed on the Paper. I will endeavour to make my object clear. My Amendment proposes to enact that the valuers when they value the site value of agricultural land shall enter in separate columns that portion of the site value which is agricultural and that portion which is non-agricultural. I am very glad to have the opportunity of moving this Amendment, becauses it raises a point which upon a previous occasion did not receive a very satisfactory reply from the Government. Supposing there is an area of land which has an agricultural value of £10, and that value is raised to £30, will the Increment Value Duty be paid only on the new building increment or on the agricultural increment as well? I was surprised to hear the somewhat confused
  1178
  and unsatisfactory answer to that question. I had thought it was made quite clear that the Increment Value Duty and the Undeveloped Land Duty were not in any circumstances to be paid on any element of purely agricultural value or increment. I certainly had thought, and I am sure people outside had thought, that the concession had at any rate been obtained unequivocally that purely agricultural land, whatever its increment, should be wholly exempt from these taxes. The manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will receive this Amendment will make it perfectly clear whether that is so or not.
  My submission is that if you are going to confine the tax to non-agricultural increment you must distinguish in your 1909 valuation agricultural from non-agricultural site value, or you cannot afterwards decide whether the increment is agricultural or not. I will take the simplest possible concrete case and apply to it what will be the common daily machinery. Suppose a man is selling an area of land which I will assume to be all agricultural land. He has to send his conveyance up to Somerset House. He will say, "You see the purchase price of the land I am selling is £5,000. Will you kindly let me know the duty payable?" The Commissioners will thereupon have first of all to ascertain what is called the site value on the occasion. They will take £5,000, the total value, and make the deductions which Clause 2 require, and so arrive at the site value. That is the easiest part of their task. I assume they arrive at the site value of £3,500. In order to see whether an increment has taken place or not they

  1179
  must turn to the 1909 register, which, I will assume, dates 20 years back. They will not find the area there in the ordinary case; they will find all sorts of other areas, and will have to work out this area as best they can by getting together certain other 1909 areas—other snippets and small pieces. Anyone who has considered how this will work has seen the perpetual subdivision which will go on with no power of aggregation. The register will soon get into a condition of an enormous number of minute areas. Having identified the land, the Commissioners will then have to proceed to apportion, asking themselves in each case as to each fraction of land which goes to make up the whole area what would have been the site value of these fractions in 1909, 20 years ago. I will assume these industrious officials have done all that. It will be a matter of enormous difficulty, and obviously it will be a mere conjecture, because people will be asking themselves, "If we had been alive in 1909, and had been valuing the southwest corner of this field, what would have been the value we should have attached to it?" Let us suppose all that done, and that they have arrived at a 1909 site value of £3,000. They will then say to the owner we ascertain here an increment of £500. We make the 1909 site value £3,000, and the present value £3,500. You must therefore pay £100. That, however, does not dispose of the matter or in the least ascertain the taxpayer's liability. The owner will say, "Yes, I accept all that, but this £500 increment is purely agricultural, and I pay no Increment Value Duty upon it. There has been no increase in the building value of this land. On the contrary, the building contingency has rather dwindled in the last 20 years. The change which has taken place is purely in the agricultural value." If I am right in the contention that the Government honestly do not desire to exact this duty on agriculural increment, the owner will be perfectly right, and will owe no tax, although an increment has taken place.
  How can the Commissioners ascertain whether there has been a non-agricultural increment on which alone the duty is to be paid? It is perfectly clear—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me—that the only way in which you can ascertain that is by looking to see what is the present agricultural site value, eliminating that value which is due to any building contingency; and, looking again
  1180
  at what was the agricultural site value, eliminating any building contingency when the 1909 valuation was made. It is only by comparing those two agricultural site values that you can get at the non-agricultural increment on which alone duty is payable. Is not that incontrovertible? If this Amendment is rejected, the Commissioners will have to go back to the 1909 valuation and ask themselves a fresh series of questions as to every small piece of land with which they will have to deal, and which goes to make up the area in question. They will have to ask themselves: Supposing we had been valuing the land in 1909, what is the proportion of the site value we should then have attributed under the then conditions to agriculture? Really it brings the matter to a perfect absurdity. It is obvious they cannot do that, and that they cannot ascertain the non-agricultural increment unless, when they turn up the 1909 register, they can see there not merely a site value of 1909 of £3,000, but that site value divided into two parts, £2,500 agricultural and £500 building contingency. Only if they can see that will it be possible to ascertain the non-agricultural increment. Having once made this concession to agriculture, the Government must carry it out by this piece of machinery, or their plan is unworkable. It will be impossible to ascertain what is purely the agricultural increment unless you have separately stated in 1909 that portion of the site value which is due purely to agriculture. It is absolutely necessary that the Government should accept this Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The point before the Committee is really a simple one, although the hon. Member has made a very long speech which is more or less irrelevant to the Amendment. It can be stated in a minute. I accept the Amendment, but it will be necessary to substitute the word "value" for "capacity" in order to-make it conform to Section (2) of Clause 11. The hon. and learned Gentleman put forward all sorts of reasons in order to find one valid one for the Amendment he had put down. Under Clause 11, Section (2), it must be the value of the land, because we only charge the Undeveloped Land Duty on the margin between the agricultural value and the building value.
  Mr. SALTER: That was the point I was trying to make.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is necessary to substitute "value" for "capacity."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I should like to be quite sure that this carries out our object. It has had to be done in a hurry. Our object is not in regard to Undeveloped Land Duty, because Clause 11, Section (2), already secures our aim. It is perfectly clear in regard to the case of agricultural land, Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged so far as the site value of the land is due to the value of the land for agricultural purposes. But our object is to get at the Increment Value Duty. I want to have it made perfectly clear, for this is a very important point. I do not see how this Amendment, which asks that the agricultural value shall be separately shown, meets our point, because increment value will still be charged on the whole value. I do not see where provisions are made in the Bill for the deduction. If the hon. Gentleman will explain how we are going to get the deduction, I should be satisfied. We are getting the distinction, but I do not see how we are getting the deduction in respect of Increment Value Duty under Section (2).
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is purely a question of value. We have first of all to distinguish between the agricultural value and the total site value of the land. We are dealing only with the original value. Where we charge Increment Duty, any deduction that is to be made has no reference at all to this particular Clause.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: May I make my point clear. It is done indirectly. If your original site value in regard to agricultural land which has acquired a building value is to be calculated from the time that that value is acquired, then your whole object is reached by simply altering the time at which the valuation is made. You arrive at it by that means perfectly simple, without affecting any other clause whatever.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That would be perfectly impossible. I think the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Salter) very much better. If the hon. and learned Member will substitute "value" for "capacity" I will accept it.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: There is the question of the machinery to be subsequently introduced to carry it out. There is no object in distinguishing the agricultural value unless we understand it is to be exempted
  1182
  from Increment Value Duty. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a pledge to that effect?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Really! Anyone would imagine that I was moving the Amendment. It has been moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I have accepted it, and now the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) turns round and says it is worthless.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I did not say so. I desire to have this question settled. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Salter) moved the Amendment solely with the object, arising out of the Debate which we have just had, and arising out of the pledge repeatedly given by the right hon. Gentleman, that agricultural land shall not be subject to Increment Value Duty on its agricultural value. If the right hon. Gentleman will only tell us he accepts this Amendment with the intention of carrying that out, I shall be satisfied. Does he say that he did not intend anything of the sort? Did he not intend that agricultural land should be free from Increment Duty on its agricultural value?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As long as agricultural land is agricultural land there is no charge in the shape of Undeveloped Land Duty, but the moment it passes into he category of building land it has to be valued. Now the hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to extend the whole thing. He wants, when the land becomes building land, that it shall still retain all the privileges which it had as agricultural land. I must absolutely decline to do that.
  Mr. SALTER: I will move to substitute the word "value" for "capacity"; but may I explain that I took the words of my Amendment from the Bill itself. Still, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer prefers the word "value" I am content.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to leave out the word "capacity" and to insert instead thereof the word "value."
  Question, "That the word 'capacity' stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Section (1), to omit the words, "as estimated in each case by the owners, that value being declared separately as respects."
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Of course, the way in which this clause has been altered has changed the whole scheme. It is obvious that these words will require to be left out. There are other Amendments further down on the Paper, and one of them provides that the owner of the land may, if he sees fit, furnish his own estimate of the total site value. That is the effect of the words now being left out.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is purely voluntary on his part.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Yes, instead of being compulsory, as in the Bill as originally framed. This is another illustration of the confusion which arises when we have to deal with Amendments brought forward in this way. There is one point I want to ask about. The clause contemplates that if a man chooses voluntarily to send in his particulars he shall be at liberty to do so, and the Commissioners shall take that into account; but I find that in other places references to returns sent in in that way are struck out. What I want to ask is this: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to give the owners of property any facilities of any kind for sending in these returns? Is he going to furnish them with forms? How is the thing going to be done?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): That is not relevant. This is one of a series of Amendments, and it is to leave out from "land" to "each."
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Of course, it is one of a series of Amendments. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give us an explanation in a few words as to what form of procedure it is intended to adopt in the first instance. Will all the owners of land be got hold of and asked to send in their statements voluntarily if they wish? I think that would be a great help to the Commissioners, and enable them to see what land wanted valuing and what land did not. They would have some ground to go upon. The complete alteration of this clause makes it extremely difficult to follow.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I can only, with the consent of the Committee, refer to the matter, because it arises purely on a new
  1184
  Section (4). The course indicated by the hon. Gentleman is the course which will be followed. Forms will be supplied to all owners of land for the purpose of giving information which will assist the Government in preparing its valuation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: All the Amendments now go out down to the word "owner" ["if the owner thinks fit"].
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There is an Amendment standing before mine in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes, there is an Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I call upon him to move.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the word "the" ["as respects each piece of the land"].
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: May I ask you, Sir, as a point of order, about the next Amendment on the Paper after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. It is an Amendment which I put down in regard to cases where the owner desires that the land should be treated separately, whether or not under separate occupation.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It will not read in the altered circumstances.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Yes, Sir; it was designed to suit the altered circumstances. It is a very substantial point.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will look he will find it reads "each piece of land which the owner desires should be treated separately whether or not under separate occupation, and if the owner thinks fit as respects any part of any land, which is under separate occupation and being estimated as on the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and nine," obviously it does not read.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It reads having regard to the further alterations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not dealing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, but with the hon. Member's. Obviously it does not read.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: May I point of order, Sir. I understand that the are placed? We must either take this clause, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendments or without, and if we try to make sense of them with the right hon. Gentleman's Amendments we have some ruled in and some ruled out for the purpose of making sense with the original clause. It is a very difficult position in which we are placed.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of order, Sir. I understand that the position is this. My hon. Friend is anxious to move an Amendment, which he has drafted in such a way as to make it read with the clause as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to amend it and as it appears on this White Paper, supplied by the Government and circulated to the House, and you, Sir, have ruled that he cannot move it, because it will not read with the clause as it stands in the Bill. May I respectfully submit, Sir, that as we have the intentions of the Government set forth we must, for the purposes of this discussion, treat the clause as it appears on the White Paper, and not as it appears in the original Bill. If we are confined to moving Amendments, without regard to the subsequent Amendments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to introduce, it is obvious that a great deal of work which is now done in Committee will have to be re-done on Report.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in the Amendment of the Government it goes on to say, "Each piece of land which is under separate occupation, and, if the owner so requires, any part of any land which is under separate occupation, shall be separately valued." That is provided
  for in the Government Amendment, and, of course, the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford) refers to the state of matters before this Amendment of the Government was put on the Paper.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: My Amendment makes the Government description wider, and is to enable the owner to have pieces of land valued together, whether they are in separate occupation or not. This is a very important point.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place and claimed to move, "That, in respect of the words of the Clause to the end thereof, the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I submit that that Motion is not applicable, as there is no question before the Committee. You have called upon my Amendment, but I have hot yet moved it.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must remember that the Closure may be moved at any time, even while an hon. Member is speaking.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have not yet begun to speak.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May we have your ruling on the point of order?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This excludes the point, but I have stated already my view of the Amendment that it is clearly out of order, and it is excluded.
  Question put, "That, in respect of the words of the Clause to the end thereof, the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 69.

  Division No. 455]

  AYES.

  [8.50 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Brace, William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Branch, James

  Cleland, J W.

  Armitage, R.

  Bright, J. A.

  Clough, William

  Asqulth, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Brooke, Stopford

  Clynes, J. R.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Brunner, J. F L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O-

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

  Barnard, E. B.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Crooks, William

  Barnes, G. N.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Byles, William Pollard

  Crossley, William J.

  Bell, Richard

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lambert, George

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rowlands, J.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Elibank, Master of

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Essex, R. W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Esslemont, George Birdie

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lupton, Arnold

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Sears, J. E.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Seely, Colonel

  Ferguson, R. C Munro

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Shackleton, David James

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Maclean, Donald

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Gill, A. H.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Snowden, P

  Glendinning, R. G.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Callum, John M.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Summerbell, T.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Massle, J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Harvey, w. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Middlebrook, William

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Harwood, George

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Tomkinson, James

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Morrell, Philip

  Toulmin, George

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips,

  Hemmerde, Edward George

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

  Verney, F. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Myer, Horatio

  Vivian, Henry

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Napier, T. B.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Walton, Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wardle, George J.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Grady J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hodge, John

  O'Malley, William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hooper, A. G-

  Partington, Oswald

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Hope, John Deans (File, West)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, E.)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Howard, Mon. Geoffrey

  Pointer, J.

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Hudson, Walter

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Jenkins, J.

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Richardson, A.

  Winfrey, R.

  Jones, William (Carnarvon)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  NOES.

  Ashley, W. W

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Edm.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington).

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Peel, Hon. W R. W.

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hills, J. W

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cave, George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Renwick, George

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Long, Rt. Hon Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Aciand-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Gordon, J.

  Oddy, John James

  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to move to leave out the words "thinks fit as respects" ["and if the owner thinks fit, as respects any part of any land"], and insert the words "so requires."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Owing to the procedure adopted it is exceedingly difficult for us to know what is going on. I think it would have been at least for the convenience of the Committee if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when his Amendment was called out of its proper place—[Cries of "Withdraw."] Perhaps hon. Members will permit me to explain. It would have been convenient if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained to us what it is he is doing. It is difficult under these circumstances to find the Amendment on the Paper, then to compare it with the Bill as it stands, and afterwards to find from the printed paper how the clause will read after the Amendment has been made.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think I have taken an exceptional course in not merely publishing the Amendments, but in publishing the clauses as they will appear when the Amendments have been made. I do not think that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) were called for at all. The Government have taken every reasonable step they could in order to enlighten the Committee as to the effect of the Amendments. Surely this Amendment is a necessary corollary of the change which provides for the Government undertaking the valuation instead of the private owner. When the private owner was to undertake the responsibility of preparing the valuation he could, if he thought fit, cut up a unit into smaller bits for the purpose of valuation, but now, since the Government are undertaking the valuation, it is for the owner to have parts of the land under separate occupation valued separately if he so requires. This Amendment is necessary in order to carry out the valuation, having regard to the change that has been made.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his explanation, which is perfectly lucid. I understand the right hon. Gentleman is trying by these words to give the owner power to require the Commissioners to value separately things which are in the same occupation. This seems to me to be a suitable occasion for my hon. Friend (Mr. Watson Rutherford)
  1190
  to raise a point which he wishes to put before the Committee, namely, whether the owner should not have the power of requiring the Commissioners not merely to separate for the purpose of valuation what is in one occupation, but also to unite in one valuation what may be in several occupations. It is quite clear that if the Bill remains exactly as it is without my hon. Friend's Amendment there will be in many cases unnecessary valuations, imposing much additional trouble and expense on the owners. I think it is reasonable and just that the owners should have the option of requiring one valuation when there are several occupations.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think this is an important point which ought to be decided. The Government propose by this Amendment to give the owner of property power to have a single piece of land divided, and to have four or five separate valuations for a field.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Amendment proposes to leave out the words "thinks fit, as respects" in order to insert the words "so requires," and, therefore, the valuation which the hon. Member is suggesting could not be provided for here.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I bow to your ruling, but I am sure you will allow me to point out that the words proposed to be introduced entirely alter the whole meaning and effect of the sentence from one end to the other. It is impossible to look at this Amendment in the light of the words to be left out. You have to look at the sentence as it will read after it has been amended by the insertion of the words "so requires." If an owner can have any part of his land separately valued, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer allow him to have the converse right, namely, to have coupled together pieces of land in separate occupation for the purpose of one valuation?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is purely a drafting Amendment. It gives the owner of land a perfect right to require a separate valuation of any part of the land which is under separate occupation. What the hon. Member is now proposing would not be in order on this Amendment.
  Mr. W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The point referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford) is one which might have been raised on an Amendment stand-

  1191
  ing in my name. The point is an important one, which can be put right at a later stage. The Amendment which I desired to move was that any part of any land which is under separate occupation should be separately valued if the owner so required. That puts on the owner of the land the power to ask the Commissioners to give a separate valuation of any part. But the Committee must remember that for the purpose of this Bill the owner is, in some cases, not the real owner.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That cannot be raised on this Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We have considered very carefully the point raised by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson), and at first I was rather disposed to think that something like what he proposes might be done, but for reasons which I cannot go into now, but which I will explain later on, I cannot take this view.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is quite sufficient to understand that you are against it.
  Mr. GEORGE CAVE: This Amendment gives power to the owner to make certain requisitions and objections. I do not find in the Bill any provision to cover the ease of an owner, being an infant or otherwise incapable of making objection or making requisition under this Amendment, or taking other steps in the Bill. Will the learned Attorney-General tell the Committee what is supposed to be done in a ease of this kind?
  Sir W. ROBSON: This case has been met by the definition of owner: "The expression 'owner' means the person entitled to the freehold of the land, except that where land is let on lease (not being a mining lease within the meaning of paragraph 11 of Section 2 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881) for a term of which more than 50 years are unexpired, the lessee under the lease shall be deemed to be the owner, instead of the person entitled to the freehold."
  Mr. CAVE: Perhaps the point will be considered before we go to the definition.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Yes.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: When will it be necessary for the owner to make this requisition?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That obviously has nothing to do with the Amendment.
  Question, "That the words 'thinks fit as respects' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'so required' be there inserted."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think that this does raise a very important issue indeed. I hear hon. Members opposite laughing. Have they made a very close study of this Bill? Have they realised that if we pass these words it follows that if the land is let in allotments of one-eighth or one-quarter of an acre, with perhaps 100 different people on one field, a separate valuation will be required from the Commissioners for every allotment? Do they consider that that is a proposition which ought to be proposed without remonstrance or question? It appears to me to be a most important question from the point of view of the taxpayer a3 to whether a separate valuation should be made. Surely we are here as a business Assembly trying to pass a businesslike measure. Is it business-like or reasonable that we should enact such a proposal? [An HON. MEMBER: "Where the owner so requires."] The hon. Member's interruption is quite a reasonable one, but it shows that he has not appreciated what is being done. If it were only where the owner so required, I entirely admit that there would be no cause for complaint whatever. If the owner requires that every separate piece of land shall be separately valued we could not possibly complain; but each piece of land which is in separate occupation, and if the owner so requires any part of any land shall be separately valued. So the hon. Member will see that the words we are now discussing definitely enact that every piece of land on which there is a separate occupation shall be separately valued. Does the hon. Member think that it is a business proposition where you have got a 30-acre field divided into 30 allotments of one acre each that each of those should be separately valued? It would be a great waste of public money. It is perfectly obvious you have got to have subsequent identification of all these plots. They have got to be put together and identified, and, as I pointed out to the House when we were discussing the Report stage of the valuation Resolution earlier in the evening, it is obviously necessary that there should be a map and plan attached

  1193
  to every valuation, otherwise it is quite impossible that these plots can be afterwards identified.
  Here you have a field containing all these different small plots. You have innumerable sub-divisions of occupation. You have an ordinary pair of cottages on an estate. There are thousands of pairs of cottages all over agricultural England. According to the words which we are now asked to pass you take an ordinary pair of cottages in occupation of two agricultural labourers, and a separate valuation is to be made of each, a separate plan is to be drawn, and a separate document to be prepared and docketed by the valuers for each of this pair of cottages. I am perfectly aware that the figure would be identical, and that two calculations would not necessarily be required, but they have to undergo the expense of a separate valuation, and surely there must be some limitation to the expense which the taxpayer is to be asked to bear. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, some of them, may still perhaps be under the impression that it matters very little, because the cost is not being placed on the owners of the land. It is not so. It is a burden which is being placed on the taxpayers of the country, and every taxpayer of the country is now being asked to pay for an expensive, cumbrous and impossible machinery by which to value every single separate occupation in the country and every part of such occupation as may be required. I submit that the Government ought to propose something less cumbrous, something more businesslike and less costly, and I hope the Attorney-General may be able to say that this separate valuation will not be required.
  Sir W. ROBSON: In what we have done we have followed the ordinary practice adopted in rating. At present all hereditaments separately occupied are separately rated, and no other plan is possible. With regard to this tax, we are following precisely what has been the ordinary, invariable, and inevitable course with regard to rates.
  Colonel ROBERT WILLIAMS: I have two or three acres of allotments, and those allotments are not separately rated. There are instances in which a farmer not only gives a garden, but gives a potato ground to his labourer, but that ground is not separately rated. A great many plots of land are separately occupied all over the country, but they are not separately rated.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman ever heard of compounding?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I have heard of it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am in the position of my hon. and gallant Friend in also having some land which is used partly for small holdings and partly for allotments under the district council. That use of land has hitherto been considered by the Government a meritorious purpose to which to apply it, but it has now come under the ban of the present Government. ["Oh."] It has come under the ban of the present Government, and come under that ban for the first time in the present Session. A couple of years ago nothing was more meritorious than to apply land to small holdings or allotments, but now if land is used to get more money by letting it in a different way that is an "economic use" of the land for which apparently no one is to be blamed. In respect of the 20 acres of land let in allotments, I am not assessed separately for each allotment, but I am assessed on the property as a whole. I ask the Attorney-General what advantage he gains by insisting upon a second valuation of each of these properties? Bear in mind that the case of the Government is that if the land is purely agricultural land we are not going to tax it. The moment the land ceases to be used as agricultural land every plot which has been separately valued ceases to have its separate existence. The moment you cut up your field for building purposes part of each plot probably becomes a portion of the road; some plots may disappear wholly in the road, and the remaining portions of plots are thrown together or are cut up in different ways. Of what possible use to anyone is the separate valuation of these plots when the moment the land comes to be used for another purpose that valuation disappears, and there is nothing permanent about it? For the purpose of your Undeveloped Land Tax, and for the purpose of the Increment Tax, you may just as well value it as a whole as value it separately. While the land remains in allotments a separate valuation will be worthless, because all your purposes would be fulfilled equally well by a valuation of the land as a whole. When the land ceases to be used for allotments, that valuation will be equally useful, because each plot, separately valued, would lose its identity in the new laying out of the estate. I hope I

  1195
  have made my point clear to the Attorney-General. Nothing he has said touches that case, and I should be very much obliged to him if he would tell us what answer he has to give, and why, in such circumstances, he insists on a second valuation?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I really do not think any further answer is required, but I do not wish to appear in any way discourteous. The case put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) was that of a 30-acre field, cut up into the eighth of an acre allotments. There would be really no difficulty in such a case as that. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) says that these allotments will lose their identity when the land came to be used for building purposes. Perhaps they will. But you have got a 30-acre field, divided into eighth of an acre allotments, so that the valuation of the 30 acres would be uniform. It is said, further, that we would lose the purpose of the separate valuation when the land afterwards became devoted to building purposes. You have valued one-eighth of an acre, and that gives you the rate for the whole of the 30 acres. Then if the owner wanted separate valuations you would not have to deal with thirty acres, but smaller portions. The supposition was a thirty-acre field cut into one-eighth of an acre allotments, and if you are going to have separate valuations for all those fractions, I say that is a fallacious question. If the thirty-acre field is uniform one valuation will do. Therefore it does not appear to me a case in which we should depart from the same rule as the rating rule, namely, to make your unit of valuation separate occupation.
  Mr. G. LOYD COURTHOPE: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he has any personal practical experience of allotments?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I have a great deal in legislation concerning rating, and such observation I dare say as the hon. Gentleman has had with his residence in the country, perhaps a little more than mine.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: I do not boast of my experience, but I think if the hon. and learned Gentleman realised the situation with regard to allotments even so well as my small experience enables me that he would have hesitated before he gave the answer he has given. These words, if allowed to remain in the Bill, will,
  1196
  in my opinion, strike a very serious blow at the cottage occupier in our country village. I hear some hon. Gentleman laugh. I daresay he knows a great many cases, and if he does not I may have to give him a great many of land which has a distinct building value, and which could not only be put into the market profitably, but could be sold at once, because the adjoining plots in many cases have been sold for building purposes, but which is retained in allotments by the owner simply for the benefit of the people living in the village where it is situated. Those allotments are let at nominal rents of a halfpenny or a penny the rood, vary greatly in size, and are occupied by different occupiers. The fact that the paths and hedges are in occupation of the landlord makes a further complication of the question of valuation. I do not contend all allotments are let on those terms, but I think any hon. Member' living in rural districts can bring many to his mind. If any extra burden is placed on such owners it will certainly make them reconsider their decision to retain the land in allotments, and will persuade them to sell the plots to some prospective builder, or, perhaps, run up villas themselves to the benefit of their pockets but to the prejudice of those living in the vicinity. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will give the matter further consideration.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: What is the definition of occupation. Surely if each bit of allotment ground is taken by the year, that constitutes occupation, whatever the terms of the tenure of the whole of the field may be. If the Commissioners find that allotments are held by the year, I submit they will be bound to value those separately, and the option of the owner as to the separation of particular plots will not avail. I would also submit, following on that, it will be necessary for a plan of each occupation to be affixed to the valuation roll, as, otherwise, the boundaries will be confused within a very short time; and when you come to assess the site value you will not know the area on which you are assessing it.
  Mr. J. W. HILLS: If the owner of land lets land for grazing for one year by auction, who is in occupation of the land, the tenant of the grazing or the owner?
  Sir W. ROBSON: Those are all questions which have to be decided on the individual questions as they arise. It is perfectly impossible to give a definition.

  1197
  They are given in the ordinary text-books, with which the hon. Member is as familiar as I am. In each case it will have to be decided whether the particular tenure amounts to occupation.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Unless there is some real reason for not accepting this Amendment, the Government should do so. If the Amendment is accepted, the owner can have his estate valued, as it is now, for Death Duties and other purposes, or he can ask that each separate bit or any bit of his land can be valued separately. The Amendment suggests that the Commissioners should have a discretion, and that it should not be obligatory on them to assess every bit of the estate which is in separate occupation. In a case where rates are compounded for there is no need for separate assessment. [Hon. Members: "Yes."] I use the word "compounding"
  as to a house occupied as a coachman's or gardeners cottage, or something of that kind. Again, there are certain outlying cottages, and unless there is some object there is no reason for separate valuation. It will add very materially to the expense. Take the case of an estate near London in hands of trustees, an estate of which I happen to be trustee. If this Bill passes it will be one's duty to send down a valuer to value all these separate houses, instead of having them valued, as is done for the purpose of Death Duties, as one estate, and that will add very largely indeed to the expense, both to the Government and to the owner.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 74.

