Commons Sitting of 18 August 1909

Preamble
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, through indisposition, from this day's sitting.
Whereupon Mr. Emmott, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after prayers took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, in pursuance of the Standing Order.

PEIVATE BUSINESS.
Dunoon Burgh Bill [Lords],—As amended, to be considered to-morrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Naval Depots (Officers' Mess Subscriptions).
  Mr. COURTHOPEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will take steps to alter the regulations now in force at naval depots whereby an officer, when appointed to a depot for work unconnected with that depot, is compelled to pay a subscription of over £1 per month and his savings to the extent of 10d. per day to the officers' mess of the depot, whether he uses the mess or not?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The maintenance of a depot ship's ward room mess, which is for the benefit of the officers as a whole, would not be practicable unless all the officers borne on the books of the depot are required to subscribe; and it is therefore not proposed to make any change in the existing system.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider if some relaxation cannot be made in the case of engineer officers?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire into that point. But there is difficulty, I understand, in relaxing the rule.

  Manning of Nucleus-Crew Ships.
  Mr. COURTHOPEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the declared Admiralty policy of commissioning and recommissioning
  1360
  ships with full complements with the officers and men of ships manned with nucleus crews and making up the less important details from the depots has been departed from on any recent occasions, officers being separated from the men they have trained; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction caused and loss of efficiency entailed by this practice, he will take steps to ensure that the officers of nucleus crew ships shall in all cases accompany their men on being turned over to fully-commissioned ships?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am aware that on certain occasions exceptions have been made to the rule referred to, but steps are always taken to ensure that so far as possible the officers of nucleus-crew ships accompany their men on being turned over to ships allowed a full complement—and exceptions are made only when they are unavoidable.

  Naval Administration (Communication with Second Sea Lord).
  Mr. COURTHOPEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that officers who wish to see the Second Sea Lord or his secretary with regard to appointments or to obtain information of their future movements are requested not to seek a personal interview if a written communication will serve the purpose, and that communications written under these circumstances are frequently unanswered, officers on full or half pay leave and those whose ships are about to pay off being thereby kept in ignorance of their future destinations; and whether he will take steps to ensure that such communications should invariably receive a reply in future?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is quite true that the rule referred to in the first part of the question has been in existence for some time. The hon. Gentleman will, I think, appreciate that the mass of detail connected with the duties of the Second Sea Lord is so great that he is obliged to place limits upon the time during which he is free to grant interviews to individual officers. He regrets to learn that in any instance a letter has remained unanswered. He is not aware of any such case, but will be glad to inquire into any complaint which may be brought to his notice.
  Mr. C. BELLAIRS: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the rule has been in force some time, can the right hon. Gentleman give the time more definitely?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think it originally came in force in the time of the late Second Sea Lord.

  Torpedo Destroyer "Afridi."
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the torpedo boat destroyer "Afridi" has been accepted by the Admiralty; on what days and courses she was tried; what were her performances on each day; and what was her contract speed?
  Mr. McKENNA: The "Afridi" has not yet been accepted by the Admiralty. The official full-speed trial was made on 16th February, 1909, on the Maplin Sands course, when a result corresponding to an ordinary sea speed of 32¾ knots was obtained. The contract speed is 33 knots.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it proposed to accept the "Afridi" on the strength of this performance?
  Mr. McKENNA: I shall be able to give exact information on that point in the course of another week.

  Torpedo Boat Destroyers (1908–9 Programme).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many torpedo boat destroyers were provided for in the Estimates for 1908–9; and when were they laid down?
  Mr. McKENNA: Sixteen torpedo boat destroyers were provided for in the Estimates for 1908–9, and they were laid down as follows: March, 1909, 4; April, 1909, 8; and May. 1909, 4.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why all the destroyers were not all laid down in the financial year?
  Mr. McKENNA: They were all ordered unusually early in the financial year. When the contractors laid them down was not a matter for us, provided they are completed in the contract time.
  Mr. ASHLEY: And what is that time?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think it must be within 21 months; I cannot say exactly.

  Armament of Torpedo Boat Destroyers.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked what will be the armament of the torpedo boat destroyers of the 1908–9 programme?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not desirable to publish this information at this stage.