  Division No. 456.]

  AYES.

  [9.40 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Elibank, Master of

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Erskine, David C.

  Lambert, George

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Essex, R. W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Armitage, R.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Barnard, E. B.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Barnes, G. N.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gill, A. H.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bell, Richard

  Glendinning, R. G

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Brace, William

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Branch, James

  Hancock, J. G.

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

  Bright, J. A.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Brunner, J, F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harwood, George

  Massie, J.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Middlebrook, William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morrell, Philip

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

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

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Myer, Horatio

  Cleland, J. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Napier, T. B.

  Clough, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hodge, John

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Holt, Richard Doming

  O'Grady, J

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cox, Harold

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Crooks, William

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Crossley, William J.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Pointer, J.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Jackson, R. S

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jenkins, J.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Radford, G. H.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Jones, William (Carnarvon)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jowett, F. W.

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

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Richardson, A.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Laldlaw, Robert

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Summerbell, T.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Rowlands, J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Toulmin, George

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Winfrey, R.

  Sears, J. E.

  Verney, F. W.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Seely, Colonel

  Vivian, Henry

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Walsh, Stephen

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Walton, Joseph

  Snowden, P.

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  NOES

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex, F.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Oddy, John James

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gordon, J.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Renwick, George

  Cave, George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stanier, Seville

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham)

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Courthope and Mr. J. W. Hills.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN called on the Earl of Ronaldshay.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understood that you had selected an Amendment before that of the Noble Lord.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I find on reconsideration that the question is raised in other parts of the Bill.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I submit that the question raised in other places is not the same as that raised here. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope)—I think I am correctly interpreting his intentions—has put down this later date in order to raise the question that the taxation of the site value should be on its value before it was depreciated by the introduction of the present Budget, and that no man should be taxed on a supposed increment which was merely the partial recovery from the depreciation
  1200
  produced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that that was urged on previous occasions. We cannot go into it at present.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I desire to move the Amendment standing in the name of my Noble Friend (the Earl of Ronaldshay), to add at the end of Section (1) the words: "Any costs and expenses reasonably incurred by an owner in connection with any valuation or valuations made for the purposes of this Section shall be defrayed by the Commissioners out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purpose." I think the Amendment explains itself. It is quite obvious that this valuation, though taken over by the Government, must entail a very large expense on the owners of land. There is no proper provision for their recoupment. It is quite true that

  1201
  in Clause 22 it is proposed that in certain instances costs may be awarded against the Commissioners. That only refers to cases of appeal. But even in those cases there would be very considerable expense, which would still fall upon the owner, and the smaller the owner the greater in proportion the expense will be. A small owner will suddenly be served with a valuation. He will have to consult a lawyer. The lawyer will probably not know very much about it, and will direct him to a valuer. He will have to pay the valuer's fee, and the lawyer's fee, in order to establish the case with which he can go before the Commissioners. Even if he persuades the Commissioners that he is right, and no appeal is necessary, he will be put to a very heavy expense—an expense perhaps heavier than many years payment of the tax in the case of the Undeveloped Land Duty, or perhaps more than the whole of the increment value. In those circumstances this Amendment will carry out the intention of the Government that the real cost of the valuation should fall upon the State.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I see no reason why we should pay any expenses—if there are any. There is no reason why the Government should pay them in this case than in the case of the Death Duties. The Government are undertaking the cost of the valuation. The owner no doubt will have to give such particulars as he is able to do. But I do not see that any expense should arise on that, and certainly not more than is usually necessary in the case of the Death Duties. The hon. Gentleman says that the owner will have to employ a lawyer. What does he want with a lawyer?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: For the same reason that the Government needs an Attorney-General.
  Sir W. ROBSON: That, I should take it, would be a very creditable reason. But it might also be a desire on the part of the landowner to evade the tax. I do not think that the Government ought to be called upon to pay lawyers for advising landowners how to evade the tax. Even if the principle were right the Amendment is couched in terms so vague that it is impossible to accept it. But the principle is wrong. The Government have gone as far as they should, certainly as far as they reasonably can, in bearing the cost of the valuation. That leaves no necessary or substantial expense on
  1202
  the subject at all. Such little expense as there is is much the same as he bears in. the case of other land transactions.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that there is much more in the Amendment moved on behalf of my Noble Friend by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield than the Attorney-General is willing to admit. My hon. Friend happened to suggest that the taxpayer might want to consult a lawyer. That filled the Attorney-General with horror. What should any man go to a lawyer for unless he were about to commit an iniquity? It throws a lurid light on the learned Attorney-General's legal experience, and the clients who have previously consulted him. But it may be that the reason the taxpayer wishes to consult, a lawyer is a perfectly legitimate one. The Commissioners may ask for information, not about the estate as a whole, but about the separate allotments, and the taxpayer may wish to know whether he is bound to give the Commissioners such information. He may wish to consult a law-lawyer for a purpose like that, or for a hundred different purposes in this Bill; but, whether he consults a lawyer or not, it is quite evident he will have to consult a valuer or a surveyor in order to check the valuation which is made by the Government. The Attorney-General says there is no reason why a man should pay in these cases more than he would need to pay in a valuation for Death Duty purposes. He forgets for the moment that, the valuation which is required here is something absolutely and totally different from the valuation that is required for the Death Duties. The valuation is not for the purpose of value which exists, but for value which does not exist. If the Commissioners are to have the right to require owners to supply information which it is in their power to give, and which they deem necessary for the purposes of this valuation, then you put the landowner to any amount of expense. You say to him: "We require from you a statement of the land you own, of the different occupations oil that land. We require a statement as to the value of every kind of work, and then we arrive at the value of the land as it is now, and we require from you a statement of what it would cost to divest the land of everything which is on it and every value added to the land by you or your predecessors in title." The landowner may be put to enormous expense in searching out

  1203
  the past history of this land, which now for the first time becomes necessary. He may be put not only to very great expense, but he may have very great difficulty in getting out all the facts. Of course, in the case of a big estate, which has been managed as one whole, and where all the transactions are recorded in the estate office there would be easily obtainable a perfect record. In that case the cost may be comparatively small, but taking the little men who have bought from the big man's estate plots here and there, how are they to obtain all these particulars without considerable trouble and expense, which will amount to much more than the individual's contribution to the tax. Is it to be said by the Government that they are entitled to put upon thousands of small owners all over the country the expense of supplying all that information? That is the position in which the Attorney-General's reply leaves this matter, and puts the small owner in a perfectly intolerable position.
  Mr. J. ROWLANDS: Would it not be intolerable to put a tax upon the ordinary ratepayers?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman says it would be intolerable to put this expense upon the general taxpayer, though if there is any benefit to be derived from all this expense it goes to the general taxpayer because it goes into the revenues of the country, yet so small is the benefit and so heavy is the expense that the hon. Gentleman says it would be intolerable to make the general taxpayer pay it, and therefore the Government make certain individual taxpayers, who derive no benefit from the tax, but on the contrary suffer by it, pay the expenses. I am grateful to the hon. Member for the strength he has given to my argument. I hope the Government will reconsider their attitude upon this question, and that they will not add another to the many intolerable hardships which they have been putting upon the landowners.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General seems to think that there was no necessity on the part of the owners of land to employ lawyers, but has he considered the demands that are going to be made upon the owners of land under Section (3) of Clause 16 as the Bill stands? Under that section the owner is to be asked by the Commissioners
  1204
  to supply them with a whole lot of information, and to make returns within a very short period of time. How in the case, for instance, of the ground landlord of a piece of land let upon a building lease of long duration is he to supply all this information? Everyone knows that land is liable to have changed hands several times from the time of the original grant. You suddenly ask an owner in such a case as that to give to the Commissioners a considerable amount of information, to make out an elaborate return on a variety of subjects. The amount of information which owners may be asked to supply, as in the case of the ground landlord I mentioned who has parted with the letting of the land for a considerable period of time before this came into force, will entail very considerable difficulty and expense, and cannot be done without professional or legal advice. I think the Attorney-General can hardly be serious when he suggests that owners can make these returns without employing legal or professional advice. They are going to be subjected to a certain tax on the valuation made by the Commissioners, and he suggests that they would be able to check this valuation and to protect themselves against imposition by the Commissioners without employing legal aid. I think no one seriously believes but that the owner will be put to considerable expense for the purpose of protecting himself.
  Mr. J. ROWLANDS: During the whole of these Debates we have heard from the other side of the House a great many arguments about the burden which is going to be put upon the taxpayer now that the Government has taken over the cost of the valuation. One of the arguments used over and over again is that that cost is a heavy burden to be placed upon the taxpayer. Now we have an Amendment upon the Paper which seeks to show that the owner who gets the necessary information required by the Commissioners is going to incur another very heavy financial responsibility, and the object of the Amendment is to transfer that responsibility from the owner to the general taxpayer. The Members of the party opposite by this Amendment suddenly changed their ground. Hitherto their argument was that we should not place upon the general taxpayer this heavy burden of the taxation, but now their argument is that you ought to relieve the owner of whatever little expenses he may incur in supplying information to the

  1205
  Commissioners. That was the reason why I called out when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) was speaking: "You want to place this further cost upon the shoulders of the general taxpayer." I think this Amendment shows a desire on the part of the landowners, now that they are relieved of the cost of valuation, to escape whatever little responsibility there is placed upon them, and I hope the Government will offer a most determined resistance to this Amendment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rowlands) seems to draw a distinction between the owner of a plot of ground and the owner of other kinds of property. Apparently, in the hon. Member's opinion, there is a general taxpayer who should be spared, and there is the man who happens to own a plot of land who ought not to be spared. The principle which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) placed before the Committee is one which I thought was common property on both sides of the House, whatever might be the divergence of our view upon matters connected with taxation. I thought it was commonly understood until I heard the speech of the hon. Member opposite—in fact, I thought it was almost an axiom—that any tax was bad which threw a heavy burden on the taxpayer, in addition to the contributions he had to make to the Treasury. Apparently that is not the view of the hon. Member opposite unless the taxpayer happens to be the general taxpayer. When it is a particular taxpayer who owns property, then it is perfectly right that he should not only pay his own contribution, but he should cheerfully bear a large amount of expenditure which benefits nobody except his expert advisers. We have proved conclusively, and certainly without reply, so far, that these taxes bring very little into the Exchequer compared with the cost to the individual taxpayer. Everybody, the Government included, must acknowledge that that is a great objection to urge against any tax. Even in the view of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the general cost of collecting this tax, if you include the cost of valuation, the net result to the Exchequer will be absolutely insignificant. Now it is proposed, in addition, to throw upon the individual who pays the tax a burden far greater than the tax itself imposes, and the only answer given by the Attorney-General is that, after all, the legal expenses
  1206
  connected with dealing with a tax of this sort ought to be borne by the taxpayer; and it is contrary to the general usage that it should be borne by the Exchequer. There are circumstances which, as everybody knows, differentiate this form of taxation from any other. There appears to be a profound illusion on the other side of the House that the hardship of these taxes is going to affect the richer class more than the poorer class, but, as a matter of fact, they are going to affect the poorer class more than the richer. The hon. Member who spoke last appears to be under the illusion for which I wish there was some substantial basis, that all the owners of land are rich. Unhappily it is too often the case that they are extremely poor, and I wish it were otherwise. I know there are poor and rich, but the poorer class far exceeds the rich class. Which class does the hon. Member think is going to be hit the most—the rich ones, or the poor ones? Manifestly and obviously, it will be the poor ones. The hon. Members opposite when dealing with these taxes on land generally take the case of estates well equipped with expert advice, estate offices, and an agent very competent to deal with all matters connected with land. In such cases, compared with the magnitude of the estates, the cost of expert advice is relatively insignificant. But what is going to happen with the very small owners who have no expert advice, and have no expert organisation? In such cases, when an opinion is given by competent persons it is charged for, and it will necessarily be charged at a late very high in proportion to the revenues of the person who has co pay the charge. What is to happen in those cases? Manifestly the cost, which this particular form of tax is going to impose upon those who will have to bear the burden, is going to fall in far greater proportion upon the poorer taxpayer than the rich; and it will fall upon them more heavily in proportion co their poverty. The poorer taxpayers will not venture to appeal or to challenge the Government valuation. I think that is extremely probable. I believe that is exactly what will occur, and in that case, of course, he will not go to the expert adviser. He will formally submit, and if the Treasury or the officials of the Inland Revenue, or the new body of officials who are going to deal with this matter, are really lenient and fair, it may be that no substantial injustice will be done at all to

  1207
  any class, but what guarantee has the poor taxpayer that justice will be done? Under this Bill you are going to give an appeal to the only man who can deal with it; that is, the taxpayer who is rich enough to obtain expert advice to convince him that an appeal has a chance of being given in his favour. But how is the poorer taxpayer and landowner to deal with this question? If he hopes to get any great advantage from this right of appeal then he must have access to expert assistance, and he cannot have expert assistance without paying for it like other people; and if he has to pay for it, it will be out of all proportion to his own income, or to the revenue which the country is going to derive from the taxation of his land. In these circumstances it is only fair to him, as well as to the advantage of the Treasury, that in such cases the owner should be relieved of genuine expenses if they are undergone in order that he may get justice. I think this is a matter which ought to receive consideration from the Government, providing the appeal is not undertaken for the purpose of merely squeezing out better terms. It may be that this Amendment is too wide, and may require qualifications; but the general principle ought to be adopted that if you are going to have an appeal, if you are going to have a Government valuation, you ought at least to give assistance to the class I have alluded to in a legitimate fashion. That seems an obvious corollary to the principle the Government have laid down in the course of the present discussion.
  Mr. REMNANT: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken referred to the fact that only expenses which have been reasonably incurred by the owner in connection with these valuations are asked for. The question of whether they are reasonable or not will have to be decided by the Commissioners, in whom the Government profess to have so much confidence.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The Amendment does not say so.
  Mr. REMNANT: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell me who will decide whether they are reasonable if the Commissioners do not?
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Gentleman should ask the Mover of the Amendment.
  Mr. REMNANT: The Bill provides that the decision as to whether costs are to be allowed or not shall be left in the hands of the Commissioners. The common case is where societies or large capitalists buy a large amount of land and divide it up into small plots. The deeds are left in the hands of the solicitors, and one of the conditions is that where they have to be referred to the cost is always payable to the solicitors who have charge of them. Surely it is not too much to ask that in the case of small owners buying small plots out of a large parcel of land they should have reasonable costs incurred by them in reference to these valuations allowed out of the money voted for the purposes of the valuation by Parliament?
  Mr. TOMKINSON: It appears to me that hon. Members opposite entirely overlook the fact that we have a valuation of land, and especially of agricultural land, already given in the rate-book of every parish.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Not the capital site value.
  Mr. TOMKINSON: When it was a question of the landowners receiving £2,000,000 there was no difficulty whatever in valuing the land; but now, when a small charge is to be imposed, it is impossible for it to be done without enormous expense. I say that for all practical purposes you can, by taking the rate-book, arrive approximately at a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. I see no difficulty whatever.
  Mr. A. B. MARKHAM Mr. A. B. MARKHAM rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 93.

  Division No. 457.]

  AYES.

  [10.20 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bell, Richard

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Armitage, R.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Barnes, G. N.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Radford, G. H.

  Brace, William

  Hebart, Sir Robert

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Branch, James

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Bright, J. A.

  Hodge, Johr

  Rea, Walter Russell (Gloucester)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Richardson, A.

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

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, E.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hudson, Walter

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jackson, R. S.

  Rowlands, J.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Jenkins, J.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Samuel, S M. (Whitechapel)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvon)

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Clough, William

  Jowett, F. W.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Kekewich, Sir George

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Sears, J. E.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Seely, Colonel

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Lambert, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

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

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Snowden, P.

  Crooks, William

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Steadman, W. C.

  Crossley, William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Summerbell, T.

  Duckworth, Sir Janies

  Lynch, H. B.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Maclean, Donald

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Elibank, Master of

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Erskine, David C.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Essex, R. W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Evans, Sir S T.

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Toulmin, George

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ferens, T. R.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Verney, F. W.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Vivian, Henry

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Marnham, F. J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Massie, J

  Wardle, George J.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Gill, A. H.

  Middlebrook, William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Watt, Henry A.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Glover, Thomas

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Worrell, Philip

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wiles, Thomas B.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Myer, Horatio

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Napier, T. B

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merion)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  O'Grady, J.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Harwood, George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Winfrey, R.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pointer, J.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk. E.)

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

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cave, George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers-

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Fell, Arthur

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Foster, P. S.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Gardner, Ernest

  1210

  1211

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Gordon, J.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Gretton, John

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Salter, Arthur Claveil

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stanier, Beville

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Starkey, John R.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Oddy, John James

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Hills, J. W.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Percy, Earl

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

  Kerry, Earl of

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Younger, George

  Keswick, William

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  King, Sir Henry (Seymour (Hull)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Renwick, George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Question put, "That those words be inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 231.

  Division No. 458.]

  AYES.

  [10.30 p.m.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Gordon, J.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ashley W. W.

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Edm.)

  Percy, Earl

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peat

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Renton, Leslie

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Renwick, George

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hills, J. W.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Cave, George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Salter, Arthur Claveil

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Keswick, William

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George G.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stanier, Beville

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Mason, James F (Windsor)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Moroeth, Viscount

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Winterton, Earl

  Foster, P. S.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Younger, George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Oddy, John James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Earl of Ronaldshay and Captain Clive.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bell, Richard

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Armitage, R.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Brace, William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Branch, James

  Cleland, J. W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bright, J. A.

  Clough, William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Clynes, J. R.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Barnard, E. B.

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Barran, Sir John (Hawick B.)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Byles, William Pollard

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

  Crooks, William

  Jowett, F. W.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Crossley, William J.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Lambert, George

  Rowlands, J.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lamont, Norman

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Schwann, c. Duncan (Hyde)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

  Erskine, David C.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Sears, J. E.

  Essex, R. W.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Seely, Colonel

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lynch, H. B.

  Shackleton, David James

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Fenwick, Charles

  Maclean, Donald

  Snowden, P.

  Ferens, T. R

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Fergusson, R. C. Munro

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  M'Callum, John M.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fuller, John Michael F.

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

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Summerbell, T.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon, Herbert John

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Clover, Thomas

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Marnham, F. J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Massie, J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Middlebrook, William

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Tomkinson, James

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Toulmin, George

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morrell, Philip

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Verney, F. W.

  Harwood, George

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

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Myer, Horatio

  Vivian, Henry

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Napier, T. B.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wardle, George J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  O'Grady, J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hodge, John

  Pointer, J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Williams, Sir Osmond

  Hooper, A. G.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Rees, J. D.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Idris, T. H. W.

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

  Winfrey, R.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Richardson, A.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Jenkins, J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to move to leave out Section (2). I imagine, after the announcement which was made at the beginning of business to-day, that the Government desire the whole of the mineral clauses to be treated together. It is clear that at the present time we are not in a position to discuss this section. We have been asked to postpone Clause 15, and we know very well that that clause cannot come up again in the form in which it was originally drafted. It deals with an entirely different duty from the one now proposed in
  1214
  connection with royalties. Many of the expressions in it refer to the old Clause 12, which is now departed from. If we now begin to provide for a valuation before we know what the valuation is to be upon or what the machinery is to be, it would be a case of putting the cart before the horse, and therefore I hope the Government will assent to leave out Section (2). But apart from that, I think it is very desirable to have a statement as to the reason why the Government have placed this section in the clause. We hear the argument that was used by

  1215
  the Prime Minister earlier in the evening, that it might be valuable in connection with one particular section of the mineral royalties clause. The fact is that so far as the new Royalties Duties are concerned this valuation is not wanted at all. In conection with the Reversion Duty it would be no use making the valuation now, because at the end of the lease a large amount of minerals would have been got out, and the position would be entirely different. With regard to undeveloped land, we know that minerals are excluded. Therefore it is only possible in cases of Increment Duty that this valuation can be of use. When we examine this particular section we see that where the minerals are not being worked or are not comprised in the mining lease this does not apply. In the case of minerals being worked, everybody knows that the actual surface of the land is seriously depreciated, and where the land is subject to a mining lease, undoubtedly the surface during those years would be deteriorated in price, and it is very improbable that there would be any increment upon it. Therefore it would require a great deal more justification than we have heard for the suggestion that there should be a separate valuation wherever land comprises minerals, that is to say, apparently wherever there is a separate occupation of land down to the small allotments, of which we have heard this evening, there is yet to be a separate valuation of minerals in cases where the land happens to be included in a mining lease or minerals are being worked in the neighbourhood. The whole section is very obscure, and we should have a very much clearer explanation than we have had on the subject. I do not quite understand how to apply the present condition of things, and it is still harder to understand it in reference to the position of Clause 15, and our inability to discover the mind of the Government in connection with that clause.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I feel there is a good deal of reason in the contention of the hon. Gentleman, and I would rather like to ask the ruling of the Chairman on a point of order. If the Government assented to the omission of Section (2) at this stage, would they be precluded from moving the same proposal in the form of a clause or by way of addition to a clause, which is on the Paper later? If the Government could move substantially the
  1216
  same provision in another form, I agree that it would be convenient to omit the section now, and discuss the whole of the mineral clauses together.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): The suggestion I would like to make is this—I see the difficulty—whether it would not be better to leave the section in here; but if another section or new clause is moved in a somewhat different form dealing with the whole question, then when we deal with the new clause this could be struck out on Report. That would be the ordinary way of dealing with the matter. If the clause is really substantially similar, the easier way would be to leave this section in and then strike it out on Report.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The clause, as amended by the Government, is in a different form. If Section (2) were omitted I submit that there would be nothing to prevent the Government Later on from moving that clause in the new form which we propose it should take.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the new clause to be moved later on is substantially different in form, then I think that Sub-section (2) may safely go now.
  Mr. BALFOUR: This is an example of putting very new wine into a very old bottle. You are moving an entirely new clause in the place of an old one. It is a course attended with disadvantages, but as there are some advantages I do not object.
  Question, "That the word 'where' stand part of the section," put, and negatived.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to insert, after Section (3), the words, "Any owner of land and any person receiving rent in respect of any land shall, on being required by notice from the Commissioners, furnish to the Commissioners a return containing such particulars as the Commissioners may require as to the rent received by him, and any other information which the Commissioners may require, and which it is in his power to give, and."
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON moved to leave out of the proposed Amendment the words, "and any other information which the Commissioners may require."
  I move this for the purpose of obtaining some information from the Government about this power, which, whatever may be said in favour of it, is entirely unprecedented, and has never been entrusted to

  1217
  any body of Commissioners under any Act hitherto passed by the House of Commons. That is, I am aware, a somewhat sweeping statement, but I can justify it. I do not pretend to be familiar with valuation in England, but I can refer to Scottish Valuation Acts, and point out exactly where the difference comes in under these new powers entrusted to the Commissioners and their existing powers. The great characteristic of the powers hitherto given has always been that the power has been defined very specifically within limits. In Scotland at present, under the Valuation Act of 1854, there are no such general permissive powers. What happens is that it says it shall be lawful for the assessor to call upon a number of different persons to make a return. The return is to contain a written statement of the yearly rent or value, and all the other particulars required by this Act, and then goes on to specify all the particulars required. The proposal of the Government is entirely different. The body of Commissioners are not to ask for particulars required by the Act or for any specified information at all. They are to ask for any other information which they may choose to require. I really think that before the House of Commons is asked to pass a form of words giving this power to any body of persons, we ought to have an idea of what the Government mean by it. What do they mean the Commissioners are entitled to do? The Commissioners would be entitled by these words to ask for almost anything, for any estimates the owner may have had before him, any offers to buy, any letters, any correspondence relating to the land which may have ever passed. They may be empowered to ask for any cheques sent in regard to it, or the production of a bankbook, and certainly for memoranda or jottings. I cannot believe it is the intention of the Government that such power should be entrusted to irresponsible hands, such as a body of Commissioners. If that is the intention of the Government it is certainly a novel proposal, and if it is it will certainly subject the people of this country to what I think Adam Smith once, in a moment of desperation, called "the frequent and odious examination of the tax-gatherer." I do not believe the Government, when they come to think it over, can think that any such imposition as that should take place, but if it is their intention, then all I can say is that I shall resist it as strongly as I can. I hope we shall have some explanation from the Government as to the meaning of those words.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think this is quite as alarming as the hon. Member suggests. It is very difficult to give a catalogue of all the items of information which will be serviceable to the Commissioners in the preparation of their valuation, and which the owner can very well give them without any trouble. For instance, the area is one thing, and whether it is arable land or whether it is pasture; how much of it is woodland—that is the kind of information. And then there is another class of information which he can give which would be very valuable when you come to considering certain duties—whether he bought the land at a certain period, and what the purchase money was. You cannot give an exhaustive catalogue, but that kind of information would be very valuable, and should be given. They cannot, however, demand a valuation from the owner. I do not think you can do better than embody general words of this character, enabling the Commissioners to ask for information of the kind I have described.
  Earl WINTERTON: I am assured, on legal authority, that these words might include particulars of valuation, and many items of information which have no reference whatever to the question of valuation. For instance, an owner might have borrowed money on his land, or there might be shooting arrangements between landlord and tenant, and under this proposal the valuers would be able to demand information concerning these matters. We ought to have the opinion of the law officers as to the effect of the words. I am assured that they have a very wide meaning, and that their scope is enlarged by the preceding words, which would cover all the matters referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They can only lead to unnecessary trouble and vexation, and those of us who have had experience of the inquisitorial methods of the Income Tax Commissioners and other bodies of public servants are not inclined to allow the valuers more power than is absolutely necessary.
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is answering the very obvious objection that there is to this very wide proposal in the Bill stated that it was impossible to schedule all the information that would be required. But surely there are precedents already for it being done. In the Income Tax Act of 1842 this very point is dealt with in Sections 190

  1219
  and 52. In the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act a similar provision is applied, with this and other important difference, that there is a further qualification, "All other particulars required by this Act." I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is objectionable to put in such a very wide provision as this. "Any other information which the Commissioners may require"! So wide is that that the Chancellor himself stated that those particulars might be so numerous that he did not even feel capable of enumerating them. There must be some limit to what is required from the owners. There is not even the limit that they may possess the information.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: "And which it is in his power to give."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg pardon. It does cover the point. Even so, the thing is still very difficult. Could he not be given some idea beforehand of the information he will have to supply? In the absence of the schedule I should like to know the heads of the information.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Information material to the valuation.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I was going to suggest that we might omit the words suggested, and say "information required by this Act." That information should be put in the schedule. [Hon. Members: "No, no."] Would the Chancellor follow the precedent of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act? That seems to me to be a definite thing.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not quite like to take the responsibility of enumerating all the particulars. When the machinery of the Act comes to be put into operation we may find that some very material item has been omitted. I think I met the hon. Member by saying that the information must be material to the valuation. If the Commissioners demand anything which is not material, such as that indicated by the hon. Member in moving the Amendment, that kind of information would not be material.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: If the owner borrowed money and his deeds were with the Bank, is that information to be given? Is he to be asked when he bought the property and what he paid for it?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I should imagine that the kind of questions that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would regard as legitimate would be questions with regard to the actual condition of the land. For instance, I do not think it would be regarded as legitimate for the Commissioners to ask a man what he gave for the land many years ago, or whether the owner had any information as to the price at which land in the neighbourhood was sold at the time. The right hon. Gentleman would not regard it as legitimate for the Commissioners to ask the sort of questions suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. Watson Rutherford) as to the owner's bank book or his security. I think I am interpreting the Government's intention correctly when I say the sort of information they want the owner of the land to give is information about the character of the land itself; what it actually is, whether it is pasture or arable. I cannot draft a Bill on my legs, but I think that is the kind of information that is required.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If I may say so, I think the right hon. Gentleman is on very right lines, but I am not sure that the words "any information as to the character of the land" are sufficient. The purchase-money is undoubtedly relevant where the land is bought within twenty years on a higher price. There ought to be a record of that. It is the kind of information you want for the benefit of the owner himself. We put in a sub-clause for the protection of the mortgagee where he advanced money; the property has gone down, and the Commissioners ought to know what the position is from that point of view. If they look at the register they will see what it sold for, and they will see there is no increment in that case. I think it would be desirable to have limiting words, and if the Commissioners will accept the undertaking of the Government to consider the question of limitation we will do so. I think there must be some general words. There may be matters which we cannot for the moment foresee. If the hon. Member could see his way to withdraw this Amendment I would undertake to consider whether some limitation rather in the direction suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, but perhaps a little more comprehensive could not be adopted, because what has been suggested would not cover purchase money and the

  1221
  mortgagees who have to be protected. There may be other items of that character which we ought to consider.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think we should take a definite view of this clause. The question is to whom would this return and information be open? If the Commissioners alone had access to the information, then I do not think there would be so much objection to giving the most ample particulars. On the other hand, if, after the information has been supplied, the public and other persons can get access, it would materially alter one's view as to the extent to which this information ought to be given.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think there ought to be an official note with regard to the purchase transactions within the twenty years. The information which it is necessary to give is the history of the title which bears upon the increment value. Taking the information generally it ought to be confidential to the Commissioners.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: There are instances in foreign countries where it is invariably the practice to put in fictitious amounts in regard to the purchase, because they do not want everybody to know their business.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: There are reasons why the public should have access to a good deal of this information, because there will be the question of deduction and the deductions made by previous owners of a considerable property which may be affected by an enormous number of previous owners. There will have to be some access by one person to another person's figures. With regard to purchases within 20 years I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer means to say that there will have to be a register of all purchases within the twenty years, but only of those that have a higher value than the present. That would be in the interest of the owner. If the owner chooses to neglect his opportunity of stating the figure at which he purchases the loss will be upon him. The owner requires to keep the original site value recorded for the purposes of the Increment Value Duty, and it will be in his interest to establish that. If he does not choose to establish that fact there is no object in the State compelling him to do so. He has the right to do it, anyhow, under a previous clause. I have a very strong
  1222
  desire to support the broad distinction suggested by my right hon. Friend. It is very objectionable to a man to have to give the figures at which he bought land or sold a piece, or figures of mortgage, and I do not think he should be asked to give that kind of information; but he might very properly be asked questions with regard to the character of his land and the uses to which it is put, and the rent he receives. He ought only to be entitled to give those figures where he desires to do so in his own interest, and he certainly ought not to be compelled to do so where he considers it would be against his interest. It appears to me that that is a broad distinction which could be drawn, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept it as the principle of an Amendment to be made.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: These particulars are already given in Scotland and London, so they are not such a secret.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Only in the register of title in Scotland.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am referring to the register of title. All these particulars have been given both in London and Scotland, and therefore I cannot conceive that there will be all these objections when it assists the Commissioners to arrive at a proper valuation. I am afraid I could not go beyond the general intimation I have given to the Committee.
  Lord R. CECIL: The question of the trouble and money which you require the landowner to take and expend in connection with giving this information bears not so much on these words as on those which immediately follow the words "and which it is in his power to give." It would greatly affect my opinion if I knew what meaning the Government attach to those words. Of course, in their literal signification, they mean information which by any exertion the owner can procure, but I do not think that can be the intention, because they are evidently limiting words. It may be the Attorney-General can tell us—that those words have a well-defined meaning which the Government intend them to bear, and that the owner is only bound to give information actually in his possession.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has called my attention to the fact that we are not really discussing the Amendment before the Committee. I imagined it

  1223
  to be to the general convenience of the Committee to discuss it in this way, and that is why I allowed the Debate to cover the other points as well.
  Mr. COURTENAY WARNER: I want to ask the Government to take some precautions against allowing owners to give these particulars when they choose, and to leave them out in other cases. They ought to be made in every case, and what questions are asked ought to be asked universally.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson): The owner would not, under the words used here, be under any kind of compulsion or obligation to go to any expense in order to give particulars with reference to his land. Rent is mentioned as an illustration of the kind of particular required, and the words go on to suggest any other information of the same general character which the Commissioners may require, and which it is within his power to give. But he is not bound to incur any expense.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: For what purposes is this information required? If it is required to give a lead to the valuer as to the character and use of the land, I think it would be highly improper, it should mention the price. If you send a valuer to value a piece of land for the purpose of lending money on mortgage it is not customary to tell him anything about the price paid for it that year or the year before, because he would more or less value around that price. I suggest that the price should not be included in these particulars, but that they should refer merely to the character and use of the land in order that the valuer may make his valuation without any preconceived notions, based on prices recently paid—which may give a totally incorrect idea of the value and have no reference to the actual value.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: We are told by the Attorney-General that the words. "in his power to give" limit the information that is to be asked for to that which can be given without running to any expense. If that is so, I, for one, am satisfied.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think it is of any advantage to argue the point. The Government has declared its intention to reconsider the situation in view of the arguments brought forward, and to
  1224
  Amend the Bill accordingly. But, as far as we are concerned, we shall not be content with the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, viz., the introduction of the word "material." I do not think that would suffice. It would not carry out the policy which the right hon. Gentleman has admitted is the one to which he agreed. I think that the words probably require some reflection, and if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say that he will introduce a modification of the provision on Report, which carries out the general policy which he shares with us, as I understand him, I do not know that anything will be gained by asking the Committee to divide. If I rightly interpret the views of the right hon. Gentleman, I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree, I think some other words are needed, but I would rather that this matter were left over to the Report stage. I am not quite prepared with words at the present moment, but I do promise to move words which will limit the general character of the clause.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is not my Amendment to the Amendment after the word "give" ["and which it is in his power to give"] to insert "without incurring expense in procuring such information," to be moved?
  The CHAIRMAN: The power of selection applies to the Amendments to the Amendments, as well as to the Amendments themselves, and that is why I have allowed some latitude in discussion.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in Section (3) after "land" ["If any owner of land"] to insert the words, "or person receiving any rent in respect of the land."
  Mr. BALFOUR: Cannot we move to leave out Section (3)?
  The CHAIRMAN: No; because we have put words in before, leaving the section to stand.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I call upon is that of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs.
  Mr. YOUNGER Mr. YOUNGER moved in Section (3) to leave out the word "thirty" ["not being less than thirty days"] and to insert the word "sixty."
  It may be that the situation is somewhat changed by the alteration of the clause, but I think thirty days is a ridiculously short time to call upon an owner to make a return. I think it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to extend the time a little beyond thirty days, and my Amendment as it stood on the Paper proposed three months or ninety days, but I think probably a sufficient number would be sixty days. Under no circumstances should anyone be called upon to give the information in thirty days, take any estate which you can name.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I hope the hon. Member will realise that there is a complete change in the appearance of this figure upon the clause. It was thirty days for a valuation by the owner, but now it is thirty days in which to supply certain information. I can quite understand that the time originally in some cases would be inadequate, but he would be able to give the information required in the time. He has only to give information in regard it may be to 50 or 10 acres of land. He is to give information as to their area, their character, and the rent—information he can give in 48 hours without the slightest difficulty. If he is given 60 days he will take 60 days. It is very desirable that the Commissioners should get on with their valuation and should get the information as quickly as possible. This is a minimum of 30 days and not a maximum. If the hon. Member insists upon giving a minimum of 60 days they cannot proceed for 60 days with the valuation.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I think under the Scotch Valuation Act you get 21 days merely to return your rental. In cases of small properties probably 30 days would be enough, but I am afraid the valuers would not be able to exercise a discriminating power. You have very often groups of estates managed by one particular agent who is very busily employed.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: What would happen in a case of that kind? Supposing the owner of a large estate is called upon
  1226
  to make a return in 30 days. Let us assume the Commissioners are as reasonable as any human beings could possibly be. They prosecute and have to recover the penalty in the High Court. Can he believe that Judges in conditions of that kind would enforce the penalty because in 30 days the owner of a large estate has not supplied the information?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made in Section (3) to leave out the word "return" ["specified in the return"], and to insert the words, "notice requiring a return."—[Mr. Lloyd-George].
  Mr. G. D. FABER Mr. G. D. FABER (York)
  moved to leave out the words "under Section fifty-five of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and that section shall apply accordingly," and to insert instead thereof the words "of forty shillings."
  Under the scheme of the Bill the valuation is to be made by the Government, and the owner need do nothing unless he likes. As a matter of fact, of course, in every case he will be obliged to do something to save his own skin. The Commissioners are to require the owners to give certain information, and if the owners do not give it they are to be liable to a penalty. I have taken the trouble to look at the Income Tax Act of 1842, and I find that Clause 55 states that "every such person shall forfeit any sum not exceeding £20, and treble the duty which such person ought to be charged by virtue of this Act." We must imagine that these words are incorporated in this clause. I think we are entitled to some elucidation of this matter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is a clause at the end which says "or if prosecuted in His Majesty's Court shall forfeit the sum of £50." This Bill says that the penalty shall only be recoverable in the High Court, and therefore the question arises whether the penalty of £50 referred to in the Income Tax Act of 1842 is the sum to be exacted or whether it will be £20 and treble the duty.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Member has expressed surprise at the amount of the penalty, but it is the ordinary penalty in similar cases. Clause 55 of the Income Tax Act of 1842 refers to the penalty, but before the penalty can be incurred there must be refusal or neglect on the part of the taxpayer to give the information within the time limit. If he commits that

  1227
  offence, he is liable to a penalty not exceeding £20 and treble the duty. That is the maximum penalty. Proceedings are not infrequently taken for delay in giving information, but it is very seldom that the full penalty is imposed. In a strong case, where the refusal to give the information is on account of some improper motive, such as an intention to evade the tax, I think the penalty of £20 and three times the amount of the tax is not at all excessive.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I would point out the absurdity of having penalties which are quite different according to whether there is a tax or there is not a tax. Most of the land which is going to be valued under this clause will pay no tax at all, and therefore when you impose a fine of three times the tax you incur three times nothing. Therefore the maximum penalty is £20 in cases where there is no tax. It seems to me a very absurd distinction if you take the case which is exactly analogous, that of a man who has no income and is assessed for Income Tax by the Commissioners. Then consider what information is required under this section, even as it is to be modified by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. I declare I do not know how the information as to site value is to be given. It is perfectly easy for an owner of land to say what the rent is, and if he bought it within 20 years, and he can say what he gave for it. But how is he to say what the site value of the land is when stripped of certain things? It is a complicated problem for the unfortunate landowner, and quite different in magnitude and in point of difficulty for any problem of any taxpayer who is afterwards asked to contribute to the Exchequer. Everybody knows, or ought to know, what his annual income is. There is no difficulty in making out what the average of your triennial income is. It is merely a question of keeping your accounts and sending in the requisite information required. But nobody has suggested that it is a simple and easy operation to send in the information required under this Bill. I venture to suggest that great caution should be adopted by the Government in putting this burden on people who are asked to take a leading part in making calculations of such inherent difficulty as those imposed upon the taxpayer under the past proposal.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is arguing against the clause
  1228
  in its original form. He is assuming that there is a penalty inflicted because the owner does not give the, original site value and all these complicated calculations. This is purely for neglecting to supply information which it is within his power to give. It is for wilful negligence.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Wilful negligence or wilful delay.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not a complicated calculation. It is exactly the same as with regard to Income Tax. You ask for information with regard to a man's income. He does not merely state that he has no income above £160. He has got to give particulars of his income and such particulars as are indicated. As everyone knows it is a very elaborate document. I do not think that there is a man in this House who has ever read it, and I never met anyone outside who ever read it. It is a most complicated document, and if this document were as complicated as that I quite agree that it would be difficult. But here it is a question of particulars of rent, area, amount of arable land, woodland, and everything of that kind. If he neglects to supply that information then they can go to the High Court. The words of the Income Tax Act might be adopted, but I do not think that should be done at this stage. It really amounts to the same thing, however.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: There are three duties levied. Does it cover the three duties to which a man may be liable?
  Sir W. ROBSON: There are two alternatives, and I omitted to read the second. In the case of proceedings under the Income Tax Act before the Commissioners the penalty is £20. Before the High Court the penalty is £50.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I have very little objection to this if I were satisfied that the amount of the penalty rested in the discretion of the High Court or the inferior Court. I should be very glad to have the opinion of the Attorney-General as to whether the amount of the penalty is in the discretion of the Court. I am not sure that the Commissioners do not impose such a fine as they think fit and then proceed upon it. That being so, I am not certain that the Court has any dispensing power, except to give judgment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I am almost certain—I am subject to correction—that the High Court has in all cases power to vary the penalty. Indeed, cases before the

  1229
  High Court are usually brought to decide questions of principle or law, and in almost all cases, after the declaration of the Court has been obtained, the penalties are not asked for.
  Earl WINTERTON: The Income Tax Act does not quite affect this point. In the first place, a farmer owning thirty or forty acres, and who does not come under the Income Tax Act, might be asked to make a return in regard to his land. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admits that it is a complicated return, though not so complicated as that under the Income Tax Act. This farmer with thirty or forty acres is to be suddenly confronted with a demand to fill up this return, which is admittedly somewhat complicated, and he has to comply with the demand within thirty days. He is unable to make it out, and is probably fined in the sum of £20, but the Attorney-General informs us the High Court may mitigate the penalty, but he is not sure. It is a most important point, which may affect a number of small holders, and probably some of them illiterate. I do not think you ought to have this drastic penalty inserted.
  Mr. F. W. LAMBTON: In Clause 51 the person who does not make a return as to the Super-tax is to be liable to a penalty of £50, and there is no mention of the Income Tax Act of 1842. There is no consistency in adhering in this clause to that Act.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think you must put in "not exceeding £50."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand that the High Court has an inherent power to mitigate the penalty, and that that view is accepted by legal gentlemen on both sides of the House.
  Lord R. CECIL: I do not understand why the Government have this reference to the Income Tax Act of 1842, as what is required under this clause is a really different thing. May I ask why it is necessary to have the same penalty now as it was originally? Originally, this was on a refusal to give a valuation, while how you want information which may or may not be of particular importance, but you still insist on the same penalty. That, surely, is not a reasonable attitude. I venture to ask the Chancellor does he not see his way to put in a penalty?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: To meet the views of the Opposition I am quite willing to accept the suggestion and to insert
  1230
  the words "not exceeding £50." Section 55 of the Income Tax Act must remain, because otherwise you must put in elaborate machinery. Those are put in to have that machinery at hand.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: There is to be a return with regard to each separate holding. Supposing a man has tenants who fail to give the information; is he then to be liable for twenty times £50 or a £1,000?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I say why I object to this penalty on the Income Tax basis? The way it is worked is this: Somerset House come down on the unfortunate man and say, "You are in default. The penalty for not sending in a return is £20 plus three times the duty—"
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Attorney-General has already pointed out that the provision with regard to three times the duty does not apply here. ["Why not?"] The suggestion is that we should insert "not exceeding" £50, and I am prepared to accede to that.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: And drop the duty?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: And drop the duty; making it perfectly clear that we are not demanding three times the duty, and that the penalty is not to exceed £50.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would put in a simple penalty without reference to £50. What happens at present is that Somerset House come down on the taxpayer and say, "You are liable to a penalty of £50. If we sue fox the whole penalty you will have to pay the costs; but the Commissioners will let you off if you pay £25 down." That is the common every-day practice of Somerset House. If the power is put into the hands of the Commissioners in regard to every holder of a small plot of land who does not understand law, or know the meaning of the Income Tax Act, the unfortunate man will surrender at once and pay the sum demanded. It is too heavy a penalty for not sending in the necessary return. If it were the return required in the original Bill it would be a different matter. There it was the fundamental basis of the tax; here it is nothing of the kind. Although in the present case only certain details are asked for, yet the same penalty is being imposed as though the information demanded were the return upon which the taxation was to be based. A moderate penalty would be much fairer.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 89.

  Division No. 459.]

  AYES.

  [11.59 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Pointer, J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hancock, J. G.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Armitage, R.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Harwood, George

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Richardson, A.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Henry, Charles S.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Brace, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Branch, James

  Hodge, John

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Brooke, Stopford

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rowlands, J.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon, Walter

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

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Horniman, Emsile John

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Hudson, Walter

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Seely, Colonel

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Jenkins, J.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cleland, J. W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Clough, William

  Lambert, George

  Summerbell, T.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Lupton, Arnold

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Crooks, William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Tomkinson, James

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Toulmin, George

  Crossley, William J.

  Maclean, Donald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Elibank, Master of

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Erskine, David C.

  Massie, J.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Essex, R. W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Middlebrook, William

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth).

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Ferens, T. R.

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Myer, Horatio

  Winfrey, R.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Gill, A. H.

  O'Grady, J.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Partington, Oswald

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cave, George

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham).

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Renwick, George

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Foster, P. S.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stanier, Beville

  Gordon, J.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Starkey, John R.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

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

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Percy, Earl

  Winterton, Earl

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Younger, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. George D. Faber and Mr. Joynson-Hicks.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Keswick, William

  Renton, Leslie

  Sir EDWARD CARSON Sir EDWARD CARSON moved to omit from Section (3) the words, "but the penalty shall only be recoverable in the High Court."
  I move this Amendment not because I quarrel with the object for which these words were put in, but because I think it would be an extreme hardship in the particular circumstances of this Bill that a man who omitted to give the information required should be saddled with an action in the High Courts. It seems to me that the penalties we have just decided upon are entirely out of proportion to any offence that can be committed under this section. If the man does not give the information he does not stop the valuation; it goes on just the same, and no object of the Legislature is thwarted, although the valuation may be made more inconvenient, still you inflict the same penalty as under the Income Tax. That seems to me to be an extremely severe penalty. You subject a man to an action in the High Court which makes him liable to a penalty of £50. The Courts, I fancy, have no power to remit any portion of that fine; that may be done by the Commissioners. If the Attorney-General will look at the section he will see that there is a distinction drawn between the penalty of £20 and £50. In the one case it says "not exceeding £20," and in the other "a penalty of £50." If a man does come within this penalty what is to be imposed is a penalty of £50. Under this section that will be a very great hardship. I have often thought the law as it stands to-day in regard to the recovery of these penalties is a very great hardship. What happens is that while
  1234
  the subject is being litigated for a small amount comparatively of £50 you are compelled to have all the procedure of an information laid by the Attorney-General in the High Court, with all its attendant expenses, which are recoverable against the subject who has to pay the £50. If the subject fails in his defence, not only has he to pay the £50, but he has also to pay expenses, which would never be less than £300 or £400. Why should a penalty of this kind be recoverable by this long procedure in the High Court?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): There is the county court.
  Sir E. CARSON: Yes, but the Attorney-General says there is no county court procedure in this case. You ought to proceed with the least possible cost to the subject. In addition to that I wish to note that whilst you cannot take proceedings in the county court, the words of the section under the Income Tax Acts are not the words used here. The words of the Income Tax Acts are "in any of His Majesty's Courts." Whether that includes the county court or not I am not prepared to say, but at any rate the words are different. My short point is that, having provided for this penalty, in case proceedings are taken, the subject ought not to be put to expenses of more than a few pounds, and not hundreds of pounds, as is the case under this section.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The words which it is now proposed to omit are really inserted in the interests of the taxpayer. If those words were not there, then, under the procedure of the Income Tax

  1235
  Acts, the taxpayer in default might be taken before the Commissioners. It would not by any means be agreeable for the defaulting taxpayer to be brought before the Commissioners, who are really making the complaint against him, and who have the power to impose a penalty not exceeding £20 and treble the duty. I should have said that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have objected both to the tribunal and the penalty, and in order that the taxpayer may have a proper tribunal and a smaller penalty we have inserted the words: "The action must be brought against him in the High Court." It is quite true that the Court cannot mitigate the penalty, but the Commissioners can. They need not ask for the full penalty. If they choose they can ask for a less penalty. The procedure in the High Court is not so costly as the right hon. Gentleman makes out. If there is a bonâ fide defence, the penalty will not be pressed for at all. The Attorney-General is not sent to enforce penalties against persons obviously and wilfully at fault; he is only called in where there is some point of law to be fought out. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite would, on the whole, be well advised to keep in the words. It is better you should have the High Court as the tribunal which inflicts the penalty rather than the Commissioners. Although the penalty is fixed, the Commissioners have the power to ask for less, according to the circumstances of the case.
  Sir E. CARSON: I quite agree it is necessary to have some words unless you have the jurisdiction of the Commissioners. The jurisdiction of the Commissioners is subject to certain rights, because they have power to extend the time. They have, for instance, in the case of agents, power to extend the time, and to even call for the particulars after they have taken proceedings. I do not therefore think it is altogether in favour of the subject to leave the matter out. Assuming that these words are put in for the benefit of the subject, I do not think the Attorney-General has made any answer to the question of the expense of the High Court. It is quite true if there is no defence the cost may not be very heavy, but a man may perfectly bonâ fide fight an action although he may be defeated, and in the case the subject is put to enormous cost in litigating what he believes to be his right. There is something more than
  1236
  that. If the Commissioners say to a man, "You have incurred a penalty of £30, or say £50," it is far cheaper for that man to pay than to have it litigated in the High Court. Many a man has paid rather than have litigation in the High Court. Therefore I say that hardship remains. You are really taking away the right of litigation from the subject by keeping this matter in the High Court. I suggest to the Attorney-General to add "or the County Court" after the words "can only be recoverable in the High Court." I will be satisfied if he does that. I cannot conceive that the Crown, in small cases, would insist on proceedings in the High Court unless some very important point was involved. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree to the insertion of the words "or the County Court," I am quite willing to withdraw my opposition.
  Sir W. ROBSON: A large number of informations are issued by the Attorney-General, but the number which come into the High Court is infinitesimal. The people affected either give the particulars wanted or they pay up the arrears of duty, and that is how they avoid the penalty of £50. My right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) says a man would pay £50 rather than go into the High Court, but if he thinks he has a good defence, and, in the opinion of the Treasury, it is a bonâ fide defence, no penalty is imposed. In the interests of the taxpayer, I think it would be far better to allow the information to be issued in the High Court—in fact, an Attorney-General's information cannot be laid in a county court. It is a sufficient warning to the taxpayer that he had better pay or give the particulars unless he thinks he has a good case for refusing them. If, in his opinion, he has a good case, the most suitable tribunal to decide the point is surely the High Court.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I regret that this discussion has taken place at an hour at which notice cannot be taken of it in the country. It is a matter which really concerns the less well-to-do. So far as the rich are concerned we might leave the Bill as it stands. There is no objection on their part to the procedure of the High Court. They can protect themselves, and they understand the risk they run. But when you have to deal with poor men the case is very different. Look at the clause and consider how it will operate in practice. I regard it as oppressive in the highest degree. Many men who own small plots

  1237
  of land throughout the country are without education. There are hundreds of thousands of men who the moment this Bill becomes law will receive a document which they will not understand—a document asking for information about their land, and the immense probability is that they will put it aside and forget all about it. Then, at the end of thirty days, they will receive notice that unless they pay £50 they are going to be taken to the High Court. I look on that as very oppressive indeed. The Government will do well to reconsider the whole matter. The machinery of the clause is absurd and ridiculous, as applied to the subject matter of this particular return; it is a case of cracking the smallest possible nut with a Nasmyth hammer. It is out of all proportion to the case. I admit that the Committee is in a position of great difficulty. We are asked whether we prefer the Commissioners or the High Court. Let the Government reconsider the whole machinery. The present proposal is grossly in excess of the requirements of the case: let them substitute for it some simpler and cheaper method of obtaining this information.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The Government must, I think, give way on this point. This machinery. The present proposal is suitable to the clause in its original form. Under the clause in its original shape the owner had to assess himself, and unless he did assess himself the tax could not be levied. I do not argue whether that is right or wrong in the original clause, but in that, it had a justification, because the Exchequer could not get any money unless the man did proceed to value his property, but you now take upon yourselves the duty of valuing his property, and you leave in all the old privileges as if the old state of things were in operation. It may be that the whole property of the man may be very small in amount, and that the amount of property would not be sufficient to prevent him being entitled to an old age pension; and a man who is so poor that he is entitled to an old age pension at the cost of the general taxpayer is to be haled before the High Court and fined £50, and not only that injustice is done him, but he is to be haled before the High Court at a cost of £300. Are the Government going to defend that in the House and in the country? I think I am doing them a very great service in telling them that they are leaving it in our power to expose on
  1238
  every platform throughout the country the kind of oppressive manner in which they are going to deal with the small owners of land. I believe the Government think that there are no small owners of land, but they will find that they are wrong, and that there are a great many of them. You should not have this kind of penalty for this kind of offence. I think one of the greatest injustices which exists, and for which it is not easy to find a remedy, is that the rich man can get law where the poor man cannot. It is a dreadful thing to say, but everybody knows it is true, though, as I have said, the remedy is not easy to see. I am afraid that whatever you do the poor man would not be able to get a remedy for injustice in some cases, but why bind him to the most expensive tribunal of the country? I know that after I have sat down the right hon. Gentleman must get up and say that in the face of the injustice involved he will remedy the evil now or subsequently, and why he could not do it before I do not know.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Really the right hon. Gentleman has exaggerated the whole position. This is a power which has been in the Income Tax Act for over sixty years. Unless a man supplies information upon the basis on which the Commissioners may assess him or exempt him from Income Tax, he is liable to a penalty of £50, and that is a penalty which is not alone applicable to the rich man; it is equally applicable to the poor. They are bound to supply the information. The same arguments exactly were used in the year 1842 in regard to this clause of the Income Tax Act as are now used with reference to the proposed tax. You may say it is applicable to the small man who may not be liable at all. So it is. The Clause has the effect, undoubtedly, of making operative all these notices, and people had to give the information when the Income Tax Commissioners called for it. It is of the first importance that it should be realised by the general public that when these notices go out the information must be supplied, and this is the way which it has been proved by experience to be an effective way. There has not been a single case of oppression in the case of the Income Tax.
  Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON: I appeared in the House of Lords the other day where there was a penalty of £20 under the Stamp Acts.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has omitted to mention that the Treasury did not demand the penalty; and, secondly, that it has nothing to do with the clause which we are considering. The mere knowledge that there is a clause of this kind has been effective for its purpose, and so it will be here. It is strictly analogous to the case of the Income Tax, and why there should be a distinction I do not know. I offered to accept the suggestion that it should not exceed £50, and it is not my fault that it is not inserted in the Bill.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I was applying this clause to a case of my own knowledge of a man with 250 tenants. Every block of the property is mortgaged. Some are in Glasgow, some in Liverpool, some in London and some in other places. That man is asked to give some information which he can only get by seeing the deeds, some of which are in safe deposit companies. At the end of 30 days he has incurred penalties of £12,500—£50 in each of these 250 cases.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is wandering too wide. The question is that the words "penalty shall only be recoverable in the High Court" shall be left out.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I have only one sentence to add. The 250 actions would be in the High Court, and what we say is that the penalty is out of all proportion to the offence, having regard to the circumstances of the clause.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I must say that the attitude of Liberalism towards this point is very curious. The question is whether a taxpayer who has committed this trumpery peccadillo is to be dragged to the High Court. We know what that means to a poor man. It is not merely the penalty, but the costs which will make the punishment severe. The proceedings are to be taken under a statute passed in 1842. We are not in 1842 now, and a great deal has happened since that time. The position of the county courts is very different now from what it was then. Even under the Act of 1842 I am not sure that the proceedings were limited to the High Court, for it says that a person may be prosecuted in "Her Majesty's Court." Why do the Government go out of their way now to say that proceedings shall only be taken in the High Court? County courts practically did not exist in 1842, and now the country is full of them. These courts, which are conveniently situated, are highly competent, and the judges might very well be entrusted with the duty of dealing with the cases which may arise. It appears to me it can only be for the purposes of terrorism that it is proposed to take a man to the High Court. I submit that the proposal is reactionary and highly oppressive.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 80.