  Burlington House.
  Mr. COURTHOPEasked the First Commissioner of Works what was the original cost of Burlington House; and what sums have subsequently been expended on structural and other alterations to this building?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): The total cost of the block of buildings known as Burlington House now occupied by the Royal Academy, the Learned Societies and the Civil Service Commission was £435,212. The Trustees are responsible for the cost of all repairs to the portion occupied by the Royal Academy. There has been no charge on public funds on account of structural alterations to the portion occupied by the Learned Societies. Various alterations were executed for the London University at a cost of £4,051, including fittings, etc., and upon the transfer pf that part of the building to the Civil Service Commission the works of adaptation cost £14,016.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: Are we to understand that the Government have no financial responsibility for the repairs which, to judge from the noise, are continually going on?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have stated exactly for what repairs the Government are responsible.

  Post Office Telegraph and Telephone Poles.
  Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Postmaster-General whether larch is a timber which will take creosote; and what are the respective cost and average length of life of telegraph poles of uncreosoted English larch and of creosoted foreign pine?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): Larch will absorb creosote, but not nearly so well as red fir. The Post Office has but slight experience of uncreosoted English larch, but the life of poles made thereof is thought to be about seven to ten years. The life of creosoted red fir poles is very much longer. If the cost of uncreosoted larch be taken as 100, the cost of creosoted larch is 134, of uncreosoted red fir 77, and of creosoted red fir 119.
  Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Postmaster-General how much foreign timber has been used by the Post Office during the past four years for new telegraph and

  1363
  telephone poles; whether any such foreign timber has been used in localities in which locally-grown timber has been offered to his Department for this purpose; and, if so, why such offer has been refused?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: During the past four years about 50,000 poles a year have been used by the Post Office. As regards the latter part of the question, the hon. Member, I think, misapprehends the position. Timber, wherever grown, has to be sent to be creosoted before it can be used, and as creosoting involves expensive plant there are only a few places in which it can toe carried out. Generally, as regards the use of home-grown timber, I have endeavoured as far as possible to obtain tenders from growers and dealers in English timber so as to utilise homegrown timber. I am sorry to say that there has not been very much response to my invitation; but at the present moment I am glad to say there are a few tenders out which I hope may prove satisfactory. I am anxious to do what I can to encourage the use of home-grown timber, but of course the question of suitability and the question of price must be taken into account. I am glad to say that I have come to an arrangement with the Office of Woods and Forests to take a certain amount of timber from them for telegraph and telephone purposes.
  Mr. COURTHOPEalso asked why in the case of a tender for the supply of locally-grown larch for telegraph poles in the neighbourhood of Crowborough, Sussex, the owner was required to send his timber to the creosoting stations at Cardiff or Newcastle and to bring it back to Sussex before it would be accepted by the Post Office?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: At the time the tender was received there was no means of dealing with larch poles at a creosoting depot in the South, and delivery could only be taken at Newport or in the North. This year tenders for delivery in London or at Eling (Southampton) are being invited. On delivery a contractor's responsibility ceases provided that his poles are satisfactory, and the contractor in question was not required to bring the poles back to Sussex.

  Mineral Wayleaves.
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department
  1364
  whether he can state the amount of rental value annually enjoyed by persons from rights to work minerals and from mineral wayleaves?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I have no information on the subject later than that contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties in 1893.

  Finstown Oyster Fishery Order.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Lord Advocate if he is now in a position to state the name of the official he has appointed to inquire into the desirability or otherwise of proceeding with the Fins-town Oyster Fishery Order?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. Ure): The answer is in the negative. The matter is under consideration, but the form and scope of any inquiry are not yet decided.

  Importation of Chinese Pork.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state if any, and, if so, what, steps have been taken to ascertain the conditions under which the pork recently imported from China was fattened; whether any official inspection of the consignment has been made; and whether the retail vendors are under any obligation to disclose the origin of the pork when selling it in competition with British or Colonial pork?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): Prior to the arrival of the carcases in this country I caused inquiries to be made both of the importers and of the Consul-General at Hankow. The latter reported that the animals exported were entirely different from the ordinary scavenger pig, and were of a special breed fed on rice in the valley of the Yangtse. This agrees with the statement made by the importers. The carcases are subjected to a strict examination under the Public Health (Foreign Meat) Regulations. A preliminary examination was made on the arrival of the ship. The carcases are now in cold store, and are examined by the officers of the Corporation before they are placed on sale. Retail vendors are not required to disclose the origin of the pork.