  Division No. 460.]

  AYES.

  [12.40 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cleland, J. W.

  Glover, Thomas

  Armitage, R.

  Clough, William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Grey, Rt. Hon, Sir Edward

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Barnard, E.

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Crossley, William J.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Harwood, George

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Brace, William

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Branch, James

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Brooke, Stopford

  Elibank, Master of

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Erskine, David C.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Essex, R. W.

  Hodge, John

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Ferguson, R. C. Munre

  Howard, Hon. John Geoffrey

  Hudson, Walter

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  O'Grady, J.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Summerbell, T.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Jenkins, J.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pointer, J.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Lambert, George

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lamont, Norman

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Toulmin, George

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Radford, G. H.

  Verney, F. W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Richardson, A.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Whitehead, Rowland

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

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wiles, Thomas

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Rowlands, J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Massie, J.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Middlebrook, William

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

  Worrell, Philip

  Seely, Colonel

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

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

  Shackleton, David James

  Myer, Horatio

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Colliding, Edward Alfred

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Ashley, W. W.

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

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Renton, Leslie

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Renwick, George

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Keswick, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cave, George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

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

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stanier, Beville

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Starkey, John R.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cralk, Sir Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Winterton, Earl

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Younger, George

  Foster, P. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Gordon, J.

  Percy, Earl

  Further Amendments made to leave out Section (4), and to insert instead thereof the following:—
  "(4) Any owner of land may, if he thinks fit, furnish to the Commissioners his estimate of the total value or site value or both of the land, and the Commissioners, in making their valuation shall consider any estimate so furnished."
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. ABEL HENRY SMITH: I wish to raise my protest against the inclusion of agricultural land in this valuation, which is made compulsory by this clause. The Debate has been almost wholly confined to gentlemen learned in the law, and I am surprised that no part has been taken in it by hon. Gentlemen opposite representing agricultural constituencies. I believe some bolder spirits of the Liberal Party, led by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are saying throughout the country that the

  1243
  agricultural interest will suffer no damage by the provisions of this Bill, but I think this clause providing for the valuation of every plot of land throughout the country will impose a very heavy burden upon owners of land both great and small. It is absolutely unnecessary that agricultural land should be valued.
  The CHAIRMAN: The question is "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." and the hon. Member seems to be speaking only to a particular Amendment which has been decided.
  Mr. ABEL SMITH: I was only complaining and perhaps repeating the argument which was used in connection with some of the Amendments. I think it is perfectly possible that original site value is going to have some value over and above its purely agricultural value. I think that would be a reasonable provision to adopt, and that it will be admitted in all parts of the House that this burden of valuation should not be thrown upon owners of agricultural land throughout the country.
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not think my hon. Friend that has just spoken has in any sense exaggerated the effect which this valuation must have on agricultural land. In the first place, if the estimate the Government give as to the effect of this tax is correct, then valuation is entirely unnecessary, for the very large majority of the agricultural land of the country will not come within the purview of the clause. Therefore all the expenses and trouble to which the owners and the State will be put will be entirely thrown away. I have listened to all the Debates on the question of the valuation of agricultural land, and I have heard nothing from the beginning to the end of the Financial Resolution either from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Attorney-General dealing with the enormous difficulties that will arise if this valuation is to be properly carried out. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has ever thought of the difficulties which will arise. I can show him cases of land in the South of England, in Surrey, Sussex, and other Southern counties, the value of which it is really impossible to estimate, and which, when estimated, so far as the value is concerned, will be of no assistance or value whatever to the Government. It is not in order to refer to the fact that the Government have
  1244
  decided to place the whole valuation on the State because they have found the cost would be two millions sterling, but I do not believe any Government in any country which believed the cost would be so much would dare to put such a charge upon any class of property owners. I think the fact that they have decided to put that upon the shoulders of the State shows that the Government in its original proposal had not the least idea of the cost of the valuation. I am perfectly convinced they have now estimated it as far lower than it could possibly be. As far as I am aware, it is perfectly impossible for the land of this country to be valued at about 1s. per £100 value, the amount at which the estimate of the Government works out. We are driven back to the position that this proposal has no real reference to the amount of the duty to be placed on land under this Bill, and that the clause is brought in in order that, at some future time, a much heavier tax, embracing more varieties of land, may be imposed. Over and over again, hon. Members below the Gangway have said that they would not stop at 10 per cent. but would go to 80 per cent. or 90 per cent., and the Government have never denied that that is the object aimed at. The Committee should realise that in passing this clause they will be enabling either the present Government or the real leaders of the Radical Party, who sit below the Gangway, to make proposals in the future which will make private ownership of land impossible, leading inevitably to land nationalisation, and eventually to the restriction of private ownership in all kinds of property.
  1 A.M.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any estimate as to the number of valuations that will be required? The President of the Estate Agents' Institute estimates that the total number of assessments which will be required under this clause is about 11,000,000, and I think that that is probably near the mark. Taking the cost at £2,000,000, that works out at 3s. 8d. apiece. What does that involve? We are told that under this clause 500 Commissioners are to be appointed. I do not want to labour this point, but I want to let the Chancellor of the Exchequer understand what this estimate means. There are 500 Commissioners to make eleven million valuations in four years. That means that every Commissioner will have to make

  1245
  22,000 valuations, even assuming that each one of them works independently and without any assistance. That means 5,500 valuations from each Commissioner during each of the four years. Does that seem a possible undertaking? I mention that as an estimate made by a responsible individual having some practice in and knowledge of these matters. I only rise to put this estimate, not as my own but as a professional estimate, before the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order that he may tell us what his estimate is and how many valuations he thinks each Commissioner will have to make in order to arrive at the result which will enable the taxes to be levied.
  Mr. JAMES MASON (Windsor): In reviewing the clause as it stands amended, I am still very much at a loss to understand why the valuation of the total value of the land is required, inasmuch as two of the taxes, the Increment Value Duty and the Undeveloped Land Duty, are taxes solely upon the site value, and therefore the total value is not required at all. In the case of the Reversion Duty provided for in Clause 7 there is a total value brought into account, but it is only brought into account at the time the lease determines, and therefore the primary valuation of the total value appears to be absolutely useless for any one of the three taxes. For that reason I am totally at a loss to know why this valuation, which will admittedly be very expensive, is to be imposed, and why it should be doubled, because you are going to make a valuation not only of the total value but of the site value. There is nothing in the Bill which renders the double valuation necessary in each case. It is certainly unnecessary for the purposes of the taxes.
  Mr. W. PEEL: I wish to say a word on behalf of the thousands of small holders in the county of Somerset which I represent. I am one of those who think that this particular valuation will fall far more heavily on the owners of land, and especially on small owners, than has been yet stated. I say so for this reason. Of course, we know that the Government have said that the cost of valuation is going to fall upon the State, but after listening to the statements of the Prime Minister on that point it is absolutely clear that the number of the Commissioners, and also the payment for their services, is very inadequate. What is going to happen? These valuers will be
  1246
  first set to work on the kind of valuation that is going to bring grist to the mill of the State. They will be employed principally in the towns and on the uncovered land on estates from which the State is going to get money. They will be engaged a very long time on that valuation. As a result the valuation of agricultural land will be very perfunctorily and carelessly done. Consequently a great deal of labour will be thrown on the owners which ought to be done by the Government valuers. The owners will have to go into the matter with great labour. The immense varieties there are in these lands compared with the varieties in town lands will make it a very difficult and delicate operation. These people will have to go through a very careful and elaborate valuation, and at the end they will find it is all of no use at all, and that no tax is to be levied. What idea of the intentions of the Government will these gentlemen have? They will say, "We would submit to it if we knew something is coming out of it, but here is a Government who for no reason that we can see compels us to make this valuation, although the tax will not affect us." They will look upon this Government with indignation for putting men through laborious scientific work which is of no use at all. Perhaps it will be suggested to them that the Government would not make them go through this extraordinary labour for nothing, and that if this was not done for the purposes of these taxes it might be done for some other purpose. In that case they will feel that they cannot accept the perfunctory valuation of the Government, and will feel bound to go into the valuation of their land in minuteness and scrutiny. Therefore, in two ways you will cast upon these people, simply by putting valuation upon them, a double labour, which otherwise it would have been unnecessary for them to go through. Is it right that all these small holders, of whom there are thousands in Somerset, should have put upon them this troublesome business for the purposes of a tax which perhaps for hundreds of years may never be payable by them?
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Under this clause all the land in the country, without option, is to be valued. Have the Government thought what that means? Not only the land which is to be subject to the taxes but all the land which is only to be subject to the taxes in very remote contingencies, and in addition to that a very large quantity of land which

  1247
  is never going to be subject to the taxes at all. For instance, roads, streets, churches, town halls, all municipal property, all property belonging to the Corporation of the City of London, all property belonging to the City of Liverpool, and its public buildings, will not be subject to the tax. What I say is this. Is it necessary to inflict upon 99 out of 100 different pieces of property all the interference, all the annoyance, and all the expense of these valuations where those properties are not going to be taxed? There is only about one property in 100 that is going to be taxed, and yet all the rest—large portions of which, as I say, can never be taxed at all—are going to be valued as soon as possible after the passing of the Act. I think this state of things is absurd, and I am forced to the conclusion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has really never properly understood the clause.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question in reference to what was said by the Prime Minister the other day about the cost of this valuation. I have been refreshing my memory of the passage to which I wish to refer, and I must confess that I am unable, after reading it very carefully, to grasp what the Prime Minister really meant. I will quote a few extracts from the Official REPORT. The Prime Minister said: "Let me just recapitulate one or two points. In the first place, what I may call the capital charge, or, to speak more accurately, the non-recurrent charge in regard to the initial cost will fall only in the first and second years, and will never reappear, and that is the sum of £300,000 to which I referred earlier in my observations." Then comes the passage which I cannot understand. The Prime Minister then went on to say:—
  "In the second place, about two-thirds, roughly speaking, of the total cost of valuation, which I put at £2,000,000, will also be non-recurrent."
  That, I understand, to mean that about £1,300,000 out of the £2,000,000 will be non-recurrent, and if that is so it would leave about £700,000 as the current expenditure. The Prime Minister continued as follows:—
  "That is to say, when the original valuation, extending over three or four years, as the case may be, is brought to an end, we shall be able hereafter, for the purposes of valuation on the occasions upon which the various duties fall to be charged, to content ourselves with the expenditure of about £150,000 a year."
  1248
  Of course, £150,000 is not one-third, or anything like roughly one-third, of £2,000,000, and after puzzling over this for some time I am unable to attach any meaning to the Prime Minister's 'words. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explan whether any words have been dropped out of the OFFICIAL REPORT, which I think is possible, or, if not, perhaps he will tell the Committee what is the normal cost of the valuation proposals under this Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the misunderstanding has arisen entirely from the fact that my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. Chamberlain) has multiplied the £150,000, which is non-recurrent, by four. That makes £600,000, and if the right hon. Gentleman takes that out of £2,000,000, it leaves, of course, £1,400,000. The expenditure will be more or less in the first two years, and will not recur afterwards. It is not the case at all that £600,000 is to be taken as an annual charge. The permanent charge will be £150,000, and there will be something in addition to that to be allowed for the Referees. You cannot estimate that additional amount at the present moment, because you never can tell how many cases will go to the Referees. It will not, however, be a very heavy charge. The permanent charge, as I say, will be about £150,000, and all the rest will be a charge necessary in the preliminary stages in order to complete the valuation.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think I see. I certainly did not multiply by four, though perhaps one of my hon. Friends may have done. I assume what the right hon. Gentleman means is that he ought to have divided by four.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If it was not the right hon. Gentleman who made the mistake it was somebody else on that side. There was certainly a mistake about it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The £2,000,000 is four years' expenditure. What I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mean is that it is not the £150,000 which should be multiplied by four, but the £2,000,000 which should be divided by four. If you divide the £2,000,000 of initial expenditure, which is spread over four years, by four, then you get £500,000. One-third of that may be roughly said to be £150,000, and that is the way the figure is arrived at. I think that is saying something different from what the Prime Minister appeared to say,

  1249
  though I quite see how that may have been what he meant. The Government therefore put the normal cost of valuation at £150,000, plus whatever may be required for Referees, and I imagine that a good deal will be needed for Referees.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The expenses of the Referees during the first year may come to a considerable sum of money, but as a permanent charge we do not estimate that the expenditure under this head will amount to much, because the valuation will be fixed, and the Referees will only come in occasionally when there is a dispute.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Every time you assess a new piece of land for Undeveloped Land Duty, every time you assess any land on transfer by any method for Increment Duty, and I suppose also whenever there is an assessment for Reversion Duty, the Referees may and very probably will have to be called in. No doubt a great deal will depend on how the Commissioners do their work, and something will also depend on what the Government intend to do in regard to a matter we have not yet discussed, namely, in the way of giving information to the public as to the principles on which the Commissioners or the Referees are to proceed, and the results to which those principles are to lead. But in any case, additional to the £150,000, there will be something for the Referees, and I think it will be a not inconsiderable sum. Besides that you have to take the value of the £2,000,000 which you have laid out as
  capital expenditure, and you may well call that £60,000, so that you have a sum of something like a quarter of a million a year in order to make these valuations, apart from the cost of legal proceedings, which may or may not be a considerable proportion of what is collected by the Government.
  Earl WINTERTON: Earlier in the day the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) said he had arrived at an estimate. He believed the proportion of the cost of valuation to value would work out at 1s. per £100, and, as far as I know, that estimate has never been contradicted by the Government. If that estimate is a correct one I can only say that this clause is rendered absurd on the face of it. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts that estimate, and if not I should be glad to hear what is his estimate of the relation of the cost of valuation to value under this clause.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: All I can say is that the Prime Minister dealt very fully in his reply with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman). I do not think that I can, by way of answer to the noble Lord, usefully add anything to what my right hon. Friend said on the point.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 75.

  Division No. 461.]

  AYES.

  [1.20 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Flennes, Hon. Eustace

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cleland, J. W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Armitage, R.

  Clough, William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Glover, Thomas

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Crossley, William J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Davis, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harwood, George

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Brace, William

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Branch, James

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs, Leigh)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

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

  Elibank, Master of

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Erskine, David C

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Essex, R. W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hodge, John

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hooper, A. G.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Ferens, T. R.

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Grady, J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hudson, Walter

  Partington, Oswald

  Summerbell, T.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk Eye)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Jenkins, J.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pointer, J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Jowett, F. W.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lambert, George

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Tomkinson, James

  Lamont, Norman

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Toulmin, George

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Radford, G. H.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Verney, F. W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Richardson, A.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whitehead, Rowland

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wiles, Thomas

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rowlands, J.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Middlebrook, William

  Scarisbrick Sir T. T. L.

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

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

  Seely, Colonel

  Myer, Horatio

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Ashley, W. W.

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Renton, Leslie

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Keswick, William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Cave, George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Ashton Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Smith,'Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Winterton, Earl

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Foster, P. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Percy, Earl

  Gordon, J.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Mr. W. PEEL: I beg leave to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will readily accede to my Motion, and I think it is unnecessary for me to use any argument except to ask him to direct his eyes to the clock, the hands of which are pointing at half-past one. I think he will feel that it is utterly impossible in this hot weather to start entirely new business at this hour. It is perfectly true that this House, forced by the
  1252
  Government, has set some very bad precedents in starting new business at unearthly hours of the morning. I can recall one or two instances on this Bill when new clauses have been started at four o'clock, and I think on one occasion at half-past four o'clock in the morning. But I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will realise that although there may have been precedents for this extraordinary course it would be an extremely bad thing if this House were to get into the habit of starting fresh business and

  1253
  controversial clauses at so late an hour, and I hope he will by accepting this Motion put an end to this bad habit. I believe he will admit also that there have been no speeches which can by the widest stretch of the imagination be described as obstructive. I have heard a good many Bills thoroughly discussed in Committee of this House, but I can say quite frankly that I do not think I have ever heard such close, interesting, and valuable discussions as I have listened to on this Bill, or with such an extraordinary absence of obstructive speeches. Indeed, obstructive speeches have not been necessary where there has been so much important matter and new principles to occupy attention. Not only that, but I do not suppose that any Opposition has ever tried before to do so much to recast the whole of a Government measure, or in which the Minister in charge of the Bill has made so many changes and brought in so many fresh clauses at very short notice, or without any notice at all.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see how this is relevant to the Motion to report Progress.
  Mr. PEEL: I think it is relevant in this way: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were faced with very obstructive opposition and the wasting of time in discussing unnecessary matter, I conceive it might be necessary to sit and to start new business very late so as to force matters through the House; but as that has not been the case, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Motion. Clauses 17 and 18 relate to the ascertainment of the original total and the original site value of land, and to the periodical valuation of undeveloped land. Both clauses involve not mere questions of machinery, but very important questions which certainly ought to be dealt with when we are fresh. I do urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take into consideration the hour, and whether it is consistent with the dignity of this House to embark on new matter of a controversial character at nearly two o'clock in the morning.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot possibly accede to the proposal, and I think the hon. Member must really have anticipated the reply I am bound to give. I do not think it is necessary for me to consider whether there is any obstruction or not. All I have to say is that on Clause 16 there was really one important point to consider, and as to the rest they were
  1254
  all Amendments moved by the Government in the direction of amending the Bill according to the expressed wish of the Opposition. With regard to Clause 17, there is no point of principle at all; it is purely machinery. All the Amendments of which I have given notice largely embrace Amendments put down by the Opposition, and to meet their criticisms. There is one point of substance on Clause 18, and the other two or three clauses are purely machinery, so that I really think we might get on with them.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is probably right in saying that when my hon. Friend moved his Motion he had very little hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to it. Certainly I did not much hope, because I judge the future by the past, and I know that appeals of this kind which have been made from time to time in the course of this Bill have invariably met with the same perfectly civil but decided reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he thinks it proper to go on with the discussion at advanced hours of the morning. I am not at this moment going to discuss the question, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has put on one side, whether there has or has not been any obstructive discussion on this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I, from different points of view, have seen a great deal of obstruction in the course of our Parliamentary career, and if he and I were to begin comparing reminiscences I dare say some very curious results would follow.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I used to get very short shrift.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Does the right hon. Gentleman really forget the incessant discussions on the Education Bill of 1902? Although in that Bill an important central principle was involved it did not contain the enormous number of separate details such as are involved in this Bill. Everybody who has had experience of this House will agree that prolonged sittings of the character we are now undergoing are almost necessary for a Government which has got to pass legislation. No Government, I imagine, likes it, but no Government would deliberately deprive itself of the occasional use of the machinery which this Government are at present employing. But the point is that no Government has ever used this machinery during the last

  1255
  50 years at the rate the present Government is using it. The right hon. Gentleman thinks he has met our objection to discussing these clauses between 12 and 3.45 in the morning by saying these clauses are machinery clauses; but it very often happens that it is just such clauses that require very serious consideration. The great questions and matters of principle have often been threshed out on second reading. As in the case of the Bill of 1902, the great principle lies in a comparatively narrow compass, and the details are left to be dealt with in Committee after the principle has been admitted; and when you come in Committee to the machinery clauses, contrary to the view put forward by the Government, you come to the real manner in which the Bill is going to affect the persons whom it touches—in this case the taxpayers of the country. I am quite certain that I should never have dreamed of taking the action which the Government has taken to-night in regard to some Amendments that have been moved, and I shall never understand why the Government have kept us hour after hour refusing Amendments which might have been accepted. The fact is the Government did choose to occupy our time in the earlier part of the sitting in resisting perfectly obvious and perfectly just Amendments.
  The Government are soon coming to other clauses when questions other than those of a technical character affecting machinery will be raised, and which are of actual substance and are of importance to the taxpayers. It is, I maintain, impossible for this Committee to go on night after night doing the work. It is perhaps not pertinent for me to say that the officers of the House, and particularly the Chairman, must find it difficult to carry out their tasks; but I have had experience in knowing that the officials who aid the Government and Ministers cannot do their duty properly if they are expected to work here 13 or 14 hours, in addition to the work they do outside the House. If the machinery is to work at pressure it is desirable that it should work well. To make all-night sittings an ordinary method of procedure is perfectly monstrous. It is bad for the Members, it is bad for the officials, and it is bad for the Bill under consideration. It cannot be said outside this House that the points of the Bill have been thoroughly threshed out. Nobody in his senses will say that a discussion between twelve and six o'clock in the morning is an adequate discussion, or in any sense a substitute for
  1256
  discussion which takes place between four in the afternoon and eleven o'clock at night. They are long hours in the latter case, and the whole ground upon which the ministry of the day insisted upon the change of hours of sitting was that discussion after eleven o'clock at night was bad. I think, perhaps, eleven o'clock was too early an hour for terminating discussion; but still we have got accustomed to it, and we have taken it as a normal thing to adjourn soon after that hour. A discussion as important as that which took place last night everybody accepted as carried on under proper limitation. Anything beyond the time that discussion went should be exceptional—should be made to meet a particular crisis; but the present Government in dealing with this Bill are making these late sittings part of the regular machinery for carrying on discussion, and they cannot do so without injuring the health of many of those who stay here to support or to oppose the Government, as the case may be, and those who are here to advise the Government and the House. I, therefore, earnestly support my hon. Friend in the Amendment he has moved, and if he carries it to a Division I shall support him in the Lobby.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: On a point of order, Mr. Emmott. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have repeatedly accused hon. Members on these Benches of "obstruction," and I desire to ask for your ruling whether or not that is a disorderly expression?
  The CHAIRMAN: The last ruling on the point was not given by me, but the Speaker gave one when he said he had heard the charge of obstruction made, and he had known it done.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I desire to put a point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to Clause 25. He has said that we should not only get through Clause 18, but two or three other clauses, and that will bring us to Clause 25 to-morrow. Clause 25 deals with the exemption of land held for public or charitable purposes. It is well known that the Government intend to recast that Clause, but their Amendments are not on the Paper, and I do submit that it would be really surpassing the Government's record in the matter if we could only see those Amendments on the Paper to-morrow, when we may have to discuss them straight away. I think this Motion that we should adjourn the Debate now is really relevant, so that we may have

  1257
  time to consider the Amendments of the Government to Clause 25 and have them upon the Paper before we come to them. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had the feelings conveyed to him of those who feel strongly on this point, and he must see that it will be grossly improper to ask the Committee to come to a decision on Amendments which have only been within the purview of the Members a few hours. He ought not to press this machinery unduly to-night.
  Mr. A. B. MARKHAM: Everyone of the supporters of the Government on these benches is most anxious to get this Bill through, and we cannot get it through without extra sittings unless the House sits long hours. When the Opposition were in power they on one occasion not only sat all night but right through the next day as well, so that we ran into the next sitting. [OPPOSITION cries of "When?"] That was on the Coal Tax. On one occasion the House sat for 25 hours. But that is not the point. What I want to put to the Opposition is that it is not merely what they have done in the past, but what I think they will do again when they have the opportunity.
  Mr. BALFOUR: As I pointed out, every Government must have power to increase the hours of sitting; but what I complain of is the persistent use of increased hours.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I quite understand. What I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bear in mind in getting the Bill through this House is that the Government's supporters want to get the Bill through, and that they are prepared to sit up to-night.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has detected what he thinks to be a precedent. His memory has unfortunately misled him. He says that the occasion on which we sat till half-past four in the second day was the occasion in which the Coal Tax was imposed. He is mistaken.
  Mr. MARKHAM: It was a Budget resolution.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It was not even a Budget resolution. It was not when the Coal Tax was imposed, but two or three years afterwards. There was nothing in that Budget about the Coal Tax, but there was a new clause in the name of an hon. Member to repeal the Coal Tax which was an existing tax. Nobody would have guessed that these were the circumstances to which the hon. Member (Mr. Markham)
  1258
  referred. On that occasion we had a very prolonged and highly obstructive discussion, lasting over many days, on taxes which were, with one trifling exception, well known and familiar to the Committee, and all of which had been in force for some years, most of them for many years. That was the occasion on which, in order to wind up the Committee stage of the Budget and these prolonged obstructive tactics, we were kept sitting by the Opposition of the day till half-past four the next afternoon. That was a totally different state of things from that in which we are now. That was an isolated case. It was a step taken to meet a particular emergency, and was far from getting a habit of the House or of the Government of that day. I think it necessary to rectify the account which the lion. Member (Mr. Markham), no doubt under a complete misapprehension of the facts, gave of the incident which then took place.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I rise to make only one observation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, whose experience of Committee stages in this House is as great or greater than that of any other Member, has told the Committee that in his judgment all-night sittings must be a not infrequent part of our procedure. The Government not only think that, but they think it should be a normal part of their procedure, at any rate on this Bill. [A LIBERAL MEMBER: "No."] That is evident after the speech of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham).
  Mr. MARKHAM: Abnormal discussion.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Everybody knows that there has been nothing in the nature of abnormal discussion. I think it is for the House to consider seriously whether that is a condition of affairs in which the procedure of this House should be left. It is for the Government to consider it. The confession of the leaders on both sides of the House that all-night sittings are part of our normal, regular and usual procedure is a condemnation of the procedure of this House, and I call upon the Government of the day in the strongest possible way to amend the procedure so that such a ridiculous state of things may be remedied.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 172.

  Division No. 462.]

  AYES.

  [1.55 a. m

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Prctyman, E. G.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gordon, J.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Renton, Leslie

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

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Brideman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkely George D.

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stanier Beville

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Starkey, John R.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Long, Rt. Hon Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Winterton, Earl

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Foster, P. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Peel and Mr. Mildmay.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Percy, Earl

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Morrell, Philip

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Glover, Thomas

  Myer, Horatio

  Armitage, R.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Pointer, J.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Harwood, George

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Radford, G. H.

  Brace, William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Branch, James

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

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

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Richardson, A.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hodge, John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hooper, A. G.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Channing, Sir Francis Aliston

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rowlands, J.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hudson, Walter

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Cleiand, J. W.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveiand)

  Clough, William

  Jackson, R. S.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jenkins, J.

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Seely, Colonel

  Cooper, G. J.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Lambert, George

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lamont, Norman

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyuiph (Cheshire)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Summerbell, T.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Maclean, Donald

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Elibank, Master of

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Toulmin, George

  Erskine, David C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Essex, R. W.

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

  Verney, F. W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Marnham, F. J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  White, J. (Dumbartonshire)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Middlebrook, William

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  1260

  1261

  Wiles, Thomas

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

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

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

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

  Clause 17.—(Ascertainment of the Original Total and the Original Site Value of Land.)
  2 A.M.
  (1) The Commissioners shall cause all returns made by owners under this Act to be examined, and if no objection is taken to the return, the values declared in the return shall be adopted as the original total value and the original site value respectively for the purpose of this Part of this Act.
  (2) If the Commissioners consider that the total or site value, as stated in any return, is not correct, they shall object to the return and communicate with the owner of the land with a view to an Amendment of the return, and if the owner amends the return in manner satisfactory to the Commissioners the total and site value as stated in the amended return shall be adopted as the original total and the original site value for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
  (3) If no return is made in accordance with this Act in respect of any land by the owner of the land, or if an owner refuses to amend a return which is objected to by the Commissioners, or fails to amend the return in manner satisfactory to the Commissioners, the value of the land shall be determined by the Commissioners, and the total and site value so determined shall be adopted as the original total and the original site value respectively for the purposes of this Part of this Act, subject, in cases where the owner of the land has made a return, to an appeal under this Act.
  (4) Where the value to be adopted as the original total or the original site value of any land for the purposes of this Part of this Act has not been settled at the time when any duty under this Part of this Act becomes leviable, any duty under this Part of this Act shall be assessed as if the values as declared in the return of the owner were the values adopted for the original total and site values for the purposes of this Part of this Act, and, on the values to be adopted being ultimately ascertained, if it is found that the amount which should have been paid as duty exceeds that actually paid, the excess shall be deemed to be arrears of the duty, except so far as any penalty is incurred
  1262
  on account of arrears, and if it is found that the amount which should have been paid as duty is less than that actually paid, the difference shall be repaid by the Commissioners.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Section (1) to leave out the words "all returns made by owners under this Act to be examined," and to insert instead thereof the words "a copy of their provisional valuation of any land to be served on the owner of the land."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I want to ask the learned Attorney-General a question concerning a point which I was unable to raise on the last clause, that is, as to the service of this provisional valuation on the owner. The Attorney-General will remember that in the last clause an option was given to the owner to require the Commissioners to assess separately any land which he held, although it might be in the same occupation. What I desire to know is, will the owner have an opportunity of doing this after the provisional valuation is served upon him, or will it be necessary for him, immediately on the Bill passing, to apprise the Commissioners that he wishes them to value certain land separately? I think the Attorney-General will agree that it is desirable to have a point of such great importance cleared up at once. Another point on which I should like to have information is as to whether, if an owner wishes to exercise his option and value the land himself, he will have to give notice of his intention at the earliest possible moment, in which case I presume the Commissioners will defer their own valuation until they get his.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I will endeavour to answer the questions put by the hon. Gentleman. Clause 16 says that each piece of land which is under separate occupation shall be valued, and, if the owner requires, any part of the land shall be separately valued. That, of course, will give the owner a right to require a separate valuation before the provisional valuation is made. It may quite

  1263
  possibly be that he has either not thought of it, or not desired it until afterwards, and in such a case it is my impression that the Commissioners would certainly not decline to make the separate valuation. When the returns are made, however, will be, as it seems to me, the proper time for the owner to indicate his wish. Afterwards, when the provisional valuation has been made, I am not prepared to say that the Commissioners should be compelled to give effect to the owner's wish, but I certainly do not think they would refuse to do so. We must remember that in all these matters the Commissioners will be desirous to have the true value ascertained, and so to avoid appeal. Speaking without notice of the question, or very prolonged consideration, I should say that the owner's right should properly be exercised when he gets notice to send in his return.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Will the learned Attorney-General kindly explain, arising on these words now proposed to be dealt with, how it is proposed to proceed in a case where the owner is a person who is not sui juris.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The word "owner" is denned in the Definition Clause as "the person entitled to the freehold of the land." A person who is not sui juris would, without any reference whatever in this Bill, be entitled, or those who are acting for him would be entitled, to perform any obligations cast on the owner by this Bill by virtue of the settled Land Act.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the words, 'a copy of their provisional valuation of any land to be served on the owner of the land,' be inserted."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There is an Amendment to the proposed Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Lord Robert Cecil). As he is not here, perhaps I may be permitted to refer to it. It is to leave out the word "provisional," ["a copy of their provisional valuation"]. I do not quite understand why the word has been inserted. Are not all the valuations which are made provisional valuations? I will say no more about it, but will just ask the hon. and learned Gentleman why
  1264
  the word "provisional" is in at all, and whether the Government will not agree to knock it out.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think the word is useful. It will be seen that the first valuation taken by the Commissioners is here referred to as provisional. After that valuation has been served upon the taxpayer, the taxpayer has to make his objections to that valuation. Those objections have to be considered by the Commissioners, and if the Commissioners are not satisfied have to be made the subject-matter of an appeal. The word provisional simply indicates that the first valuation thus served is not to be taken as the final valuation. The word does no harm, and is accurately descriptive of the first valuation.
  Colonel R. WILLIAMS: "Their valuation" rather means that it is a valuation which is provisional on the part of the Commissioners, and therefore that they may alter it on their side afterwards. If the word were "the" provisional valuation it would be a different thing, but it is "their" provisional valuation. It rather seems to indicate that if the owner wishes to alter his valuation it will not be open to him to do so. If it means the Commissioners' valuation I think it ought to be a fixed valuation, left open to the owner to object to if he wished to do so.
  Sir W. ROBSON: It really makes no difference whether the word is "their" or "the." Although the valuation is called provisional, yet if no objection is made to it it stands good as the original total and site value. It must not be treated as a merely tentative valuation. It becomes the final valuation if there is no objection.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman means that the Commissioners will serve the provisional valuation on the owner, and then if the owner does not make any objection that will become the final valuation. No fresh notice will be issued by the Commissioners to say to the owner, "You not having made an objection this is now the final valuation." The owner will be left to assume that. If the matter has escaped his notice he will not again have his attention called to it, and will not be aware of what is being done. I should think it necessary that at each stage the Commissioners should communicate with the owners. That is the point I want to raise. I quite agree they must

  1265
  send a provisional valuation, which is the first valuation. I quite agree that it is properly called provisional, and that it is useful to have it called provisional. All I suggest is that this is not the only valuation of which the owner ought to have a copy. As soon as the Commissioners arrive at each stage they should at once commmunicate with the owner.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the point is covered. If there is no objection taken to it the first valuation stands as before, the total and original site value. If there is an objection then the owner is obliged to send in his grounds of objection to the provisional valuation. Then the Commissioners may amend or not as they think right. If they amend in a way satisfactory to the owner there is an end of the matter. If they do not amend then the owner must make up his mind whether or not he will appeal. There is no occasion to serve fresh notices. If the owner finds that they refuse to amend his valuation, all he has to do is to set in motion the apparatus of appeal which is provided for by the Act.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I wish to move to amend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. I move after the word "land" ["the owner of the land"] to insert "containing full particulars of such valuation." It is obvious, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will very clearly see it, that in the kind of valuation which has to be made here, involving the value of structures of all kinds which are to be deducted for ascertaining the original site value, everything depends on the manner and fairness of the valuation of these structures. It seems to me that it would be quite absurd merely to have in such a case a net valuation of site and total value without giving any particulars at all, or without giving the owners of property any opportunity of settling for himself whether or not these valuations were reasonable and fair. In the case of drains, bends, and all those sort of things, everything depends upon the manner in which they are valued, and it seems unreasonable and quite unnecessary to put an owner in the position of having to get for himself a very expensive valuation in order to check the valuation made by the Government valuer.
  1266
  In a matter of this kind I think it only fair that the Government should do everything possible to let the owner see that the valuation was fair, straightforward, and above board. There is nothing to conceal in the matter, and it would tend very much to the acceptance of valuation and to the adjustment of any difficulty which might be in the mind of the owner if he knew and saw all these details. I had a farm valued for the purposes of the Scottish Land Values Bill, and the valuations were extremely interesting. They were so interesting that they left no site value to the farm at all. But there they were. One saw what the drains, fences, and so forth were put at. Some, I thought, were extreme and some were not sufficient, but it would be easy to adjust any difference if the owner saw the valuation in detail. I am not asking for anything. The valuer must himself value these things for himself. He must take them separately and individually calculate them.
  Sir W. ROBSON: It really seems unnecessary to add so much complexity to what we hope will be a very simple matter. It does not at all follow that you are going to have the elaboration that some hon. Members apprehend with regard to all the valuations. In the case of deductions and allowances from the taxable value made under Clause 2, perhaps it is desirable that there should be a record kept, and that is already provided for. They are deductions and allowances which are personal to the owner of the land, and which he would desire to have on record and shown to him.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the valuation in the majority of cases is as simple as the hon. and learned Gentleman anticipates, then, of course, it is a very simple matter to give in full such particulars as my hon. Friend asks. The Attorney-General recognises that it is legitimate to ask that these particulars should be furnished in the case of a valuation under Clause 2, and he states that that is provided for. I do not know where it is provided for.
  Sir W. ROBSON: It is one of the new sections added by me.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Attorney-General will forgive me for not bearing in mind all the Amendments that have been made. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that it was fair to ask for the particulars to be furnished in respect

  1267
  of Clause 2, because there you deal with the value on which the tax is actually made, but he forgets that it is not the only tax. Clause 2 has only to do with the Increment Tax, and it is only one of two valuations by means of which the tax is settled. It is just as necessary that you should have particulars at the point from which you start to calculate your increment as at the high-water mark reached. Then, in regard to undeveloped land, it is the original site value under Clause 14 which is the taxing value, and accordingly particulars of that valuation are just as important. The Attorney-General observed that when you came to Clause 2 and had particulars which were personal to the owner of the land, it was natural that he should desire to have them placed on record and shown to him. The factors under Clause 14, include factors which are personal to the owner of the land —"any part of the site value which is proved to be due to works of a permanent character executed by or on behalf of any person interested in the land," and other details of that kind. Let us consider what is the process of valuation as we have had it explained to us. You arrive at the total value of the hereditament as it stands.
  You proceed then to divest the land of all the things in Section (2) of Clause 14, after which you proceed to deduct all that you are allowed to deduct in Section 4, and the result is the site value for the purposes of this Bill. Is it not a reasonable request that the owner of the land should have particulars supplied to him of what the Commissioners have allowed for that of which they have divested the land, and for that which they must deduct from the land? How otherwise is he to criticise their valuation? He will have a lump figure thrown at his head. They will say that: "Having performed all the duties required of us by the Act, this is our valuation." Surely the owner is entitled to see what they have divested the land of, and what they have deducted, and whether sufficient has been allowed for. I really think the Attorney-General and the Government must see that unless they are going to inflict quite unnecessary hardship, and throw endless obstacles in the way of the taxpayer, this information must be given. It cannot do the Government any harm. Provided that their only object is to arrive at a fair valuation, clearly the more communicative the Commissioners are the more likely are they to come to an
  1268
  agreement with the person whose property they are assessing, and the less likely there is to be litigation thereafter. If you refuse the Amendment which gives the taxpayer the right to have these particulars what will then happen? He will only get them by going to law. You force him to challenge the decision of the Commissioners, and to take them into a court of law, where he can get an order of the court for the supply of these particulars, so as to ascertain whether, after all, there was anything to dispute in their calculations or not. I think that is a very unreasonable and a very unwise provision, equally injurious to the Treasury and to the taxpayer, and I urge the Attorney-General to give a more favourable consideration to my hon. Friend's Amendment.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I cannot help thinking that it would be well for the Members of the Government to realise the propriety of bringing some little pressure to bear upon the Attorney-General. All we are asking for is that this provisional valuation will appear before those concerned. The owner will have been asked for some information, and he will get the document which will assess practically on two figures—on total value and site value. All we are asking for is that there shall be added these few details and figures which come into the ordinary details of valuation. Take the total valuation. Let the valuer say there is so many feet frontage and so much across—so many yards super and so much a yard. But let him give the ordinary particulars which a valuer gives, showing how he has worked the thing out. If that is reasonable to ask as regards total value, is it not even more reasonable to ask as regards this new matter of site value? Whatever it may be, it is something which has to be dealt with by a method, and is it not almost unreasonable to say that a valuer has not to say how he arrives at the site value? Just let us consider. Do not let us deal, for the moment, with some wealthy landowner, but with an ordinary small and not very well-educated owner. He gets this very serious document. What will he do with it? He will go straight to the valuer for advice. He will say. "Here is my assessment—total value and site value—am I to submit to this?" The first thing the valuer will say is, "How did the valuer get at the figures?" If he says so much per foot, or so many years' rental, the valuer can say that that appears not

  1269
  unreasonable. Even when you are dealing with a Liberal Government, it is not necessary to take up an attitude of hostility against the taxpayer. The only course to be pursued without dispute is by the actual value. The Attorney-General said what was proposed might interfere with the proofs. We all hope that they may come up to a sort of accepted standard; but they would not be interfered with in the least, and the last point I want to take up is this. It has been pointed out to us by the Attorney-General that what is proposed is actually done or will be done as the Bill stands, as valuations which are to be made come under Clause 2. If it is desirable under Clause 2 is it not under this clause? The 1909 valuation is a thing that stands for ever. It is, therefore, exceedingly important to get it right, and to get it right in Clause 2 and then under this clause.
  Earl WINTERTON: I have listened with astonishment to the reply of the Attorney-General. He cannot realise the effect of the clause as it stands in so far as it relates to the case of undeveloped land, and to the case of agricultural land. I leave aside for the moment the case of the town property, and I take the case of agricultural land. Surely, the Attorney-General must realise that to present the owner with merely a piece of paper in which there are two lump sums, the original value and the site value, is absolutely absurd. The only way in which the valuation of agricultural land can be made intelligible is by putting it upon the leases, which explains the different component parts as to value, such as the value of arable land and drainage expenses, roads, fences, bridges, etc., which may be there. I am sure the Attorney-General cannot realise under this bald clause as it stands what little value it will have. To the owner in estimating the real value of the land it cannot have any value at all. So far as it helps him to realise the value of the land it might just as well not be part of the Bill at all. My hon. Friend, who moved the addition of these words, mentioned the case of drainage, and roads, and other things. I have also mentioned, as an instance, the case of a water supply. If particulars are not sent to the owner how is he to estimate what value the Commissioners attach to the water supply, or to the drainage, the roads, the bridges, etc.? The fact is the clause is quite absurd. We were told a
  1270
  short time ago that it was perfectly easy to get particulars; but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pressed he did not know what the real details were. I believe that until this Amendment was brought up the matter under discussion had never occurred to the Government, and that they had never considered the point at all. I appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman to give the matter his consideration again, and to say whether he cannot put some words in the Bill which will enable the unfortunate owner to understand what is being done.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I hope the Committee will not take undue time over this matter. If the method of valuation is thought to be unfair, the person concerned is not prevented from making it a proper subject matter of appeal. I am quite sure that those who drafted this Amendment could not have given it long consideration. Not only was the original Amendment a manuscript Amendment, but it was not proposed as handed in at the Table. Just at the last moment the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has put in words. Of course, there will be a consultation amongst the various persons concerned in the valuation. The Commissioners have all these valuers in front of them to keep them in order at each stage of the valuation. I hear someone say that is litigation. Yes; but the prospect of litigation has a very wholesome effect upon the parties before litigation is taken. I only mention these circumstances to show that the Commissioners would behave as reasonable men. They will not treat this valuation in a way they do not treat other valuations. We know how they treat valuation for the Death Duties. We are not putting these duties into the hands of some untried tribunal, and I ask the Committee to trust the Commissioners to carry out these duties as they have others, and I appeal to them not to spend so much time over this matter.
  Colonel R. WILLIAMS: I must ask the learned Attorney-General to give a little more consideration to this question. He cited the instance of the valuation of a farm. There is only one factor in that case. Everyone knows when he sees a valuation on the church door the figures by which the assessment has been arrived at and he knows what to do. In this case, in order to arrive at site value, you have to deduct certain things from the total

  1271
  value, if only one of these factors is given the owner will know where his valuation differs from that of the valuer. It may be that the valuers do not know how long it was since the particular piece of land was drained or chalked. That is a very material factor in certain parts of the country. There may be the question of woodlands or water supply. Almost every farm in certain countries has a water supply in some way or another, and unless the owner knows the factors in the valuer's valuation he cannot set to work to correct it. If the learned Attorney-General knew the practice of valuers he would know how difficult it is to get particulars of valuation from them. A valuer will put certain figures down in his own book by rule of thumb, and he will tell you the total sum; but he is very shy about these particulars, and that makes it very hard in any question of dispute to get at the bottom of the dispute. The learned Attorney-General talked about the fear of litigation having a sobering effect. It has on the people who have to pay out of their own pockets, but not upon the
  Commissioners, who have the State behind them. For them there is no sobering fear. Very often the Commissioners will say to the unfortunate taxpayer, "If you will not go to law we will let you off with a fine." That may have a sobering effect, and they may thereby extract more fine than they are entitled to. We are quite content to wait until the Government have given some further consideration to the words if the learned Attorney-General will leave them open on Report. That some particulars should be given in these cases is quite certain, because the owner otherwise will not know on what the valuers have proceeded. He will have to go through the whole thing himself, but if the Commissioners will give him the five or six things on which they base the value that will not be necessary.
  Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 65.

  Division No. 463.]

  AYES.

  [2.50 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ferens, T. R.

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

  Armitage, R.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Glover, Thomas

  Marnham, F. J.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Middlebrook, William

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hancock, J. G.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Morrell, Philip

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Brace, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Myer, Horatio

  Branch, James

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  O'Grady, J.

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Partington, Oswald

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pointer, J.

  Clough, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hodge, John

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Crossley, William J.

  Jenkins, J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Davies, M. Vauyhan- (Cardigan)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Richardson, A.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Elibank, Master of

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rowlands, J.

  Erskine, David C.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Essex, R. W.

  Maclean, Donald

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Essiemont, George Birnie

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

  Temkinson, James

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Seely, Colonel

  Toulmin, George

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Shackleton, David James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Walsh, Stephen

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Summerbell, T.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whitehead, Rowland

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

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reyneil

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Ashley, W. W.

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Renton, Leslie

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bridgeman, W, Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Stanler, Seville

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Winterton, Earl

  Foster, P. S.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Lord E. Talbot.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Gordon, J.

  Percy, Earl

  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "land" ["a copy of their provisional valuation of any land"] to insert the words "containing full particulars of such valuation."— [Mr. Younger.]
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 64; Noes, 157.

  Division No. 464.]

  AYES.

  [2.55 a.m.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Ed.)

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Ashley, W. W.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Remnant, Jame Farquharson

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Ronton, Leslie

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall)

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hunt, Rowland

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cave, George

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley G. D.

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Stanier, Seville

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Winterton, Earl

  Foster, P. S.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Younger and Col. R. Williams.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Gordon, J.

  Percy, Earl

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Brace, William

  Armitage, R.

  Beauchamp E.

  Branch, James

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Brooke, Stopford

  Srunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roberts, G H. (Norwich)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hudson, Walter

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Jenkins, J.

  Rowlands, J.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cleland, J. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Clough, William

  Jowett, F. W.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lambert, George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lamont, Norman

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Collins, Sir Wn. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Seely, Colonel

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

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Shackleton, David James

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Crossley, William J.

  Maclean, Donald

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Summerbell, T.

  Duckworth, Sir James

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Ellbank, Master of

  Marnham, F. J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Essex, R. W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Tomkinson, James

  Esslemont, George Birnle

  Middlebrook, William

  Toulmin, George

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morrell, Philip

  Verney, F. W.

  Ferens, T. R.

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

  Walsh, Stephen

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Myer, Horatio

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Glover, Thomas

  Norman, Sir Henry

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Grady, J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Cooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whitley, Johon Henry (Halifax)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Partington, Oswald

  Miles, Thomas

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Pointer, J.

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Hodge, John

  Richardson, A.

  Sir W. ROBSON Claimed "That the Main Question be now put." Question, "That those words be there inserted," put accordingly, and agreed to.

  3.0 A.M.
  Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON claimed to move, "That in respect of the words of the
  Clause to the end thereof the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 65.

  Division No. 465.]

  AYES.

  [3.7 a. m.

  Acland Francis Dyke

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Fenwick, Charles

  Armitage, R.

  Clough, William

  Ferens, T. R.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Barnard, E. B.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Cooper, G. J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Brace, William

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Branch, James

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Duncan, c. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

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

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Elibank, Master of

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Erskine, David C.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Essex, R. W.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Myer, Horatio

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hodge, John

  Partington, Oswald

  Summerbell, T.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Pointer, J.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Jackson, R. S.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Jenkins, J.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Toulmin, George

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jowett, F. W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Verney, F. W.

  Lambert, George

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lamont, Norman

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Richardson, A.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

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

  Rowlands, J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Middlebrook, William

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

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Seely, Colonel

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

  Worrell, Philip

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Renton, Leslie

  Ashley, W. W.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bridgeman, W. Cilve

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cave, George

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stanler, Seville

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Starkey, John R.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Winterton, Earl

  Foster, P. T.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Percy, Earl

  Gordon, J.

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Question, "That the words 'owner considers' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON moved, in Section (1), to leave out the words "if no" ["and if no objection is taken to the return"] and to insert the word "unless."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON moved to leave out the word "return" ["and unless objection is taken to the return"] and to insert the -words "provisional valuation in manner provided by this section."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON moved to leave out the words "declared in the return" ["the values declared in the return"] and to
  1278
  insert the words "shown in the provisional valuation."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON moved, in Section (2), to leave out the words "Commissioners consider" ["If the Commissioners consider that the total or site value"].
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON moved, in Section (2), to insert the words "owner considers" ["If the owner considers that the total or site value "].
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I desire to move an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to insert after the word "owner" the words "or any person having any interest in the land."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that Amendment.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then we must raise the point on the Amendment moved by the Attorney-General for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I entirely agree it would have been much more convenient to have raised this question on Section (1). It was not our fault we did not. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) wished to raise it at a moment which you did not think convenient, and owing to action which was beyond our control we were prevented from raising the point on Section (1). It would be monstrous, if, after having been prevented from moving it on Section (1), because of the Closure moved by the Attorney-General, we were prevented from moving it on Section (2). The Government have got to meet the point involved. I say that without hesitation, not because of the justice of the case, for that would not give me so much confidence, but because of the statement made by the Government that they would meet it. Even when they are using the Closure they cannot neglect their pledge, and they will not neglect it. The learned Attorney-General pointed out just now that "owner" for the purposes of the Act was denned in the definition clause. "The expression owner means the person entitled to the freehold of the land, except that where land is let on lease for a term of which more than fifty years are unexpired, the lessee under the lease shall be deemed to be the owner instead of the person entitled to the freehold." Accordingly, in the one case the owner of the freehold is the actual owner; in the other case, the lessee is treated as the owner. Both of these people are affected by this valuation, and both these people ought to have a right to be heard as to the justice of the valuation. Let me take as an illustration the case of a lessee as the owner within the terms of the definition clause. He has unexpired lease of more than 50 years, and therefore he is treated as the owner. It is to him that the Commissioners go to inquire for particulars, and to him they send their provisional valuation when they have received the particulars they want. But the valuation once made is binding on all parties concerned, and will become
  1280
  binding on the actual owner—not merely on the artificial owner, but on the actual owner. Well, in the converse case, the lessee will be bound by the valuation which the owner has made, and will have to pay the taxes. It is obvious that in each case there will be persons who have not had the valuation submitted to them, and who have had no opportunity of making any comments.
  Sir W. ROBSON: But that point is met by another Amendment on the Paper providing that (6) "where a lessee is the owner of the land within the meaning of this Act, this section shall apply as if any person entitled to the fee simple reversion or to a leasehold reversion for a term of years exceeding twenty-one were the owner as well as the lessee."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It applies to the case where the lessee is for the purpose of this Act the owner. In that case the owner is to be treated as owner as well as lessee; but I do not think the case of the man whose lease is just less than 50 years unexpired is met at all. The case of the owner of the long lease is met, I think, by this proposed Section (6), but the case of the man mentioned is not met, neither is that of some other people having interest in the land.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The lessee referred to has to pay no tax.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then he pays no tax at any period of the fifty years? If that is the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, perhaps he will make it good.
  Sir W. ROBSON: What will he pay?
  Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: He will pay increment value, will he not? But, there! we cannot carry on a discussion of this matter by question and answer, interrupting one another. There is my answer to the hon. and learned Gentletleman's request. Other persons interested in the land ought to have an opportunity of seeing this valuation. For instance, where the land has a mortgage upon it, the mortgagee's representatives should be given an opportunity of seeing these valuations and of seeing how the Commissioners make them up, and how they are affected in regard to the security of the mortgage. Under your ruling, Mr. Chairman, one of my hon. Friends cannot move the Amendment which he intended to introduce. We say the words of the-