  Administrator-General of Bengal (W. Knox Johnson's Estate).
  Mr. COURTHOPEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to the action of the Administrator-General of Bengal in connection with the estate of the late Mr. W. Knox Johnson, principal of Queen's College, Jubbulpore, who died on 19th June, 1906; whether securities and an insurance policy were realised and commission charged, property sold under disadvantageous conditions, and documents destroyed, against the expressed wish of Mrs. Johnson, sole executrix and legatee of the testator; whether the Administrator-General has refused to hand over any part of the property or to render an account thereof to Mrs. Johnson unless she signs a full release; and whether the Secretary of State will order an inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Andover on the 27th ultimo, the Secretary of State and my predecessor have personally looked into this case, and the Secretary of State does not propose to interfere with the action of the Administrator-General of Bengal in his administration of the estate.

  Royal Irish Constabulary (Temporary Drafts).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, when the free police force of one county in Ireland is transferred to and paid for by another county, the amount provided for their maintenance in the county in which they were part of the free force goes back to the Treasury?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): When a portion of the free force of one county is temporarily drafted into another county for duty there the amount charged to the latter county under the statute is credited to the Constabulary Vote and goes to reduce the total charge on the Imperial Exchequer for the force. The charge made on the county to which the men are sent is sometimes less and sometimes more than the expenses actually incurred by the State in transferring them.
  Mr. P. WHITE: Will not that relieve the Exchequer from the obligation to pay
  1366
  for the free police in Ireland at the expense of the Exchequer?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If the free police force is transferred from one county to another and remains in the transferred county a sufficient length of time, no doubt some profit does accrue to the Exchequer, but it all depends upon how long they stay, as the cost of transference eats up all the profit which can be made for a considerable time. It therefore depends upon how long the transferred force remains in the county to which it is transferred. If it remains there long enough, under the statute any profit goes to the benefit of the Exchequer.
  Mr. P. WHITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that fair to Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There are so many things that I do not know whether they are fair to answer one way or another that I could not give a general answer.
  Mr. CULLINAN: Where this free force has nothing to do in the county from which it is transferred, is it not just that the other county should pay the expense of it?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member raises a question on the statute law. I do not know whether, and I am not concerned to say whether, it is just or not, but that is the fact.
  Mr. P. WHITEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Meath County Council has refused to pay the charges for extra police drafted into the county from the free force of other counties on the ground that they include not only the cost of transfer but the cost of maintenance, etc., which had already been provided for on account of their being the free force of other counties, and whether he will advise that the claim for payment be not pressed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have received a copy of the Resolution in question. The county is legally liable for these charges, which are fixed by Statute, and no remission can be made.
  Mr. P. WHITE: Has the right hon. Gentleman no discretion in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No; I have no discretion in the matter whatever. It is a statutory obligation.
  Mr. CULLINAN: As this has occurred in several counties in Ireland, why is it

  1367
  that the local councils should not be consulted as to the extra force? I know that in many cases these forces are brought into counties where they are not required, especially in Tipperary, and they are brought in there because of Cabinet influence.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot go into that. It is not a question for the local authorities at all, but for the Imperial Government, on its own responsibility, to declare what amount of force is necessary in any county.
  Mr. P. WHITE: They could not be transferred without the sanction of the Government of Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision? It had the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman before the money could be levied.
  Mr. BIRRELL: A force is not transferred from one county to another unless the Government believes or is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of peace.

  War Office Lands (Isle of Wight).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War what was the sum expended in constructing the military road on the South-West Coast of the Isle of Wight, and in purchasing the adjoining War Office lands; whether any negotiations have been or are being carried on with a view to the sale or lease of these properties; and, if so, to whom and at what price?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): According to a paper presented to Parliament in 1867 (Sessional Paper 157) the cost of constructing the road was £16,540. The cost of the lands amounted to £12,115. The road is about to be leased for a term of years. The rent is a nominal one, but the lessee is to make a substituted road at the points at which breaks now exist, and to maintain the whole road in a condition to carry ordinary military traffic, while the War Department is to have full rights of user over the road. A portion of the land originally purchased is also to be sold to the lessees. It is not the practice of the Department to make public the prices at which such sales of land are effected.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what new circumstances
  1368
  have arisen which enable the War Department to do without this land in the Isle of Wight, which previously was necessary for the defence of Portsmouth?
  Mr. HALDANE: I did not say that the War Department would do without the land; what I said was that the maintenance of the road had been taken over by a private person, who was to make a substituted road at the point at which breaks now exist, and to maintain the whole road in a condition to carry ordinary military traffic, while the War Department is to have full rights of user over the road. This will effect a saving, and prevent us sending good money after bad.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Did he not state that he was going to sell a good deal of the land which was going to be used for forts?
  Mr. HALDANE: Yes; certain portions that we do not want. We have reconsidered these obsolete arrangements.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what the obsolete arrangements are. Are our forts obsolete?
  Mr. HALDANE: I will tell the hon. Member what the obsolete arrangements are. Under the old plan we used to believe that the enemy would come up themselves to a place where our guns could conveniently get at them. We do not hold that view now.
  Mr. H. MYER: Is it not the fact that this road has been constructed for many years?
  Mr. HALDANE: Yes; for very many years, and in very bad repair. We are going to save the cost of keeping it in repair.