  1281
  Government Amendments are inadequate, and I hope you will allow the Government to amend their own Amendment.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I would point out to the learned law officer that this valuation is in fact a permanent valuation. That being so, it is very important for the Government to see that all these people who have a right to make objection have reasonable opportunity for seeing the valuation. My right hon. Friend has instanced one case—that of the lessee. I think the whole question of the lessees is somewhat difficult, and it is not made any more easy by these Amendments put down at short notice. I will put two sets of cases—the case of the mortgagee and the life renters. The life renter is dealt with in Clause 28. But, after all, for the purposes of some of the duties, particularly for the purposes of Increment Duty, the man who has a real interest is not the life renter who, for the purposes of this Bill, is the owner, but the trustees and the ultimate fiar. And they are people who ought to have an opportunity of saying whether ox not the valuation which the Commissioners have arrived at is a fair valuation. I am quite sure the Government will have to meet this point, and I am quite certain that the draftsman of the Bill had it in his mind, although it is not met in the Bill itself. If the right hon. Gentleman will look a little lower down the section he will see the Commissioners are to have regard to persons raising reasonable objections. It may be taken to presume that some other person than the owner is to have the opportunity of stating his objections. After all, if a man does not make objection under this section to the provisional valuation he loses his right of appeal altogether. If the life renter or the trustees do not object to the valuation within 30 days they cannot appeal at all. If you do not give these people any right of appeal, you are in a fair way towards committing an injustice which I do not think the Government intend to commit.
  Mr. CAVE: This is a very serious matter indeed; so may I, before the learned Attorney-General answers, direct his attention to an Amendment which I have put down towards the end of the clause. It provides that "Before adopting or determining any sum as the total or site value of any land for the purposes of this Part of this Act, the Commissioners shall give to every person interested in the land notice of the amount
  1282
  proposed to be adopted or determined and an opportunity of objecting thereto, and shall consider any objection made by any such person." I submit that is a very moderate way of providing for the difficulty. It is a real difficulty. May I put a case of settled land, in which A has a life interest with remainder to B. Under the Bill A alone is consulted as to site value. He may not care anything at all about it; he has nothing but a life interest. He may be an old man, and may not think it is at all likely that he will have to pay increment duty, and he may not trouble about it. Suppose the value is put too low, and the reversioner comes in and sells at a fair price. He has not been consulted about the original site value, yet he has to pay on the difference between the original site value and that sale price. It may be a very large sum indeed, because the original site value was fixed too low. Surely it is not intended that he shall be bound by a valuation made in his absence, on which he was not consulted, to which he had no kind of right to object, and against which he cannot appeal. That is a simple case, showing that this is a real point which deserves to be dealt with seriously, and by way of Amendment to the Bill. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here now, and perhaps he will consider it. We say that before the site value is fixed notice ought to be given not only to the technical owner of the land, who may be a mortgagor, or life tenant, or a person having a partial interest, but to every person who has a real interest in the land. All these other persons ought to have a right to consider the proposal to fix the site value, and an opportunity of objecting to the amount, and of appealing against the decision.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has an Amendment on the Paper on this point. I think he should raise the question on that Amendment. If we pass on to that I shall be quite ready to call upon him to move it.
  Mr. CAVE: I am quite ready to agree to that.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the word "return" ["as stated in any return"], and to insert the words "provisional valuation."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the words "they shall object to the return, and communicate with the owner of the land with a view to the Amendment of the return," and to insert the words "he may, with a view to an Amendment of the provisional valuation, within sixty days of the date on which the copy of the provisional valuation is served, or such extended time as the Commissioners may in any special case allow, give to the Commissioners notice of objection to the provisional valuation, stating the grounds of his objection and the Amendment he desires."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to ask the learned Attorney-General with reference to the time it is proposed to insert in this section, whether it has any effect, and, if so, what effect upon the previous section. In that section there was an amendment down intended to give a limit of time within which objection might be taken. That amendment was not discussed in consequence of the procedure we have adopted. Accordingly, Section (1) says that the provisional valuation becomes the definitive valuation unless objection is taken. It does not specify the time when the objection shall be taken, or any time after which the Commissioners need not receive it. Here you say, "If the owner considers that the total or site value, as stated in any provisional valuation, is not correct, he may with a view to an amendment of the provisional valuation, within sixty days of the date on which the copy of the provisional valuation is served, or such extended time as the Commissioners may in any special case allow, give to the Commissioners notice of objection." Is that the notice contemplated in Section (1)?
  Sir W. ROBSON: Yes.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That answers my point.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I consider that the time allowed of 60 days is too short in which to lodge an objection. The last part of the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the owner has to set out the grounds of his objection and the Amendment he desires. That really means that he has to make his own valuation of the property during this time, and 60 days may very often be a very inadequate time. These 60 days date from the service of the notice, and by a subse-
  1284
  quent Amendment it is proposed that posting a letter to him may be taken as service. The owner may be abroad—even at the Antipodes—and the greater part of the 60 days may expire before he gets the notice at all. In many cases it will be utterly impossible for him to make the valuation, so that he could give grounds of objections to the Commissioners within the 60 days of the service of the notice. I submit that the time ought to be extended to 90 days. The owner will have to consult his legal and professional advisers and make up his mind with the utmost accuracy as to what Amendment he desires. All this will have to be put into form, and under the proposals of the Government a great deal of the 60 days will elapse before he has a chance of doing so. I should like to move to omit the words "sixty days" in order to insert "ninety days."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I could not accept that. The Commissioners are here given power in any special case to give such extended time as they think fit.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN moved to leave out from the proposed Amendment the words "the grounds of his objection and" ["stating the grounds of his objection and the Amendment he desires"]. The Amendment will then provide that the owner may state the Amendment he desires.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: He must give the grounds of his objection.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Why should he? The Commissioners are not bound to give the owner particulars of their valuation. We asked that the Commissioners should be bound to give sufficient particulars to the person who is assessed to enable him to judge whether the valuation was fairly arrived at or not. The Government absolutely refused to place any obligation on the Commissioners to give any such information to the taxpayer. Thus it is now in the power of the Commissioners simply to say, "This is the total value of your estate, or of this plot of land, and we assess it at so much. This is the site value as we assessed it provisionally. If you do not like it say so." And the taxpayer, who does not know how the Commissioners have arrived at their value, is then to state his objections. Surely if he is to give the grounds of his objection he must know on what grounds the Commissioners have arrived at the valuation He may

  1285
  say, "My objection is that you have not deducted that which ought to be deducted." But, as it is, if he wants to know what the Commissioners have allowed for the land to be divested, or any other particulars, he can only arrive at the information he desires to get when he takes the Commissioners before a Referee or a court and is able to administer interrogatories to them. If you refuse that information as from the Commissioners to the taxpayer, I contend that you have not a shadow of right to claim that similar information should be given by the taxpayer to the Commissioners. If the Commissioners are not bound to disclose any part of their case to the taxpayer, it is not right that the taxpayer should have to disclose any part of his case to the Commissioners. It is only fair that the two should be placed on a similar footing. The taxpayer should not be asked to do more than he has a right to require from the Commissioners. I beg to move to leave out ''the grounds of his objection and."
  Sir S. EVANS: This Amendment of my right hon. Friend has been on the Paper for some days, and there is not on the Paper any Amendment to the Amendment such as has now been moved by the right hon. Gentleman. The procedure is exactly an analogy of that pursued by the assessment committees in the case of rating, and if a rating assessment is objected to the person objecting has always, in addition to the objection he makes, to state the ground of his objection.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think there is the slightest analogy between the two. I have drawn up hundreds of notices
  of objection to rating assessments, and I can tell the Committee that rating assessments are quite a different matter from this. Here the valuation is entirely different; it is a much more complex matter. There is a site value, total value, cost of divestment, and so on. Really if the Commissioners are not going to give the unfortunate subject any details, I should like to know how he is to make up his mind. How is he to state the ground of his objection? The Commissioners may assess the site value at, say, £1,000, and the only ground of objection the unfortunate man can put forward is that the amount is too high. If, on the other hand, the Commissioners were to communicate to him the mode by which they arrived at the £1,000, then he would be able to say such and such a point is wrong. Thus he would be able to formulate some grounds of objection. But it is utterly impossible for him to formulate any grounds unless he knows the principles on which the Commissioners have arrived at the amount. The Solicitor-General gave no reason for the pursuance of the proposed course, except that the clause followed out the line of assessment in ordinary house rating. That is no analogy whatever, and the learned Gentleman has not met the contention raised by my right hon. friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). He has not shown us how the subject could give grounds of objection unless he knows the lines on which the Commissioners have made up the figures of site value.
  Question put, "That the words 'the grounds of his objection and' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 59.

  Division No. 466.]

  AYES.

  [3.45 a. m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clynes, J. R.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Armitage, R.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barnard, E. B,

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Crossley, William J.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. George)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Brace, William

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Branch, James

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Essex, R. W.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Esslemont, George Birnle

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Hodge, John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hooper, A. G.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Hudson, Walter

  Clough, William

  Glover, Thomas

  Jackson, R. S.

  Jenkins, J.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Summerbell, T.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pointer, J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lambert, George

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Radford, G. H.

  Tomkinson, James

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Toulmin, George

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Maclean, Donald

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Verney, F. W.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Macpherson, J. T.

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Richardson, A.

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wiles, Thomas

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Middlebrook, William

  Rowlands, J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Morrell, Philip

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Myer, Horatio

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Seely, Colonel

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Partington, Oswald

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gordon, J.

  Percy, Earl

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cave, George

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanier, Beville

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Mitchell Thomson.

  Foster, P. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask whether it would be sufficient to comply with the provisions of this section if the subject states as the ground of his objection—the only one I think it possible to state—that the assessment is too high? Is that sufficient compliance with the term-s of this section?
  Sir S. EVANS: That ground might certainly be stated as one of the grounds.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can you suggest any other?
  Sir S. EVANS: There are plenty of others. Take the case of rating. In the first place, if the objection is made simply upon the Amendment, that is the only ground they can go into. Another ground might be that he is not in occupation. Another ground might be that in comparison with the assessment of other people
  1288
  in the same valuation list his assessment is either too high or too low, as the case might be.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask whether the supposed objector would have access to the assessments made by the Commissioners of other properties? The Solicitor-General suggests as one ground of objection which the taxpayer could take, the fact that his assessment is unduly high compared with neighbouring properties. This is a very pertinent question, and I raised it once before and had no definite answer. If he may not have access to these other valuations as they are made, wall it not be out of his power to take such an objection as that? The Solicitor-General himself introduced this as one of the grounds of objection which the man might take. I sub-

  1289
  mit that he clearly cannot take it unless he has access to the other valuations as they are made. If he is the first one clearly he cannot make that objection, but the Solicitor-General is considering the process as having gone some way. He takes the case of a man, some of whose neighbours have already been assessed, and says a proper ground of objection would be that this man's assessment is too high in comparison with those of his neighbours. I ask the Solicitor-General to give me an answer to my question. Will such a man have access to the valuations of his neighbours so as to judge whether a due proportion is being observed or whether he is being unreasonably treated as compared with them? I ask the question because I do not know of any provision in the Bill as it originally stood that would have given him that information, and I have not observed any Amendment that would give him such access.
  Sir S. EVANS: I only said that this case might be regarded as analogous to the case of rating because various grounds of objection might be made. I do not know that every ground would stand in this case, because I do not know that there would be access to any of the other valuations. I will not say he would have access to the various rate-books. If anything appears on the register, then, of course, he would have access, but not necessarily to anything else.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Solicitor-General has withdrawn from the position he took up a few minutes ago. He told us an owner could either say the valuation was too high, or that it was too high compared with other people. Is there any other ground whatever that he can suggest as a ground of objection except that the valuation is too high?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I understood it was an essential part of the Government's scheme that there were to be local land registries which would be open to the inspection of anyone. Am I not right in supposing that once a valuation had
  been accepted an owner would be able to have access to any valuation that had been set out in the local land registry?
  4.0 A.M.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend behind me pointed out that the problem of valuation for rating purposes is about the simplest problem of the kind you can have. The problem of valuation under this Bill is about the most complicated problem of valuation you can have. The possible causes of error in regard to rating are reduced almost to one—that of assuming that too high a rate can be got from the land. The possible causes of error here are numberless. That goes far to destroy the Solicitor-General's analogy.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends are now discussing the very issue upon which we had not merely a Debate, but a Division.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What we did on the last Amendment was to move the omission of the words "grounds of his objection." Now we are trying to find out what those grounds of objection are.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): The hon. Member must remember that the discussion took place on the very point raised just now, and the discussion cannot be reopened.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Solicitor-General has told us that whereas in the case of an appeal for rates the ratepayer has access to all the other valuations made in the district, and can therefore see at a glance whether he has been treated in the same way as his neighbours in a similar position. Here he will have access to no such information, and that matter, the Committee will see, has an enormous bearing upon the amount of litigation which will be necessitated under this Bill.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 54.

  Division No. 467.]

  AYES.

  [4.5 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Armitage, R.

  Brace, William

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Branch, James

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cleland, J. W.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes, Leigh)

  Clough, William

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cooper, G J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Jewett, F. W.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lambert, George

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Crossley, William J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Rowlands, J.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Maclean, Donald

  Seely, Colonel

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Essex, R. W.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Esslemont, George Birnle

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

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

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Summerbell, T.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Taylor, John W (Durham)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Marnham, F. J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Middlebrook, William

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Worrell, Philip

  Tomkinson, James

  Hancock, J. G.

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

  Toulmin, George

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Roseendale)

  Myer, Horatio

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Verney, F. W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Walsh, Stephen

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Partington, Oswald

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  White, J Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pointer, J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Higham, John Sharp

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Kobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hodge, John

  Radford, G. H.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull)

  Hooper, A. G

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Herniman, Emslie John

  Res, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Hudson Walter

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

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  Richardson, A.

  Jenkins, J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Gordon, J.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

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

  Percy, Earl

  Bridgeman, W. Cilve

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cave, George

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Stanier, Beville

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Foster, P. S.

  Morpeth Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to insert out the words "owner amends the return in manner" ["If the Commissioners consider that the total or site value, as stated in any return is not correct, they shall object to the return and communicate with the owner of the land with a view to an amendment of the return, and if the 'owner amends the return in manner' satisfactory to the Commissioners"] and to insert instead thereof the words "Commissioners amend the provisional valuation so as to be."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the words "the Commissioners" ["and if the owner amends the return in manner satisfactory to 'the Commissioners'"] and to insert the words "all persons making objections."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I should like to know who these persons are. I notice that more than one person can make objections. But what number? Does the number include mortgagees?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is the very point that is raised in another Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the word "return" ["the total and site value as stated in the amended return"] and to insert +he word "valuation."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in Section (3) after the word "If" to leave out the words "no return is made in accordance with this Act in respect of any land by the owner of the land, or if an owner refuses to amend a return which is objected to by the Commissioners, or fails to amend the return in manner satisfactory to the Commissioners, the value of the land shall be determined by the Commissioners,' and to insert instead thereof the words "the provisional valuation is not amended by the Commissioners so as to be satisfactory to any objector, that objector may give a notice of reference under this Act with respect to the valuation, but if no such notice is given—"
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (for Lord Robert Cecil)Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (for Lord Robert Cecil) moved to substitute the word "appeal" for "reference" ["reference under this Act"].
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is an appeal by reference.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to the appeal clauses he will see that the side leading is "Appeals to Referees." The word there is not "reference" but "appeal."
  Further Amendment made to leave out from the proposed Amendment the word "reference" and to insert instead thereof the word "appeal."
  Question, "That the Amendment, as amended, stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the words "so determined" ["the total and site value 'so determined' by the Commissioners"] and to insert "as stated in the provisional valuation, subject to such Amendments as may be made by the Commissioners in order to meet objections."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to omit the words "subject, in cases where the owner of the land has made a return, to an appeal under this Act,"
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. G. CAVE Mr. G. CAVE moved to insert a new section: "(4) Before adopting or determining any sum as the total or site value of any land for the purposes of thi3 part of this Act, the Commissioners shall give to every person known to them to be interested in the land notice of the amount proposed to be adopted or determined and an opportunity of objecting thereto, and shall consider any objection made by any such person."
  I think provision is made for hearing owners' objections and for giving them the right of appeal. But besides the owner, there are a number of other persons who have just as great an interest in settling the value as the owner. There is the case of the mortgagee. Then, as the valuation will be binding upon the reversioner, he should be heard. And then there is the case of the lessee for a term under 50 years. As the Bill stands he will not be heard. I am quite sure that if you look at this point you will think that the actual framer of the Bill looked forward to some provision of this kind. It has been, contemplated that objections could be made by all sorts of persons entertaining objections. Clause 22 provides that any person aggrieved may appeal. He stands to lose by the valuation if it is too high or too low, or otherwise inaccurate. How can a person aggrieved appeal unless he has a chance of taking part in the valuation? If you look at Clause 22, Section (1) (a) you will see that an appeal shall not lie against the valuation except on the part of a person who has made an objection to the provisional valuation. If that provision remains as it is the other persons—the mortgagee, the lessee, and reversioner—will neither have the right to be heard on the original determination of the site value nor the right to appeal to the Referee against the decision of the Commissioners. That is putting them into a position of such grave injustice, that the result produced by the Bill cannot have been intended. It may be said, of course, that there may be persons interested whom the Commissioners do not know, and that, therefore, you cannot expect them to give notice to those whom they do not know. No doubt that is a reasonable point to take. I suggest that it would be met by

  1295
  providing that they should give notice to every person known to them to be interested. They will know if they have had proper particulars from the owners of all the persons interested.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should be inclined to agree if we had a register of all persons interested in the land. I feel very much difficulty in accepting the Amendment as it stands. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave) says that the point is purely a technical one, but it is a very serious one Supposing the words were passed as originally put on the Paper it would mean that if the Commissioners left a single person out it would vitiate the whole valuation. That is a prospect we could not contemplate with equanimity. Even in the modified form, although it is open to less objection, there is still considerable ambiguity about it. I am not sure on whom the burden of proof will rest as to whether the Commissioners did or did not know. There is always that element of doubt about the valuation. I am disposed, however, to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's objection to the clause as it stands, and go so far as I possibly can, compatible with the safety of the valuation, to meet him. I agree that the mortgagee may have a real interest in the matter and that he ought to have an opportunity of stating his views. Is it to depend upon notice being given to the mortgagee whether the Commissioners did or did not know? There may be no end of mortgagees. The first mortgagee may not be a person who is interested. There may be a second, third, or no end of mortgagees. Are all of these to have notice? Subject, of course, to revision on Report, the words I am prepared to accept at this stage are "any person interested in the land, not being an owner, may apply to the Commissioners for a copy of the provisional valuation of the land before it is finally settled and shall then have the same right of giving notice of objection and of appealing as the owner." That will cast upon them the burden of seeking out the Commissioners and demanding the valuation. Everyone will know that a valuation will be made.
  Mr. CAVE: It may be any time in four years?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Does the hon. and learned Member doubt that everyone will know it?
  Mr. CAVE: A mortgagee may not necessarily know at all.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not if he sells the land?
  Mr. CAVE: When he sells the land the site value comes into consideration. Supposing the first valuation is made early next year, can it be said that the mortgagee, necessarily knows anything about it?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: But surely this turns on the original valuation of land—the general valuation. Everybody who is a mortgagor and mortgagee knows that the moment the Bill is through the Government will proceed to value the land. The mortgagee is to give notice to the Commissioners that he is a party interested and to demand a copy of the valuation. He gets it and then he has the same rights under the appeal section as the mortgagor. What more can be required than that? If this proceeding went on in the dark it would be quite a different matter, but it is well known to everybody. I am rather surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not see that. I am going as far to meet him as I possibly can. Under the words I suggest the moment a man has any doubt as to valuation all he has to do is to give notice to the Commissioners, and the moment the valuation is made a copy is supplied to him and he has the full right of making any objection as if he were the owner. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were my legal adviser he would not advise me to go beyond this.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone a long way to meet us, and I hope my hon. Friend will accept the offer which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I think what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has offered to do will have this effect, that any one of the parties interested, not being the owner, will find it open to him to give notice at once to the Commissioners, after the passing of the Bill, if he wants to see the valuation as it affects him. That will inform the Commissioners who the parties interested are, and the result no doubt will be to lead to a very large amount of correspondence, which my hon. Friend's original proposal would have avoided. Nevertheless I think we should accept what the right hon. Gentleman proposes.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is it quite clear that the notice that you want a copy of the valuation must be given beforehand?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly.
  Mr. CAVE: I agree that the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes a very long way, though not quite so far as I should like it to go. Under the circumstances, however, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I move to add at the end of Section (3), "Any person interested in the land, not being an owner, may apply to the Commissioners for a copy of the provisional valuation of the land before it is finally settled, and shall then have the same right of giving notice of objection and of appealing as the owner."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in Section (4) after "been" ["this Act has not been"] to insert "finally."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in Section (4) to leave out "declared" ["as if the values as declared"] and to insert "shown."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in Section (4) to leave out "return of the owner" "in the return of the owner"] and to insert "provisional valuation, or, if the provisional valuation has been amended by the Commissioners, as shown in the valuation as so amended."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some explanation of the wording of this section, and I think this would probably be the most convenient time to do it. The section is, as I understand, intended to deal with a temporary situation during the time while the valuation is in. progress, but has not been completed. During that time there will be three possibilities. There will be some land during those three or four years within which it is calculated the whole work can be done on which the final valuation will have been made, and some land also on which the provisional valuation will have been made. I think those two cases have been provided for by the Government; but what
  1298
  about the cases where no valuation at all has been made? I do not think those cases are provided for. I am unaware whether the matter has escaped the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but as I read the Bill, if no valuation has been made there will be no tax. I am sure that was not the Chancellor of the Exchequer's intention. I will read the section as it would stand if the Amendment were inserted: (4) "Where the value to be adopted as the original total or the original site value of any land for the purposes of this part of this Act has not been finally settled at the time when any duty under this part of this Act becomes leviable, any duty under this part of this Act shall be assessed as if the values as shown in the provisional valuation, or, if the provisional valuation has been amended by the Commissioners, as shown in the valuation as so amended," etc. What happens when there is no provisional valuation? I need not labour the point, but I should like to get an answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have a distinct recollection of having discussed this-question at an early hour of the morning when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) was present. We discussed it on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Watson Rutherford), who, I believe, raised the point as to whether we might not collect arrears for twenty years. I agreed that that was obviously not the intention of the Government, and we decided to limit the period to three years. As I say, I have a full recollection of this circumstance and the right hon. Gentleman will find that all these matters are provided for in Clause 13.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On reflection I think that is so.
  Question "That the words 'return of the owner' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question "That the words 'provisional valuation, or, if the provisional valuation has been amended by the Commissioners, as shown in the valuation as so amended' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in Section (4) to leave out the word "for" ["were the values adopted for"] and to insert the word "as."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out "ultimately ascertained" ["on the values to be adopted being ultimately ascertained"] and to insert "finally settled."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to add after Section (4):—
  (5) A copy of a provisional valuation under this section shall be sufficiently served if served by post at the address of the owner furnished to the Commissioners under the powers given to them to require a person who pays rent to furnish the address of the person to whom he pays rent, or if that address cannot be ascertained, by leaving a copy addressed to the owner, with some occupier of the land, or if there is no occupier, by causing it to be put up in some conspicuous place on the land.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hope the Committee will not accept this new Section (5) or, at all events, that certain matters should be strengthened very much. At the present moment it is perfectly possible that the owner, the person really interested in the land, may never get hold of a copy of the original valuation. It may be served by some Tom, Dick or Harry who may be a tenant four or five times removed from the owner with several lessors one after the other over him—some tenant, perhaps, in a slum in the East End of London. One knows how difficult it is in such cases to get at the owner. They often have not the least idea who the owner is. I could take the right hon. Gentleman to many a slum property in our large towns, particularly in London, where the tenant, the person actually in possession, has not the remotest idea who is the owner of the land. All he knows is that a man in a blue hat comes round on Monday morning and collects the rent. He does not even know in many cases the name of the man who collects the rent. I venture to suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman goes to our smaller house properties he would not find 25 per cent, of the actual tenants who know the name of the owner of the property.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: What is the alternative suggestion?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is not quite so easy to say, but it is not my
  1300
  duty to provide alternatives for the right hon. Gentleman. I think possibly that if these valuation lists were put on all the church doors something might be done. All the valuations of house property assessments are put in printed valuation lists which are accessible. There is no such provision so far as I can see in this Bill. If I want to know whether my property is assessed for ordinary rates I go to the proper place and see a valuation list. There is no such provision, in so far as I know, in this Bill. That is one suggestion. A valuation list might be got out of capital values just as at present is done in regard to rating. As the clause stands it is not sufficient to make it reasonably certain that the owner, the man who is vitally interested in getting the thing correct, in getting a proper valuation of his land, ever has had valuation sent to him.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: If possible, the provision of this sub-section should in some way be widened so as to give to a considerable class of people who are certainly liable to this tax the right to have their valuation sent to their addresses. I have an Amendment suggesting that the copy of the valuation should be sent also to the address of any mortgagee, owner of a rentcharge, or other person entitled to an interest in the land. I see, however, that a difficulty might arise as to whether those addresses could necessarily be discovered by the Commissioners.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This is much more an imaginary difficulty than a real one. It will be thoroughly well known that there is a valuation of all these values throughout the country. It will be the business of the owner to see that the Commissioners are furnished with his name and address. I have not the faintest doubt that the Commissioners will be able to get at the real amount, and the owners will themselves supply the information. I notice an Amendment that there should be an intimation in the "London Gazette," I should say that owners of this kind of property would know just as much about the "London Gazette" as they would about the church door. The only effective way in which you can do it is for the owners themselves to supply the necessary information.
  Mr. JOHN GORDON: If the right hon. Gentleman would inquire from the Commissioners of Valuation in Ireland he would get valuable information on this point. When valuations are made there

  1301
  is a list sent round either to the boards of guardians, or to the urban authority or to the county councils, as the case may be, but, chiefly, in the urban district to the town councils, and in other districts to the boards of guardians. Everyone knows that, and when a change is made in rates, any man who owns property under the rating authority can at once go and find out what change has been made. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman ask the Commissioners of Valuation in Ireland for the valuable information which they would be able to give him as to how the change is made and communicated to the owners. No difficulty arises there. It is not dependent upon either an inaccurate or an incomplete account given by a person who is in possession actually of the premises, but it depends upon the regular, well-recognised, long established system by which everyone finds out what changes are made in the rates.
  Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON: So far as Scotland is concerned the valuation roll shows the owner and occupier and the owner's address, and the difference in our system may make it quite easy to overcome the difficulties. I put in a caveat now because I propose to raise the question when we come to deal with the Scotch law.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think there is a great deal to be said so far as Scotland is concerned. There you have owners registered on as good a valuation roll as there is in the whole of the United Kingdom. I will consider that, and if u is the general view taken by the Scottish Members there ought to be no difficulty about it.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: If the valuation may be made at any time within the four years and the man has only got 60 days in which to enter his objections it becomes very necessary that he should be advised as to the precise moment the valuation is going to be made. The church door serves the purpose very well in Scotland, though I do not know about the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: If these words remain, it is certain that a considerable number of owners will not get the notice. Either the occupiers will not forward it, or, if it is left in some conspicuous public place the nearest street boy will tear it down. This is a case that ought to be
  1302
  met. There are owners of vacant plots which have no occupiers. The owners are waiting to sell the plots and there is really nobody on the spot at all responsible to the owner, who will not probably give a thought to the land for months at a time. I do ask the Government to look at the Amendment I have put down: "Provided that should the owner subsequently prove that through no fault of his own he has never received or been apprised of the notice, that notice shall be deemed not to have been served." That will cover the case of a man coming back from abroad, for example, and finding that he had received no notice, and that his agent had never had any. Unless some such precaution is taken very great hardship will be inflicted on a considerable number of people.
  Colonel R. WILLIAMS: Some place is needed where the owner can find this valuation list, and then it would become the natural duty of the owner to see it. If no place is fixed, the owner can plead that he knows nothing about the list. It does not matter whether it is the church door or somewhere else so long as a place is fixed.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I venture to suggest that in order to get the Government out of a difficulty that information should be sent to the clerk of the assessment committee. It is done already in Ireland.
  Mr. CLYDE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman exaggerating his difficulties here? The difficulty suggested apparently is that of getting either the names or addresses or both of some owners, and that, therefore, the Commissioners are, if possible, to be spared the trouble of finding that information out for themselves. In order to recover the duty both the name and address of the owner must get into the hands of the Crown before the duty can be recovered, and if there is no insuperable difficulty in getting the name and address at that stage, what are the circumstances which make the difficulty insuperable when it is a question of valuation? I do ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has not himself provided for a difficulty here which is largely imaginary.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 48.

  Division No. 468.]

  AYES.

  [5.0 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Armitage, R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Richardson, A.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. George)

  Hodge, John

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Brace, William

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rowlands, J.

  Branch, James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hudson, Walter

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Jenkins, J.

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Seely, Colonel

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Shackleton, David James

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lambert, George

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lamont, Norman

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cleland, J. W.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Summerbell, T.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Maclean, Donald

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Crossley, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Verney, F. W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Elibank, Master of

  Middlebrook, William

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Essex, R. W.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Morrell, Philip

  Wiles, Thomas

  Evans, Sir S. T.

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Myer, Horatio

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Glover, Thomas

  Partington, Oswald

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pointer, J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

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

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  NOES.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cave, George

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

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

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Stanier, Beville

  Clive, Percy Archer

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Starkey, John R.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

  Gordon, J.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to insert the following new section, "(6) Where a lessee is the owner of the land within the meaning of this Act, this section shall apply as if any person entitled to the fee simple reversion or to a leasehold rever-
  1304
  sion for a term of years exceeding twenty-one were the owner as well as the lessee."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to make one observation about the clause before the Committee passes it. This is a clause which deals with the ascertaining of the original total and the original site value, and under the concessions announced by the Government, the latter profess to be under the impression and would wish this Committee and the country to believe that the cost of the valuation will now be borne by the State, and that if any expense is inflicted upon the owners of property it will be very slight indeed. Consider that proposition in the light of this clause. What will happen? The Commissioners will make a valuation and will inform the owner of any particular parcel of land that they have arrived at a conclusion that the proper total value of the land is so much, and that the proper site value of the land is such and such a sum. They will give him no further information, and he is there and then given a limited time in which to make up his mind whether or not he will accept those two valuations or appeal against them. Not only will the owner have to make up his mind, but, in addition, the other parties interested, to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given the right of objection and appeal, will also have to make up their minds. What will be the position of "the owner in such circumstances? If he had full paticulars of the valuation and the methods by which it was arrived at it might be possible for him, in many cases, without recourse to
  skilled assistance, to say whether or not he would accept that valuation. But he will have no particulars as to how the result was arrived at. He will know nothing but the final figure on which the Commissioners have settled. He will not know what they have allowed for, or how much they have allowed for each matter for which they have allowed a deduction or reduction in the amount of the valuation. In these circumstances it will be absolutely necessary for every man, except in the simplest cases we can possibly imagine, to have recourse to skilled assistance in order to test the equity of the valuation which the Commissioners have made. While it is true that you have removed from the taxpayer—he may not always be a taxpayer—the primary obligation of supplying the Commissioners with a valuation, you leave him under an obligation which is stronger than law, to go to the expense of separate advice in order to ascertain how on earth the Commissioners could arrive at their valuation and whether he ought to accept it or not. By the refusal of the Amendment we moved to this clause, for the giving of particulars to the taxpayer similar to those they will require from the taxpayer, the Government are rendering largely nugatory the concession they believe will clear the taxpayer of all expenses of valuation.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 48.

  Division No. 469.]

  AYES.

  [5.15 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Armitage, R.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hodge, John

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Elibank, Master of

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Seek, A. Cecil

  Essex, R. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jackson, R. S.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Jenkins, J.

  Brace, William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Branch, James

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Lambert, George

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Lamont, Norman

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Maclean, Donald

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Clough, William

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

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

  Cooper, G. J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Crossley, William J.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon, S.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Middlebrook, William

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Tomkinson, James

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Toulmin, George

  Morrell, Philip

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Rowlands, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Myer, Horatio

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Partington, Oswald

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Seely, Colonel

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Shackleton, David James

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Pointer, J.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Summerbell, T.

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

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Radford, G. H.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Thomasson, Franklin

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

  Richardson, A.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  NOES.

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cave, George

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Stanier, Beville

  Clyde, J. Avon

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Starkey, John R.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord E. Talbot.

  Gordon, J.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Mr. BONAR LAW: I rise to move "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again." I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself must feel that we have now reached a time in the morning's proceedings when we might reasonably be allowed to go to bed. I think that is not an unreasonable claim on the part of those who have been in the House for the last fifteen hours or so. I would suggest that even those Cabinet Ministers who have favoured us with their presence must need rest, though at intervals throughout the night they have had an advantage over us, inasmuch as they have not only private rooms to which they can retire, but they can arrange themselves into "guards" to watch the proceedings in turn, which enables them to benefit by short periods of relaxation when they are off duty. It is, I must confess, difficult to think of any arguments likely to move the stony heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I would suggest to him that even Members of Parliament are creatures of habit, and that if we are to have these frequent all-night sittings some scheme should be arranged whereby a limit would be fixed for our proceedings. I would suggest that the limit should be reached when the lights
  1308
  go out and the daylight comes in. That would have an advantage for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the nearer we get to Christmas the longer the lights will be burning and the more tardy will be the appearance of daylight. I do not in the least know what is the idea of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the length of time he intends to keep us here, but I am sure, however zealous hon. Gentlemen opposite may be, however ready they may be to show the Government that they are willing to sit up all night to carry the Budget through, yet there is a limit to their endurance, as there is to ours. Moreover, there is an even greater limit to the amount of intelligence which Members in all parts of the House can bring to bear on the. Bill at this time of the morning, and our discussions must suffer on that account. I cannot help but think that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer must feel it is unreasonable to keep the proceedings of the Committee going on without affording us any idea when they are likely to come to an end. The Committee should realise that this is not legislating, but it is forcing a Bill—the most important Bill for a long while past—through the House of Commons by a procedure which, in my

  1309
  opinion, is more grotesque when employed night after night than any guillotine could possibly be.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member has offered me various suggestions as to the way in which this Bill may be conducted, and we may get on with the work that is before us. Perhaps he will allow me to make a counter suggestion. It is that, I think, we should get on a little better if there were fewer Motions to report Progress. We consumed—I will not say wasted—about three-quarters of an hour on a motion of this kind about half-past one this morning, and I suppose we shall take some time over this one. I cannot help feeling that it would be far better were that time devoted to examination of the clauses of the Bill. I am not going to follow the hon. Gentleman into an examination of the comparative advantages of this method of procedure, and of the guillotine. I have been in the House longer than the hon. Gentleman. I have been here for nearly 20 years, most of which time has been spent in Opposition; and I have no hesitation in saying that in connection with Bills in which I took a keen interest I would far rather have had this procedure than the guillotine at any stage. The hon. Gentleman has spent most of his time as a Member of a Ministry, and I agree that from the point of view of the Ministry the guillotine is a much easier path. It means that at half-past ten at night the guillotine falls and snuts out for ever all the Amendments to a particular part of the Bill save those of the Government. That is all right for the Government, but from the point of view of the Opposition I say, without hesitation, that if I were concerned to secure any improvement in a Bill I would infinitely rather have this procedure, with all its inconvenience, than the guillotine. I think the Opposition must realise from the concessions which have been made that what I am saying is true. Naturally I feel that it would be much easier to carry things through by the aid of the guillotine than it is by this kind of work. I agree that it is not a pleasant thing to sit up night after night, as we have to do to make the progress that is necessary. Let me point out this also. Whatever the responsibility of the Opposition may be, it is as nothing compared to the responsibility of conducting a measure like this through the House, for the Minister who has
  1310
  charge of it has to examine every criticism of the Bill, and has to stand or fall by the measure as it finally emerges from the House. Therefore I repeat that it is not a pleasant duty to have to undertake this work throughout prolonged sittings. It is infinitely better that we should proceed in this way than that we should proceed by the guillotine. I do not say they are pleasant alternatives, but they are the only alternatives. The late Government were driven to the guillotine. I am very glad to be making the experiment of getting on without it, but I am sure that if we did not have this succession of all-night sittings the guillotine would be the only alternative. If the Opposition are really concerned in having their thumb-marks upon this Budget, they will find this the best way of making the impression. I think it will be admitted that some of the discussions that we have had at three, four, and five o'clock in the morning had been the most business-like discussions we have had at all. I hope that in the interests of progress the right hon. Gentleman will now allow us to-proceed with the Bill.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Chancellor's speech really shows how amidst the charms of office we forget the attitude we assumed when in Opposition. When the Chancellor stated that when in Opposition he always preferred to sit up all night on a Bill in which he was interested and in which he was taking an active part rather than have the discussions threatened by any summary procedure, I carried my mind back, not merely to scenes in this House, but to scenes which must, even to this day, be painful reminiscences to the Chancellor, in a Committee room upstairs, when Mr. Gladstone eventually intervened to rescue the Committee from the position of impotence to which the Chancellor and one or two of his friends had reduced him, and he relieved the Chancellor from cutting short a promising; career owing to overstrain and brain breakdown which might have been caused by his proceedings in the Committee. I am under the impression that Mr. Gladstone adopted novel procedure and put an end to the proceedings of the Commitee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests that my hon. Friend was moved, in the suggestions he made, by considerations of what might happen at some subsequent time. Every precedent that a Government sets in time becomes a

  1311
  weapon for their opponents to use if they think it desirable to do so but I confess that of all the methods which have been devised for securing the passage of legislation upon which the heart of the Government is set there is none I should be more reluctant myself to adopt than that which the Government is now following. I admit that in these early hours we have had some very useful discussions, and I think it reflects great credit on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and on those on that side of the House who are defending the Bill, and some credit also on those who on this side of the House are offering their objections to the Bill. We have tried throughout these discussions not to raise frivolous Amendments, not to raise points which were obstructive, and to make our speeches worthy of the Committee. If we have succeeded to some extent in that it is not to say that this procedure does not place a very undue strain upon Members, nor is it to say that whatever has been accomplished on one side or the other is as well done at these hours as it would be done in the normal hours of the day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that under the guillotine it is not even necessary for Ministers in charge of a Bill to make concessions. Time and again during these all-night sittings Amendments have been moved disclosing so good a case that if the House had been normally full, and normally interested, and normally awake, as it would have been in the early hours of sitting, the Government would have been bound to give way, and they have only avoided making any concessions on those points because the House was so fagged that Members were no longer following the discussion.
  Mr. REMNANT: That we should have been able to get through these long night sittings with such little bitterness is due
  entirely to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's cheerfulness, courtesy, and thorough good temper, but the right hon. Gentleman is human like the rest of us and gets over-tired, and I do not think the harmony of the all-night Debates is likely to last much longer. If we adjourn now it will only be for a few hours. We understood that the Government would be content if they got Clause 17 at this sitting.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Twenty-two.
  Mr. REMNANT: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us with what he will be content? Is he going to take the Bill to the end of Part I.? If so, it would be a convenience to us to know when we shall see our homes again. I am quite content to remain here, though, surely, the country deserves better work than can be done at this hour. I do hope, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow us to adjourn for a few hours before the House meets again.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman wants to know what progress we propose to make. We have made various suggestions to the Opposition, and not only have they been rejected, but we have had no counter suggestions on the part of the Opposition, and under these circumstances we are bound to get Part I. this week in order to proceed next week with the Irish Land Bill and go on with the licensing clauses at intervals. If the Opposition had made reasonable counter suggestions I should have been ready to consider them, but under the circumstances we must go on.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 140.

  Division No. 470.]

  AYES.

  [5.50 a. m.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cave, George

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cecil, Evelyn (Alton Manor)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Stanier, Beville

  Clyde, J. Avon

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Starkey, John R.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Levisham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham)

  Younger, George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord E. Talbot.

  Gordon, J.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Ainswerth, John Stirling

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Armitage, R.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Richardson, A.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Hilgham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Brace, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Branch, James

  Hodge, John

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hooper, A. G.

  Rowlands, J.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hudson, Walter

  Scarlsbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jackson, R. S.

  Seely, Colonel

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jenkins, J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Lambert, George

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Clough, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Summerbell, T.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Maclean, Donald

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Crossley, William J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Tomkinson, James

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Toulmin, George

  Duckworth, Sir James

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Verney, F. W.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Walsh, Stephen

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Elibank, Master of

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Essex, R. W.

  Middlebrook, William

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Merrell, Philip

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Myer, Horatio

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Glover, Thomas

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Hancock, J. G.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pointer, J.

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Clause 18.—(Periodical Valuation of Undeveloped Land and Minerals.)
  For the purpose of obtaining a periodical valuation of undeveloped land and minerals, the Commissioners shall in the year nineteen hundred and fourteen and in every subsequent fifth year cause returns to be obtained from all owners of undeveloped land and minerals, declaring the site value of the land or the capital value of the minerals as on the thirtieth day of April in that year, and for the purpose of ascertaining the value at that time the provisions of this Act as to the obligation to make a return and the ascertainment of value shall apply for the purpose of ascertaining value on any such periodical valuation as they apply for the purpose of ascertaining value on any such periodical valuation as they apply for the purpose of Ascertaining the original value:
  Provided that if on any such periodical valuation any undeveloped land or minerals which are liable to undeveloped land duty or minerals right duty are for any reason not included in the valuation, the Commissioners may determine the value at any time for the assessment of duty, subject to an appeal under this Act to the Referee.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to omit the words "and minerals" ["For the purpose of obtaining a periodical valuation of undeveloped land 'and minerals' the Commissioners shall"].
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LANE-FOX (for Lord Castlereagh)Mr. LANE-FOX (for Lord Castlereagh) moved to leave out the word "fourteen" ["the Commissioners shall in the year

  1315
  nineteen hundred and 'fourteen' and in every subsequent fifth year cause returns to be obtained"], and to insert "nineteen." Ten years is a much more suitable time than five for making these returns. I think it would be for the general convenience of the community, and to the saving of cost if the Amendment were adopted.
  Sir S. EVANS: This Amendment does not raise any question of principle. It would be much better I think in the interests of the owners themselves—and in regard to this clause, as amended, I may say that it is very much fairer for the owners of property—that returns as to undeveloped land should be furnished every five instead of every ten years, whereas if you take ten years as the period it may have a very injurious effect upon them.
  6.0 A.M.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Solicitor-General's statement is a curious one when we bear in mind expressions which have fallen from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said, "The rise in the value of land is normal, continuous, and progressive," and, though he used the term widely, that must apply to all the land that would come under the Undeveloped Land Tax. It is specially applicable in this case, and the basis on which he made the tax was that the rise in the value of the thing taxed was "normal, continuous, and progressive." But then the Solicitor-General comes in and says, in effect, "Oh, but the land may have been assessed as being undeveloped but as developable land; it may fall back instead of showing a progressive advance, and it may become not merely undeveloped but undevelopable. It shows us that much of this business which is at other times spoken of by the Government as producing a steady profit is of a highly speculative character, and sometimes results very badly. Well, I am not going to dispute what the Solicitor-General said with regard to the ten years' period, nor, for the matter of that, what has been said as to the five years' period. Some land that is thought to be developable, and, therefore, subject to this tax, maybe clearly shown not to be developable. Therefore you have a tax wrongly imposed or wrongly continued. That might be easily met by giving by another provision a right to the aggrieved person in such a case to
  1316
  obtain a fresh consideration of his case by the Commissioners when the new circumstances arose. If the Government are prepared to do that it would only be doing for the taxpayer what they have done against him in the new section. If the land was not included in the valuation the Commissioners are not obliged to wait and the tax-gatherer is not obliged to wait for the next five years in order to-include it. They may come down at any time and say, "This land was not included as undeveloped land at the last quinquennial valuation, but it became so two years afterwards and we shall tax it." You ought to give a similar power to the taxpayer to secure a rectification of an error made against him. Consider what would be the position-if we insisted, as the learned Solicitor-General does, on considering each Amendment the Government put down without any regard to other Amendments they have moved in connection with other parts of the Bill. Of course it would reduce their proposals in many cases to nonsense. The Solicitor-General ought to be prepared to deal with this question on its merits, and not on the ground that the particular Amendment before the Committee does not contain all the provisions which would be necessary if it were adopted. It would be easy to meet the case, and do it in a manner analagous to that in which we dealt with the Commissioners. As a choice of evils I would rather have the Amendment moved as it stands than the Bill as it stands. The Amendment lengthens the period over which the Bill may do injustice to some individual. The Bill as it stands doubles the amount of injustice in point of expense it imposes on everybody who can conceivably be liable to the tax, and probably many people who are not liable to it will have to disprove the liability which the Commissioners suppose to exist. The balance of the hardship will be much less under the Amendment than under the Bill, and I shall, therefore, support it.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: A quinquennial valuation is an easy thing to talk about, but there are many members of the Committee who have had practical acquaintance with the London quinquennial valuation who must regard with a great deal of anxiety this proposal to have a complete quinquennial valuation, not merely of London, but of all land throughout the country. The London

  1317
  quinquennial valuation is no slight matter. It is a perfect orgy of valuation. It goes on for a very long time. The money expended upon it is enormous, and the money spent in costs and fees is, I am told, quite a small matter compared with the loss entailed through the dislocation of business. It is a serious thing for London business men. Here you are to have a quinquennial valuation for the whole country. It is quite true that every foot of land will not be valued in the strict sense, but it will be inspected to see whether in the interim it has come within the liability to Undeveloped Land Duty, and all land which has been liable to the duty will have to be valued under the machinery of the Bill. What is the ground put forward by the learned Solicitor-General in objecting to the ten years instead of five years? The only ground was that five years was a very convenient period, and that the Government had considered the matter. I do not agree with my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. Chamberlain) that the matter would be completely adjusted by the power given in the latter part of this section. That only applies to those hereditaments which were liable to the tax at the last quinquennial valuation and not to those which have become liable in the interim. Assuming that it could be said that something would be lost by the State because land would enter the tax-paying class a year or two before the decennial valuation came about, whatever was lost in that way would be saved in the other. Land would continue to pay the tax after it really became exempt from it. The State would gain as much as it would lose, and lose as much as it would gain. The point is a trifling one when you contrast it with the disadvantages of quinquennial valuation. I hope for these reasons the Government will favourably reconsider the matter.
  Mr. REMNANT: I desire to add my testimony to that of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Clavell Salter), especially in regard to the quinquennial valuations in London. Everybody who has had experience of them and the disturbances they create will appreciate what has been said with regard to them. They are a very great nuisance and disturbance of business throughout London. I hope the Government will agree to what the Amendment asks for. The learned Solicitor-General has forgotten that the year for commencing the
  1318
  valuation is 1914. I understood the Prime Minister to say that the valuation would take at the lowest four years to complete. That is a very sanguine estimate indeed. It is an estimate that no experience will bear out. The few cases we have had before us show that the original estimates have been falsified by an enormous number of years. In the case of the London County Council they endeavoured to make a great valuation of London. They began in 1892. In 1909–17 years afterwards—they still had one-third of the work to do, and they have not finished that yet. The expense was enormous compared with the original estimate. In the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend he seeks to put the clock on to 1919. That is a very reasonable request, and if the valuation were completed by 1919 I think it would be a truly wonderful piece of business, considering the great complexity of the matter.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: This section, I would point out, only deals with undeveloped land. The hon. Member is arguing now from the point of view of valuing the whole of the land in the country. The Prime Minister has stated, however, that the valuation of undeveloped land will be proceeded with first and determined first.
  Mr. REMNANT: If you are to finish the valuation of all the undeveloped land in the country in ten years, I can only say that it will be a very good piece of business. You cannot get sufficient experienced valuers; that is to say, men possessed of all the knowledge requisite for the work, and able to carry out the duty to the satisfaction of all parties. You are to proceed to set up a huge new staff of valuers comprising 500 or 600 men, but I am certain there are not 500 men equipped with the knowledge or experience necessary to enable them to carry out the valuation proposed under the Bill. If the Committee require another instance of the difficulties of this task let them go to Glasgow. It was found in Glasgow that they could not make even a proper register of the streets in anything like that time. Having all the circumstances in mind, I think that to put the first periodical valuation ten years hence is a very moderate request. My own view is that if the Solicitor-General were allowed to use his unfettered discretion he would think that this would be not an unreasonable thing to do.
  Question put, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Clause."

  Division No. 471.]

  AYES.

  [6.15 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pointer, J.

  Armitage, R.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St Geo.)

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Richardson, A.

  Brace, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Branch, James

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Hodge, John

  Rowlands, J.

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

  Hooper, A. G

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Seely, Colonel

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Shackleton, David James

  Cleland, J. W.

  Jenkins, J.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Slough, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lambert, George

  Summerbell, T.

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

  Lament, Norman

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Maclean, Donald

  Tomkinson, James

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Toulmin, George

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

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

  Verney, F. W.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Elibank, Master of

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Essex, R. W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Evans. Sir S. T.

  Middlebrook, William

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Ferens, T. R.

  Morrell, Philip

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

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

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Myer, Horatio

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Glover, Thomas

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Hancock, J. G.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  NOES.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, J

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Starkey, John R.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Younger, George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Remnant and Mr. Lane-Fox.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Amendments made to leave out the words "returns to be obtained from all owners" ["in every subsequent fifth year cause returns to be obtained from all owners"] and to insert the words "a valuation to be made."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  To leave out the words "and minerals, declaring" ["all owners of undeveloped
  The Committee divided; Noes, 43.
  land and minerals, declaring"] and to insert the word "showing."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  To leave out the words "or the capital value of the minerals" ["site value of the land or the capital value of the minerals."]—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  To leave out the words "the obligation to make a return and" ["provisions of this Act as to the obligations to make a return and"].—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I move to leave out the words, "Provided that if in any such periodical valuation any undeveloped land or minerals which are liable to Undeveloped Land Duty or Minerals Right Duty are for any reason not included in that valuation, the Commissioners may determine the value at any time for the assessment of duty, subject to an appeal under this Act to the Referee."
  Here is a provision the unreason of which only has to be stated to become apparent. It is suggested that although there has been no fault on the part of the taxpayer, and although he has every reason to believe that his land is not subject to Undeveloped Land Duty, yet at any time a claim for duty may be thrown upon him, and he may be subject to that duty. He may have bought the land as being land which does not pay this duty. I think that some machinery of this kind may have to be inserted, but I do submit that when you are going to plunge the country into this valuation every five years the one compensation which business men may reasonably ask from this House as a return for that serious disadvantage, for the dislocation of business, for the losses imposed upon them every five years, the least the business community can ask is to be left in peace between those periods. If the recurring periods are to be at such short intervals as every five years there ought to be no possibility of these questions being opened up in the meantime.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: This machinery is necessary. Obviously, everybody who is an owner of developed land or developable land ought to be treated upon the same footing, and the only object of this proviso is this. If for some reason or other, through no fault either of the Commissioners or of the owners of the land, the valuation is not complete within the year, this proviso makes it possible to make the developable land subject to the duty within the quinquennial valuation. It is obviously unfair that one owner should be left out by reason of some slip or oversight in the valuation of his land. This proviso does not affect the first valuation at all. It only affects the periodical valuations which come afterwards.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I think it is only fair that the owners who are liable to be shot
  1322
  at every five years should at least be left in peace in the intervals between, and should not always be expecting a visit and be called upon to open their books and disclose their figures at every moment. In the interests of security and of general peace and to save constant irritation, it is only fair that owners should be left alone in this very short interval. If the interval had been longer there would have been a good deal more to be said for this sub-section, but considering the period is only five years it seems to me most unfair.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: This raises the point as to the difficulty of land being sold as land not subject to this tax quite innocently. The purchaser buys it with equal innocence, and both feel certain there is no undeveloped land. Then the unfortunate purchaser finds the assessors coming down and saying they did not include the land in the last quinquennial valuation and must include it now. If a man buys a piece of land which he believes to be free from the tax, and then, in the course of the next four years, he has to pay the tax, is that fair? That point has not been answered.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I pointed out that this was merely a question of machinery, and it is clearly shown by this proviso that it is only intended to cover undeveloped land liable to Undeveloped Land Duty. Every vendor would know perfectly well whether steps had been taken to value the land. The words, "Provided that if on any such periodical valuation any undeveloped land which is liable to Undeveloped Land Duty is for any reason not included in the valuation the Commissioners may determine the value at any time for the assessment of duty," simply mean that where the land has gone through various steps towards the valuation for the tax it is liable to the Undeveloped Land Duty, but if for some reason it has not been included in the valuation the necessary steps ought to be taken by the Commissioners to bring it within that quinquennial valuation like every other piece of land similarly situated.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If it were really a piece of machinery, as suggested, I should not rise to support the Amendment. What is intended by, the section as it stands is that if any land which is liable to Undeveloped Land Duty is overlooked in the valuation, then there is the possibility of going back

  1323
  on the owner and making him liable for the duty. I venture to say that the explanation which the Solicitor-General has given does not meet the case, and the real objection to leaving the section in as it stands is that anyone who deals in land which by any possibility might be liable to Undeveloped Land Duty cannot know whether it would be liable for such duty or not. The point seems to me so important that I think as a protest we ought certainly to divide the Committee.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Could you, Mr. Emmott, put the Question in such a way that we should be enabled, if the words are not struck out, to move the insertion of the word "final" before "valuation"?
  Question put, "That the words 'Provided that if on any such periodical valuation any undeveloped land, or' stand part of the Clause.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 43.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Younger, George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Clavell Salter and Mr. Lane-Fox.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Stanier, Beville

  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the words "or minerals" ["Provided that if on any such periodical valuation any undeveloped land or minerals"].
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the word "are" ["undeveloped land, or minerals, which are "] and to insert the word "is."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir S. EVANS Sir S. EVANS moved to leave out the words, "or Mineral Eights Duty are," and to insert the word "is."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I must take exception to the Amendment, as it would not read with an Amendment I wanted to move. If there were inserted in -connection with this clause the words "provided that if on any such periodical valuation any undeveloped land which has been practically valued but the valuation has not been completed, the Commissioners may determine the value at any time for the assessment of duty subject to an appeal to the Referee," that would exactly cover what the Solicitor-General says is the only case the Government want to cover. The words the Government are wanting to put in the Bill will have a very much wider effect.
  Sir S. EVANS: I am afraid we cannot admit that Amendment now. What is intended is that where steps are being taken in the course of the year to value the land, and the valuation has not been completed, the completion of the valuation shall take place, although you may have gone beyond the period at which it ought to have been taken.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out at the end of the clause the words "to the Referee" ["the Commissioners may determine the value at any time for the assessment of duty, subject to an appeal under this Act to the Referee"].
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Masterman) what he contemplates will be the extra cost in the present year of this valuation? It is obvious that there must be some extra cosit, and we should like to know what it is likely to be. It is not only the land already developed which the authorities will have to consider—they will have to cast their eyes about to see what land there is about which has just come into the development zone. They may require some special clerical assistance and extra inspectors, who will have to travel round the country and see what new land has come into the zone. There must be extra expense, and probably an extra staff. They will not be included in the 500 officials on the permanent staff. We ought to have some definite information on this point.
  The UNDER - SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): The estimate of £2,000,000 was for the complete first valuation. It has already been explained to the Committee that the permanent charge would be between £150,000 and £200,000 a year and not £600,000.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Prime Minister told us that it would be £600,000.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: What he said was that it would be between £150,000 and £200,000 a year. That permanent cost includes the cost of these quinquennial valuations of undeveloped land.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I am very sorry, but I really cannot make out the figures. The Prime Minister first of all stated £150,000. Then he said he would not commit himself and said £300,000 to £400,000. Some of us worked it out at £600.000 a year, and the Prime Minister said he used rough figures, but he hoped it would not be more than £400,000 a year. He said that of the £2,000,000 two-thirds would not recur; that leaves one-third recurring,, which is £600,000.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 19.—(Assessment of Duty on Separate Parcels of Land and Apportionment of Valuation.)
  Any duty under this Part of this Act may be assessed on or in respect of any such pieces of land whether under separate occupation or not, as the Commissioners think fit; and where it is necessary for the purposes of any such assessment to apportion the value of any land, which has been valued as a whole, the value shall be apportioned by the Commissioners in such proportions as they think just.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN moved to leave out the words "as the Commissioners think fit."
  The point I wish to raise is whether the Commissioners shall have power to assess any duty on or in respect of any pieces of land as they think fit, even though the owners do not require it. I will take the special Amendment introduced into the Bill, namely, the £100 clause. How would the concession to the extent of £100 per acre be affected by this clause? If the land is treated as one piece, and a man has expended £100 per acre on it, as this clause stands the Commissioners may divide up the land so as to deprive the owner of any advantage it was intended by the Government he should receive. This clause was drafted before that Amendment was introduced into the Bill, and I really think it requires some alteration. I am not quite certain whether the Commissioners should have, under any circumstances, the power to break up occupation for the purposes of valuation unless the owner wishes them so to do. The Commissioners have the power to apportion which may be used to the disadvantage of the owner. If the owner has not exercised the right to break up the land at the time he could do so he has no right to complain, but after the concession of the £100 clause it is a serious matter to allow the Commissioners to cut and carve where they like, and separate land on which £100 has been spent from a larger parcel of land of which it formed part, and merely deprive the taxpayer of all advantage from that land.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It certainly is not intended by this clause that the Commissioners should do anything in con-
  1328
  travention of any other provisions in the Bill. If the Commissioners did so there is an appeal under those provisions of the Bill, and if they went beyond their powers —I do not suggest they would do so—and did something which would deprive the Owner of the benefit of the £ 100 provision, the owner would be set right. I prefer to rest my answer on the ground that the Commissioners would not think fit to do anything under this section which would deprive the owner of any provision which was intended and is inserted in the Bill for his benefit.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I want to know whether due notice of this apportionment will be given to the owner of the land. That is very important. I ask the learned Solicitor-General to consider the point before we reach a later stage.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The notice would be served for the purposes of valuation.
  7.0 A.M.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will be satisfied with what the Solicitor-General has said if he will go a little further. I ask him to consider the possibility I have raised. He has treated the matter as if I contemplated deliberate oppressive action on the part of the Commissioners. I do not contemplate that at all, but I think very difficult questions may arise as to what land money has been spent upon. You may have spent enough money to clear 20 acres of land, but the question may arise as to whether that money has in fact been applied to the whole 20 acres or not. The Commissioners might say that in their opinion it had not, and they might cut the Gordian knot. I do not for a moment suggest that knowingly any injustice would be done, but I do think there is some danger that the Commissioners might be, misled by these words. I should be quite satisfied, however, if the Solicitor-General considers that point, and I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 42.