  Lord Kitchener (Duties of New Appointment).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether Lord Kitchener, as High Commissioner and Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, will inspect the troops stationed in Egypt and the Soudan as well as those in South Africa?
  Mr. HALDANE: He will, as I have already stated, inspect the Regular Forces throughout Africa, including, of course, Egypt and the Soudan.
  Mr. BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to obviate the excessive cost of using a warship for carrying the inspecting officers as took place under the old régime?
  Mr. HALDANE: I do not think there will be any.

  Territorial Force (Motor Collision).
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the police refused to arrest the driver of the "Daily Chronicle's" motor car, which killed one man of the Territorial Army and injured several others on the morning of 12th August, what steps he intends to take to obtain a prosecution?
  Mr. HALDANE: I am obtaining a full report from the local military authorities, on receipt of which the matter will be considered.

  Efficient Adjutants.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for War whether the work done by the Territorial Forces on Salisbury Plain would seem to show that the number of efficient adjutants has increased since General Sir John French's last Report, which declared that a great number of them were lacking in competency?
  Mr. HALDANE: Until I have received Sir John French's Report for the present year it will be impossible for me to reply to this question.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to receive the Report?
  Mr. HALDANE: I do not believe I will have the Report before the end of September or the beginning of October.

  Legislation of Session (Statement Promised).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to make the customary statement indicating the Bills which he proposes should be passed before the close of the Session, and those which are not to be further proceeded with?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I propose to make a statement on Friday.
  Mr. LONSDALE: This next Friday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

  Civil Service (New Posts).
  Mr. RENTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state how many new posts have been created in the Civil Service since January, 1906?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I regret that the Information desired is not available.

  Irish Guaranteed Land Stock.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked at what price the National Debt Commissioners acquired the nine millions pounds' worth of Irish Guaranteed Land Stock which they now hold; what rate of interest they have to pay for the money so invested; what rate per cent, they receive on the investment; and what would the difference between what they have to pay for the money and what they receive amount to for one whole year.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Of the £9,186,000 2¾ per cent. Guaranteed Land Stock held by the National Debt Commissioners on the 31st March last, £7,950,000 was received in exchange for an equal nominal amount of Consols under Section 15 (2) of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891. In these circumstances it would not be possible to assign a true value to the stock, as the Consols given in exchange only formed a part of a larger amount of the stock held by the National Debt Commissioners for various purposes. The balance of Guaranteed Land Stock, which has been bought for cash is nearly wholly held for the Sinking Fund Account in which the tenant purchasers' annuities are accumulated, the average price being £93 17s. 3d., equivalent to a rate of interest of £2 18s. 7d. per cent. The higher yield of interest benefits the accumulation account of the tenant purchasers.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Will the tenant purchasers get the advantage of the reduction of the annuity?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is what I said in the last words of my reply.

  Post Office Savings' Bank (Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked what is the total amount of money deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank in Ireland; what rate of interest is paid thereon; and what annual profit, if any, the Post Office would realise by investing the amount in Irish Guaranteed Land Stock if acquired at the average price of the three last flotations?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The aggregate deposits in Post Office Savings Banks in Ireland on the 31st December last was £10,836,460, and the actual interest credited to Irish depositors works out on an average at £2 8s. 8d. per cent. To this latter figure

  1371
  must be added the cost of management, which has not been calculated for Ireland separately, but may be taken at the rate ascertained for the United Kingdom, as a whole, namely, 8s. 5½d. per cent. The average price at which the last three public issues of Guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock were made is £89 0s. 11d. This gives a yield in interest of £3 1s. 9d. In order to invest the Irish Savings Banks deposits in Guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock it would be necessary to realise the investments at present held against them. As these form a portion of the general investments held on account of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund not specially earmarked to particular deposits, it is quite impossible to say what sum would be obtained from such realisation or what advantage (if any) would accrue to the Income Account of the fund as a result of the operation suggested in the question.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Is the Guaranteed Land Stock an Irish investment?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I do not quite follow that. Of course, on any savings bank deposit money arising from deposits made in Ireland can be invested in this stock.

  Spirits Taken out of Bond.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what quantity of spirits was taken out of bond in Great Britain and Ireland during the months of May, June, and July, respectively, of last year, and the quantity taken out for the corresponding months of this year; and whether he will state the total amount of duty paid for the three months referred to of last year, and the total amount paid for the corresponding three months of this year?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The quantity of Spirits Duty paid in Great Britain and Ireland during the months of May, June, and July, 1908 and 1909 respectively and the amount of duty paid were:—

  Quantity Gallons.

  Duty.

  1908.

  £

  May

  2,986,000

  …

  1,640,000

  June

  2,565,000

  …

  1,409,000

  July

  2,907,000

  …

  1,597,000

  1909.

  May

  675,000

  …

  491,000

  June

  963,000

  …

  716,000

  July

  1,601,000

  …

  1,170,000

  FINANCE BILL.

    COST OF LAND VALUATION.
    Mr. BOWLESasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intends to introduce a Supplementary Estimate during the present Session to authorise the expenditure of the £300,000 by which it is proposed to increase the expenditure of the year in respect of land valuation; and, if so, can he say when this Estimate will be introduced?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): A Supplementary Estimate will not be required for this purpose during this part of the Session.
    Mr. STEWART BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how the Government propose to deal with the matter? How the money will be found?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Money can easily be provided for the purpose from the amount available from the Inland Revenue Vote.
    Mr. BOWLES: Do I understand that it is already ascertained that the Inland Revenue Vote is over-estimated this year to the extent of £300,000?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; the hon. Gentleman is not to understand anything of the sort. He is only to understand that there is sufficient money in the Inland Revenue Vote to carry us on until February, when there can be a Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that no new Vote would be taken in "this part of the Session."
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes; not for this particular purpose.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What does he mean by "this part of the Session"? Are we to understand that this Session will continue until next February?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is no need for any Vote until the Supplementary Estimate is required.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Next Session?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, next Session.

    VALUATION (IRELAND).
    Mr. JAMES O'CONNORasked the Prime Minister whether Ireland is to be included in the valuation proposed in the

    1373
    Finance Bill; if so, will the valuation be carried out by an Irish staff of valuers; and if he can say what department in Ireland will be charged with the duty of conducting the valuation?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, I may refer the hon. Member to the reply on this subject which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on the 16th instant to the hon. Member for North Armagh.

    INCREASED SPIRIT DUTY.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the increased Spirit Duty of 3s. 9d. on 24,600,000 gallons, the amount upon which the Government now estimate such duty will be paid, would amount to £4,612,500; and, if so, whether he can see his way to revise his estimate of £1,600,000 as the amount to be received from such increased tax?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is true that an additional tax of 3s. 9d. a gallon on the quantity of spirits estimated to be cleared at the new rate of duty during the current financial year would amount to £4,612,500. But my right hon. Friend sees no reason to modify his estimate of the additional revenue to be obtained this year by increasing the duty toy 3s. 9d.
    Mr. WATT: As the bulk of this spirit is manufactured in Scotland, is there any particular reason why that country should be mulcted to that extent?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is perfectly true it may be manufactured to that extent in Scotland, but it is the consumer who pays the duty.

    VALUATION (UNDEVELOPED LAND).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to have a valuation of all the land of the United Kingdom made every fifth year, or only of all undeveloped land; and, if the latter only, how will he know that he has included all undeveloped land?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The quinquennial valuation under the Bill will apply to undeveloped land only, and it is not anticipated that five years hence any appreciable portion of such land will fail to be included.

    UNDEVELOPED LAND COMMISSIONERS OF WOODS AND FORESTS.
    Mr. LANE-FOX (for Mr. Staveley-Hill)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the amount of valuable building land owned by the Crown which is lying idle in Kensington High-street; and whether he will take steps to urge the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues to proceed with the work of development without delay?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Commissioners of Woods have, I am informed, made every effort to let this land for building purposes, and will be glad to treat with anyone desiring to utilise it for the erection of buildings of a suitable class.