  Division No. 473.]

  AYES.

  [7.5 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Armitage, R.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rapnael, Herbert H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Bvrran, Sir John Nicholson

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Richardson, A.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bonn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. George)

  Henhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bowerman, C. w.

  Hodge, John

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Brace, William

  Hooper, A. G.

  Rowlands, J.

  Branch, James

  Horniman, Emslle John

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Hudson, Walter

  Scarlsbrlck, Sir T. T. L.

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  Seely, Colonel

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Jenkins, J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire).

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R

  Jowett, F. W.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cleland, J. W.

  Lambert, George

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Clough, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Summerbell, T.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Conins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Crossley, William J.

  Macpherson, J. T. '

  Tomkinson, James

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Verney, F W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Middlebrook, William

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Elibank, Master of

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Essex, R. W.

  Morrell, Philip

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

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

  Wllkle, Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Myer, Horatio

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen).

  Ferens, T. R.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Pointer, J.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  NOES.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, J.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Stanler, Beville

  Cllve, Percy Archer

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Starkey, John R.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire}

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

  Cralk, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Younger, George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon A. Akers-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Mitchell- Thomson.

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Gooch, Henry Cubltt (Peckham)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  CLAUSE 20.—(Information as to Name of Owners of Land.)
  (1) Every person who pays rent in respect of any land, and every person who as agent for another person receives any rent in respect of any land, shall, on being required by the Commissioners, furnish to them the name and address of the person to whom he pays rent or on behalf of whom he receives rent, as the case may be.
  (2) If any person fails to comply with the provisions of this section, he shall be liable to a penalty under Section fifty-five of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and that section shall apply accordingly, but the penalty shall only be recoverable in the High Court.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I desire to move the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr.

  1331
  Cave) to omit the words, "and every person who as agent for another person receives any rent in respect of any land." The object of this Amendment is to ensure that there shall be no power to compel an agent to commit what would be practically a breach of trust towards the man who employs him. I therefore think that the Government would be well advised to abandon this invidious provision.
  Sir S. EVANS: I hope the hon. Member will not press the point. The clause proposes two things. First of all it proposes that the person who pays rent, must he is asked by the Commissioners, furnish them with the name and the address of the person to whom he pays rent, and the second part proposes that any person who deceives the Commissioners shall be liable to a penalty. It is of the utmost importance that before a valuation is made the proper person to be communicated with, namely, the real owner, should be ascertained by the Commissioners, and surely there can be no difficulty at all, where the communication desired by the Commissioners is a communication by which they may arrive at the proper valuation, in providing that any person who is agent for the owner should give the name to the Commissioners.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Amendments made, in Section (2), after the word "them" ["furnish to them"], to insert the words "within thirty days."
  At end of Section (1) add "(2) For the purpose of the exercise of their powers or the performance of their duties under this Part of this Act in reference to the valuation of land, the Commissioners may authorise any person to inspect any land and report to them the value thereof, and the person having the custody or possession of that land shall permit the person so authorised to inspect it at such reasonable times as the Commissioners consider necessary."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This is, of course, necessary machinery, but there ought to be some further words of protection of the owner of the land. "The person so authorised" is not, I think, sufficient. The person must be compelled to produce a proper authority which the owner of the land can recognise, other-
  1332
  wise anybody may come along, possibly with no connection whatever with the Commissioners, and, pretending to be their authorised agents, demand to pass over and about the land as he pleases.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think the point would be met by putting in, after the words "so authorised," the words "on production of the authority of the Commissioners and in their behalf." I will put the Amendment in that form. It will then read, "(2) For the purpose of the exercise of their powers or the performance of their duties under this Part of this Act in reference to the valuation of land, the Commissioners may authorise any person to inspect any land and report to them the value thereof, and the person having the custody or possession of that land shall permit the person so authorised, on production of the authority of the Commissioners and in their behalf, to inspect it at such reasonable times as the Commissioners consider necessary."
  Question, "That the words proposed to be added stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I move to leave out Section (2). This is not a case like that of Income Tax, in which you impose a penalty because a man inflicts, on his own behalf, a fraud on the Revenue. In this case it will fall on land agents, solicitors, and others of a worthy class who collect rents and make themselves generally useful. I think in such a case the penalty is rather too severe for the offence contemplated. The penalty is either £20 and treble the amount due, or else £50, and I do hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will extend to those people some consideration.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: We had a discussion on Clause 16 which covered the whole ground. Under that clause, if any owner fails to make a return, he will be liable to this penalty. I only desire to say that in the interests of symmetry the same provision ought to be kept in here.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: For the sake of symmetry we shall be obliged to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division in order that our conduct on this clause may be consistent with our conduct on Clause 16.
  Mr. REMNANT: It is rather hard to inflict these penalties on an agent acting for somebody else.
  Question put, "That the words down to 'If any person,' stand part of the Clause."

  Division No. 474.]

  AYES.

  [7.30 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Armitage, R.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Priesney, Sir W. E. B. (Braoford, E.)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Richardson, A.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brace, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. K.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Branch, James

  Hodge, John

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hooper, A. G.

  Rowlands, J.

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

  Horniman, Emslle John

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hudson, Waiter

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Seely, Colonel

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Jenkins, J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Cleland, J. W.

  Jones, Wiliam (Carnarvonshire)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Clough, William

  Jowett, F. W.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lambert, George

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Summerbell, T.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Maclean, Donald

  Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Toulmin, George

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Verney, F. W

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Elibank, Master of

  Marnham, F. J.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Essex, R. W.

  Middlebrook, William

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morrell, Philip

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Ferens, T. R.

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

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Myer, Horatio

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Partington, Oswald

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Hancock, J. G.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pointer, J.

  NOES.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, J.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John R.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisnam)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Younger, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lane-Fox and Mr. Bridgeman.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN moved in Section (2) after the word "person" to insert the words "wilfully or knowingly." ["If any person fails to comply with the provisions of this section, he shall be liable to a penalty."] I do not think a person should be subject to a penalty unless the authorities have reason to believe that he has wilfully or know-
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 42.
  ingly failed to comply with the provisions of the section.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think one thing is perfectly clear. If the words "wilfully or knowingly" are to come in here, they ought to be in Clause 16. That ought, I think, to have been decided one way or the other. Such words as those proposed are never put into an Act

  1335
  except in the case of the Income Tax Act. I will only point out here that there could hardly be a failure to comply with the provisions of this section without it being wilful failure. But there would be a difficulty if the words were inserted here and not in Clause 16. I do not shut the door as to what can be done on the Report stage; but the words ought to be considered before they are put in here. Another substantial and practical answer to the request to put the words in is that the Commissioners never do proceed in cases of this kind where the failure to comply with the law has not been wilful or contumelious. If the right hon. Gentleman, after further consideration, thinks the words ought to be inserted, he will have an opportunity on the Report stage, no doubt, to amend this and Clause 16.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will not press the Amendment at this stage. But let me make an observation about it. Of course, I am going to withdraw it; but I shall be more ready to do so if I am quite certain that I shall have the opportunity on the Report stage of raising this question which the Solicitor-General has so glibly promised. But I am afraid he is promising at the moment that which it

  Division No. 475.]

  AYES.

  [7.40 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Elibank, Master of

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Essex, R. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Armitage, R.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Maclean, Donald

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Glaustone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Glover, Thomas

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hancock, J. G.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Brace, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Middlebrook, William

  Branch, James

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morrell, Philip

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

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

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Myer, Horatio

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Henry, Charles S.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pointer, J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hodge, John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Clough, William

  Hooper, A. G.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norolk, E.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hudson, Walter

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jenkins, J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Crossley, William J.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Richardson, A.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jowett, F. W

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lambert, George

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rowlands, J.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  may not be in his power to give. When Clause 16 comes up on Report stage if may be the hon. and learned Gentleman's night off.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I never have a night off.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Up to the present time I do not think the lion, and learned Gentleman has taken a night off. But even for the Solicitor-General, I should think, there will come some nights of relaxation. I want to put one point to the Solicitor-General. I cannot turn up the reference at this moment, but the word "wilfully" or "knowingly" was inserted in a previous section.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Under the Reversion Clause.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Was that not an analogous case?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I did look at that.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 42.

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  wilkie, Alexander

  Seely, Colonel

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Shackleton, David James

  Tomkinson, James

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Simon, John Allsebrock

  Toulmin, George

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, M.)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Strauss. E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Summerbell, T.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whitehead, Rowland

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

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  NOES.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, J.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesan)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Stanier, Beville

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Starkey, John R.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Courthopc, G. Lloyd

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Evelyn Cecil and Mr. Remnant.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  CLAUSE 21.—(Determination, of value of consideration.)
  (1) Where the value of any consideration for a transfer or lease is to be determined for the purposes of this Part of this Act, that value shall so far as the consideration consists of the payment of a capital sum be taken to be the amount of that capital sum, and so far as the consideration consists of a periodical money payment, be taken to be such sum as appears to the Commissioners to be the capital value of that payment.
  (2) If the Commissioners are satisfied that any covenant or undertaking to discharge any incumbrance, or, in cases where a nominal rent only has been reserved, any covenant or undertaking to erect buildings, or to expend any sums upon the property, has formed part of the consideration, the Commissioners may allow such sum as they think just in respect thereof as an addition to the value of the consideration.
  (3) Where it is necessary to apportion any consideration for the purposes of this Part of this Act as between properties included in any transfer or lease, the consideration shall be apportioned by the Commissioners in such manner as they determine.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE Mr. JAMES HOPE moved in Section (1) after the word "payment" ["so far as the consideration consists of a periodical money payment"] to insert the words "on a 5 per cent, basis."
  You must take some interest into account in computing the capital value. It
  1338
  is left to the discretion of the Commissioners under the Bill, and under the present conditions I think a 5 per cent. basis is a fair one.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think this is a desirable basis. I think it would depend on the value of the interest. It is in the interest of the landowner that we should take into account the character of the property before deciding upon the percentage.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I suppose that is one of the cases which will be covered by the Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Government have attached a good deal of importance to the question of appeal. Why do they require a special reference to it in Clause 18 when they do not require it here?
  Mr. YOUNGER: Is it not the case that appeal against the assessment of duty is entirely protected in the new clause?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEassented.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: There is an Amendment in my name which I must move despite the lateness of the hour. It is in Section (2), to leave out the words "in cases where a nominal rent only has been

  1339
  reserved." The Amendment is one that the Government will almost certainly accept, because I cannot help believing that the inclusion of these words are in the nature of a slip in drafting. In Section (2) we are dealing with cases where it is necessary for the Commissioners to ascertain the capital value of the consideration for a lease. In cases where the consideration for the lease is only a premium, and there is no rent, of course, the value is the capital value of the consideration, and in ordinary cases, where there is no premium, but merely a rent, the actual value of the consideration would be the capitalised value of the consideration. Where the consideration for the lease is a nominal rent, however, but there is a valuable covenant either to build or to spend money upon improving the property, the Bill deals with the case with a curious limitation which I, for one, do not understand. One would have thought that in cases where the consideration for the lease was a valuable covenant and some rent, the plan would be to take the two things into consideration. But the Government propose only to give power to do that in cases where a nominal rent has been reserved, and this shows that it is the intention to exclude the common case of a lease where, not a nominal rent, but a smaller rent is given in consideration of a covenant to spend money. I ask why this section should be confined only to cases where a nominal rent has been reserved. In a case where a smaller rent is being paid and there is a valuable covenant under this Bill the Commissioners would be bound to ignore that covenant and capitalise only the small rent, with the result that they would arrive at an untrue and unreal valuation. I think if this provision is retained it will operate arbitrarily and unreasonably so as to prevent the Commissioners from taking the real facts into consideration. I therefore submit that the words should come out.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: These words were intended to cover cases of increment. I do not think a covenant to build ought to be taken into account as part of the consideration in order to diminish the value of the subject matter for which the ten per cent. is charged. I can understand that there may be cases where for increment purposes it might be fair either to leave those words out or to modify
  1340
  them, but I should like it to be perfectly clear in that case that I should have to distinguish between the case of reversion and the case of increment. I could not omit the words at the present moment, because if I did so I could not put them back in any form on the Report stage. I can promise the hon. and learned Gentleman, however, that I will see words are put in to safeguard the particular case he has brought forward.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite certain whether I have understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer correctly. If I have, he draws for the purpose of these words a distinction between Increment Tax and a Reversion Tax. He is prepared to do without the words for Increment Tax, but he insists on keeping in the words for Reversion Tax. That appears to me to be wholly wrong. I am not at all certain what ought to be done in the case of increment, but it certainly seems wrong to keep the words in for the purpose of Reversion Tax. Just consider the facts. Reversion Duty is to be paid on the difference between the value of the lease at the beginning as compared with the value at the end, and the value at the beginning is to be measured by the consideration the man gets for the lease. A covenant to put up buildings is in an enormous number of leases not only part of the consideration, but a very serious part of the consideration, to both parties to the bargain. I cannot conceive, therefore, on what ground the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinguishes in the way he has done, and I think he ought to admit all these covenants to the full. In any case what argument can you adduce for allowing this to be taken into account where a peppercorn rent is reserved with a heavy expenditure on buildings, and not allow expenditure on buildings to be taken into account where that expenditure is only half as much, but the rent is proportionately increased? Surely you ought not to insist that there should be a purely nominal rent, a peppercorn rent, before you allow these covenants to count. It might be possible to find an argument to support you in saying that you would not allow them to count under any circumstances, though I confess I cannot see one. But surely there can be no argument to support the proposal which the Government have embodied in the Bill, because clearly when a landlord and a tenant are making a bargain the tenant will be to some extent guided in the amount of rent

  1341
  he can pay and the landlord will be guided in the amount of rent he can ask by what are the other obligations of the tenant.
  8 A.M.
  Mr. LYULPH STANLEY: May I point out that where there is the option of having a 999 years' lease instead of a 99 years' lease, the rent is considerably higher in some cases than the rent reserved in a 99 years' lease. I know cases, where £25 is reserved for 99 years and £30 is reserved for 999 years. I wish to bring to the attention of the Chancellor a case which seems to me to be one of the things which should be met. Take the case of the owner of a house which is valued at £200 annual rent and is let on a yearly tenancy before the passing of this Act. The lessee of this house, or the tenant of the house, goes to the owner and offers him two alternatives, either that he will spend £500 on improving the house on consideration of getting a lower rent and a lease, or asking the lessor to spend that money and offering to pay a higher rent. The offer, therefore, to the lessee is, "Either you spend £500 and I will pay you £200 a year rent, or I will spend the money myself and you will reduce my rent to £180." The lessor accepts the latter, reduces the rent to £180, and gives the lessee a lease. If this Bill passes I understand a valuation will be made upon the rent reserved, namely, the capitalised value of that £180 reserved when the lease falls in. The value of the house will be the original £200, together with the added value in consequence of the building covenant which has been carried out by the lessee. That will be approximately £200. There will be an apparent increment in the value of this house from £180 to £220, on which I presume Reversion Duty will be charged. But, as a matter of fact, there will be no real increment in the value of the house, because really the reduction of the rent granted by the lessor will be in a sense a sinking fund which repays the tenant for the money he has expended. I put that forward as a case which needs meeting, and I understand the Chancellor has premised to consider it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is a case I have promised to consider. I draw a very broad distinction between that and the other case I have indicated.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean to protect that apparent increase against Reversion Duty as well as increment?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: At this hour I do not want to raise any very controversial issue, but I will frankly tell the Committee the case I want to exclude is the case where a building lease is granted with a covenant to build. In that case the covenant to build is taken as part of the consideration. Then you get your 10 per cent, on the total value, and I think we ought to get that 10 per cent. The buildings will be taken out of your consideration altogether. The second is the case—a very ordinary case, I am sorry to say, in London and in several other large towns—where on the termination of a lease the landowner takes advantage of the fact that there is a man who has got a big business and insists upon the heaviest possible terms in cash, and in addition says to that man: "You must spend £20,000, £30,000, or £50,000 in erecting buildings in a way in which I shall indicate." Is it to be demanded that no-Reversion Duty should be paid upon the reversion of those buildings? I think Reversion Duty ought to be paid.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible as a Minister for enforcing the system he considers an unfair one, and he is continuing to enforce it daily. He has now been responsible for some little time, and he might have stopped it at any time if he thought it an unfair system. But he has permitted it to go on. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever wants to exercise influence upon the Woods and Forests he will be able to discover that there are ways and means which will have considerable effect upon their powers of leasing. The leases made by the Woods and Forests must be submitted to the Treasury, and the Treasury can refuse to sanction them. Take such a case as the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, the case of a lease falling in, and where the landlord makes his stipulation that a big fine shall be made and so much money spent either on entirely new buildings or on improvements to the existing buildings, and at the same time raises the rent. The right hon. Gentleman says that if these words proposed to be omitted were omitted there would be no Reversion Duty, but surely he is mistaken. All this would be part of a consideration for the new lease. They would be part of the value which it was shown the property had at that time. They would be factors in estimating the value of the reversion, and the reversion would be on the difference between that value and the

  1343
  consideration given originally. You would therefore, get the full advantage by levying your duty at the moment the lease falls in. Take the case of a lease which was entered into 98 or 99 years ago, and which expires the day after the passing of the Act. Then, no doubt, whatever the buildings, and what-ever money the tenant had to spend on it as part of the consideration for his lease 99 years ago, will be excluded from the taxable subject at the moment when that lease falls in, and all the new money which he is ordered to pay will be treated is part of the value as it is to-day, and the owner will be charged on the difference between those two. I am submitting to the Chancellor that he is going to get all he ought to have in taxation on the difference between the value at the beginning of the lease and the value at the end of the lease. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to do is really grossly unfair. He is taxing something more than the reversion. He means to tax the difference between the value of a reversion which falls in and what the man had at the beginning of the lease.
  Mr. G. L. COURTHOPE: Surely the very cases which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in resisting this Amendment has destroyed his whole case for resisting it. The second time he spoke he said he wished to exclude those who exacted the heaviest amount in cash they could get, in addition to very stringent covenants with regard to the spending of

  Division No. 476.]

  AYES.

  [8.15 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hodge, John

  Armitage, R.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Hooper, A. G.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barnard, E. B.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hudson, Walter

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Elibank, Master of

  Jackson, R. S.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Essex, R. W.

  Jenkins, J.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Brace, William

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Branch, James

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lambert, George

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Lamont, Norman

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Glover, Thomas

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hancock, J. G.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Maclean, Donald

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macnamara, Dr Thomas J.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

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

  Clough, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Helme, Nerval Watson

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  Henry, Charles S.

  Middlebrook, William

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Crossley, William J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morrell, Philip

  large sums of money on building. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware that there are two or three willing parties to transactions of this kind, and that the heaviest amount in cash which the lessor will extract, or try to extract, depends in the main upon the stringency of the covenant — upon the amount which the lessee will be required to spend. In the other case the Chancellor of the Exchequer took as an instance a building site where a lease for 99 years had a ground rent of only £5 or £10, and he said it was all that it was possible to get with the covenant to build. That is the whole of our case. It is the covenant to build which is the material part of the consideration in addition to the money value already reserved. Why does a building site get only £5 or £10? Because of the stringent nature of the covenant. The one is quite as much part of the consideration and ought to be taken into account. It does really seem as if resistance to this Amendment was inspired not by a desire to arrive at an equitable and just amount for consideration, but merely by a desire to get the tax in as many cases as possible. I think under these circumstances we are more than justified in doing our very best to get this Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words 'in cases where' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 43.

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

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Toulmin, George

  Myer, Horatio

  Rowlands, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Partington, Oswald

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Seely, Colonel

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Pointer, J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Strata, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Summerbell, T.

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

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Richardson, A.

  Thomasson, Franklin

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Tomkinson, James

  NOES.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hill, Sir element

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John R.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Salter and Mr. Courthope.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Gordon, J.

  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER Mr. CLAVELL SALTER moved in Section (2) to leave out the word "may" ["the Commissioners may allow such sum as they think just in respect thereof as an addition to the value of the consideration "] and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
  I cannot anticipate that the Government will do anything but accept the Amendment. In the case to which the section applies, the Commissioners are given power to take this covenant into consideration. This matter must be compulsory; there can be no option.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman presses his Amendment I do not object to it. We have the word "may" in other parts of the Bill; it really means "shall." I simply urge him to consider that point; it makes no difference so far as we are concerned. I am only afraid it will weaken the word "may" in other parts of the Bill with regard to deductions, etc.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: The risk seems to me to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer's risk more than mine.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What will be the effect of these words on the right of appeal? Suppose the words "may allow such sum as they think just,"
  1346
  would it be possible to take any appeal against that? The Commissioners will say that this is what is considered just and there will be no ground for relief in the matter.
  Sir H. CRAIK: There is no doubt that the word would prevent the Appeal Court from deciding against whatever the rule laid down by the Commissioners might be. They would say that the appeal cannot be as to what is just, but what they think just. The Amendment I should like to have seen brought in is that in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) proposing to omit the words "they think" ["allow such sum as 'they think' just"] to insert the words "they determine." I am told that in that case the Court of Appeal would criticise the action of the Commissioners.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think it is perfectly clear that there is an appeal. In the very next clause there is an appeal against the first determination by the Commissioners of the total value or site value of any land, and against the refusal of the Commissioners to make any allowance. But the words here are, "may allow such sum." There is the right of appeal wherever there is the question of allowance.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK Sir HENRY CRAIK moved in Section (2) to leave out the words "think just" ["the Commissioners may allow such sum as they think just"] and to insert instead thereof the words "determine to be just."
  If you leave in the words "think just" the Appeal Court will hold that they have no right to act against the decision of the Commissioners. If you put in the words, "determine to be just," I am told that according to precedent the Appeal Court will hold that the determination is a matter for appeal.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: No question at all arises between the two phrases. The determination ought to be a determination of what the Commissioners think just, whether you have "think just" or "determine to be just."
  Sir H. CRAIK: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON moved in Section (3), after the word "determine" ["the consideration shall be apportioned by the Commissioners in such manner as they determine"], to insert the words "after giving to every person interested in the land notice of the apportionment proposed to be made and an opportunity of objecting thereto."
  We had a similar question in regard to valuation, and we came to an agreement

  Division No. 477.]

  AYES.

  [8.35 a. m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Elibank, Master of

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Armitage, R.

  Essex, R. W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Lambert, George

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lamont, Norman

  Barnard, E. B.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Barren, Sir John Nicholson

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Maclean, Donald

  Brace, William

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Branch, James

  Hancock, J. G.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Middlebrook, William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morrell, Philip

  Clough, William

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Myer, Horatio

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Hodge, John

  Partington, Oswald

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Crossley, William J.

  Horniman, Emslle John

  Pointer, J.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hudson, Walter

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Jackson, R. S.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Burness)

  Jenkins, J.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  that any person interested should be allowed to enter a Standing Order with the Commissioners by which he had any valuation of the land served upon him. He must have it if he is to object, and it ought to be inserted here.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I propose to move similar words here to give the persons interested the right to apply to the Commissioners for a copy of the apportionment of the land before it is finally settled, and the same right of lodging objections and appealing as the owner. If the hon. Member will withdraw this Amendment I will move them.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to insert at the end of the clause the words "Any person interested in the land, not being an owner, may apply to the Commissioners for a copy of the proposed apportionment of the land before it is finally settled, and shall then have the same right of giving notice of objection and of appealing as the owner."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put, "That the Clause, amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 42.

  Radford, G. H.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  Summerbell, T.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Richardson, A.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Roberts, G H. (Norwich)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Thomasson, Franklin

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

  Rowlands, J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Tomkinson, James

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Toulmin, George

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Seely, Colonel

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Shackleton, David James

  Walsh, Stephen

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  NOES.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, J.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanler, Beville

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John R.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Motion agreed to; Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
  ADJOURNMENT.—Besolved, "That the House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
  Adjourned at Nineteen minutes before Nine o'clock a.m. (Wednesday, 18th August, 1909).