    BUDGET PROPOSALS (INSUFFICIENT STAFF).
    Mr. GORDONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a resolution from the Association of Surveyors of Taxes stating that they view with alarm the statement that the present staff will be sufficient for all the Budget proposals except those relating to the Land Taxes; and what steps he intends to take for providing a sufficient staff?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have nothing to add to my reply of the 19th ultimo to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for East Down.
    Mr. GORDONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in cases of deaths of surveyors of taxes caused by overwork due to the failure of the Treasury to provide a sufficient staff, the Treasury is prepared to make provision for the dependants of those whose death is so caused; and whether his attention has been called to complaints on account of the refusal of the Treasury to make such provision, and particularly in the case of the deaths of Mr. Kerr and Mr. Stewart in 1907?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend's attention has been called to the cases in question. No grant can be made to the widow and children of a Civil servant unless the husband's death was due to injury sustained in the discharge of his duty within the meaning of Section 1 of the Superannuation Act of 1887, and each case has to be considered separately with reference to the terms of this section.
    Mr. GORDON: Am I to understand that if a man dies at his post from overwork his family is to receive no compensation?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The overwork has to be proved.
    Mr. GORDON: If it is proved, will the Treasury give compensation?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think there is no difficulty in a case of that sort.

    HAMBURG SHERRY AND PORT.
    Mr. YOUNGERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that quantities of so-called Hamburg sherry and port, containing 30 per cent, of proof spirit, are being sold in this country since the increase in the Spirit Duties; that they only pay an Import Duty of 1s. 3d. per gallon, and whether lie will take steps to level up that duty to the rate upon which spirits are charged?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Hamburg sherry and port are not specifically distinguished in the trade accounts, but are included with all other wines imported from Germany. The available figures for the three months since the increase of the Spirit Duties, when compared with the corresponding months of last year, indicate a falling off rather than an increase in the importation of German wines generally. In regard to the last part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply on this subject given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth on the 6th May last.
    Mr. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the so-called Hamburg sherry is largely mixed with whisky and sold as whisky, and that it is a profitable thing to do?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As far as my researches go neither of those facts is as stated by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Have the Treasury inquired into the allegation that this Hamburg sherry and port is now being distilled to extract the spirit, that being the cheapest way of obtaining spirits since the increase of the duty?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; I have had no such information, but I will inquire and ascertain if it is true.
    Mr. WATT: Is it the case that this Hamburg spirit is admitted at a tax of 1s. 3d. a gallon, whereas Scotch whisky is taxed higher?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: This is Hamburg sherry and port. There has been a great decrease in the importation of German spirit in the course of the last five or six years.

    LAND TAXES (YIELD).
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked what is the estimated net amount that the local authorities will receive from the land taxes this year and next year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is anticipated that the yield of the new land taxes in the current financial year will amount to £675,000, of which one-half will be handed over to the local authorities. My right hon. Friend estimates that the taxes will yield next year £1,000,000, of which the local authorities will receive the same proportion.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: In view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, in answer to a deputation that the cost of valuation would swallow up the whole of the money he is likely to receive, how much is he likely to receive this year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am entirely ignorant of the answer which is ascribed to my right hon. Friend.

    MINERAL RIGHTS DUTY.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether half of the proceeds of the Mineral Rights Duty will be distributed among all the local authorities, or whether it will be restricted to the mining districts from which it is collected?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The distribution of the duty in question will follow that of the other taxes imposed by Part I. of the Finance Bill—that is, the half of the proceeds will be distributed among all the local authorities.

    LAND VALUATION (NEW OFFICERS).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the 500 officers proposed to be appointed for the purpose of making the land valuation are to be permanent officials working under the Treasury or whether they are to be outside surveyors and valuers called in and paid by fees; and. in either case, how. and by whom, the appointments will be made?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: A certain number of the valuers to be appointed under the Finance Bill will be permanent officials working under the Board of Inland Re-

    1377
    venue, with whom the selection will rest. The remainder of the valuing staff will be only temporarily employed.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will they be permanent valuers paid by fees, or will their whole time be taken up by the Treasury?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Most of them will be employed as whole-time officers, some temporarily and some permanently.
    Mr. YOUNGER: Will these gentlemen be drawn from the same class who at present provide the assessors for Scotland?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should like notice about Scotland.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will they be drawn from the present ranks of the ordinary surveyors or will they be the Somerset House type of clerks?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: They will be persons who have some knowledge of valuation.

    UNDEVELOPED LAND DUTY (TRAFFORD PARK).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that about £250,000 has been spent in the preparation of Trafford Park for development, little of which sum would obtain exemption as roads or sewers under Clause 10 of the Finance Bill; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to prevent such estate incurring the Undeveloped Land Tax, in view of the terms of Clause 10 as now amended?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I may remind the hon. Member that under Clause 14, Subsection 4 (a) the Commissioners are to allow as deductions from the site value of any land any part of the value which is proved to be directly attributable to works executed for the purpose of improving the value of the land as building land or for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: By Clause 10 last week that was limited to expenditure within 10 years. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the bulk of the Trafford Park expenditure was incurred before the 10 years?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, I am not at all aware of the last statement. I am informed that the deductions which are mentioned in Clause 14 practically relieved the Trafford Park estate of all that it is entitled to be relieved of.

    LAND FOR PUBLIC OR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he is prepared to state what Amendments he will introduce in Clause 25 of the Finance Bill (Exemption of land held for public or charitable purposes) in order to meet the request of a deputation representative of secondary schools that was received by Sir Robert Chalmers on Friday last on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, unfortunately, was prevented from attending to receive the deputation?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I am sorry that I could not be present to receive the deputation on Friday last. The Amendments will be found on the Paper to-day.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is not the case that hon. Members interested were promised full notice of these Amendments before they were called upon to discuss them? I am informed by one of the Members specially interested that that is so. I would ask further whether it is not the case that the House sat until a quarter to nine o'clock this morning, that these Amendments were only handed in yesterday, that they were not circulated to Members, or were not available for Members, until some time about one o'clock to-day, and whether he thinks, under these circumstances, that the House has had due notice of the Amendments, which entirely transform the clause, introduce entirely new matter and exemptions into it, and wholly alter the exemptions originally appearing in the clause. I will ask the indulgence of the House to make one observation in the nature of an acknowledgment of the personal courtesy which was shown to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In putting a question of this kind I ought to say that the right hon. Gentleman did offer to show me the Amendments this morning. It was about half-past eight, and as I had sat practically continuously in this House from about three o'clock yesterday afternoon I thought I had something better to do than to set to work to consider these Amendments at once, and I declined the right hon. Gentleman's offer; I think it is due to him that I should make that statement.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman tells me that I made a

    1379
    promise to give full notice of the Amendments. I accept that statement at once, though I cannot recollect giving any pledge of the kind. If I gave such a pledge, I have no desire to recede from it. It would have been a very reasonable pledge to ask, and I would probably have given it. I very much regret that the Amendments were not on the Paper until this morning; I did intimate to two Gentlemen interested in the matter—the hon. Member for Oxford University and the hon. Member for Cambridge University—the general character of the Amendments on which we proceed. I do not know whether they really think that there should be more time given for the consideration of the Amendments, but if they think so, I should not resist the suggestion.
    Sir WILLIAM ANSON: May I say that although the Chancellor of the Exchequer never gave us a definite pledge, he invited the hon. Member for Cambridge University and myself to meet him some time ago. The matter had been before him for some time, and he indicated generally the character of the Amendments to be introduced. We have been wondering ever since when we should see the specific Amendments by which he proposes to give effect to the suggestions made to him.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Baronet that this matter can be better dealt with in Committee of the Finance Bill.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I accept his offer.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Having regard to the fact that I did not see the Amendments until two o'clock to-day, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has placed an Amendment on the Paper which will exempt school property which is held under charitable endowments from the taxes—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Really, there will be plenty of time before we come go the clause to see the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman has put down.

  New Licence Duties (Estimated Yield).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount which he estimates the new Licence Duties
  1380
  will yield in Great Britain, and, having regard to its taxable capacity being at least twenty times greater than that of Ireland, what amount would be a fair contribution from Ireland; whether the amount of Ireland's fair proportion is above or below the total Licence Duty at present levied in Ireland; and how much?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The estimated yield or the Increased Licence Duties in Great Britain is £2,496,000, and in Ireland £104,000, or about 1–24th. Of the total revenue derived from licences in 1908–9 (£3,114,000) Ireland contributed £214,000, as against £2,900,000 contributed by Great Britain, or rather more than 1–13th. I am unable to say how either of these proportions would compare with the relative taxable capacity of the two portions of the United Kingdom either as a whole or with reference to the particular trades and articles of consumption affected by the duties.
  Mr. H. BELLOC: May I take it that the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given are based on the present provisions of the Bill?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think so, Sir.

  Disorders at Portadown and Lurgan.
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the disorder in Portadown has been repressed; whether he can say if disturbance has taken place in Lurgan also; whether he can say whether the extra police will be retained in both towns until the disturbances end; whether he will make inquiries from Mr. J. Grew, J.P., hotel proprietor in Portadown as to the allegation that a bottle was thrown from the hotel windows?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The disorder in Portadown on Sunday night was repressed, but there is still cause for anxiety. Disturbances took place in Lurgan on Monday night. Whatever extra police may be required in these towns will be employed there until the disturbances cease. Inquiries will be made from Mr. Grew, J.P., and from others as to the allegation that a bottle was thrown from the hotel windows. The reports which I have received this morning from the police state that all is quiet in both towns.
  Mr. J. MacVEAGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that no such scenes of rowdyism as have

  1381
  taken place in Lurgan and Portadown have been witnessed in the south and west of Ireland for more than half a century?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not wish to enter into comparisons, but these disturbances are as lamentable as they are absurd, and they are insensate. I deeply regret their occurrence, all the more because the people were not content with breaking their own heads, but gouged out the eye of one policeman and fractured the jaw of another.
  Mr. T. L. CORBETT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there would have been any room for anxiety if the Nationalist party had conducted themselves properly?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Whether the Nationalists conducted themselves properly in insisting on going on an excursion on a Sunday I cannot say. The police say that they went without any signs or symbols of agitation, without any bands, or what I believe is sometimes called regalia. They went under the protection of the police, and if they had been left alone nothing would have happened.
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: As a wilfully misleading account of the Lurgan disturbance has been circulated by a Press agency in this country, I must ask the Chief Secretary whether he can give to the House the text of the police report which he has received as to the beginning of these disturbances?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think that any useful purpose would now be gained by reading the reports from the police which I have received. I can only hope that these miserable occurrences will not take place again.
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Might I ask the Chief Secretary whether he does not think that the absolutely and deliberately false account which has been circulated by this Press agency ought to be officially contradicted at once; and, as he has the official police reports, what objection is there to letting us know the police account when we had the police account yesterday about the disturbance in Portadown?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have no objection whatever to publishing it.

  Dumping in Canada.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether
  1382
  he is aware that the anti-dumping clause in the Canadian Tariff which came into operation in May, 1908, greatly benefited the Welsh tinplate trade with the Dominion; that the clause has now been absolutely withdrawn since the beginning of this month; that the effect of such withdrawal has been detrimental to the Welsh trade by enabling the American manufacturers to dump their surplus stock in Canada at less than cost price; and whether, under the circumstances, he can see his way to approach the Canadian Government with a view to retaining the clause, which, while not in any way inconsistent with the principles of Free Trade, enabled British manufacturers to compete on fair terms with other manufacturer's in the Canadian markets?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H, J. Tennant): I am aware that the operation of the "anti-dumping" clause of the Canadian Tariff Act of 1907 has recently been suspended in regard to tinplates; but I have at present no information as to the reasons for that suspension. I am causing full inquiries to be made, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be glad to know if the Prime Minister can now make the statement, which he promised yesterday, about the business for next week.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I hope, particularly after what has been said by my right hon. Friend as to the postponement of Clause 25, that we may secure the remaining clauses of Part I. of the Finance Bill this evening, and we may, therefore, allot Friday for other purposes. If that is done, I propose on Friday to move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock and the Five o'clock Rules for the remainder of the Session, and to make a statement, after which we will take on Friday the Report and Third Reading of the House-Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill, the Report and Third Reading of the Electric Lighting Acts Amendment Bill, and possibly a stage of one or two other non-controversial measures.
Next week, including Friday, we propose to devote to the Irish Land Bill. In regard to the following week, I cannot yet make a definite statement, beyond saying that on one or two, or possibly more, days the Finance Bill will be taken.
Mr. BALFOUR: I understand that tomorrow is allocated primarily to the discussion on the Committee stage of the South African Bill. I do not know what discussion is anticipated upon this. In the event of the matter terminating early, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any other business, and, if so, what?
The PRIME MINISTER: If, as I hope, that discussion may terminate reasonably early, we thought of taking a stage of one or two non-controversial Bills. We will take nothing controversial.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: With reference to what has been said as to the probability of the Budget being taken on some days in the week after next, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the convenience it would be to many Members if he is not going to allocate the whole of the week to the Budget, that the first day should not be used for that purpose, so that those of us who are specially interested in the Budget should not be called back on Monday, and then find business that does not concern us down for Tuesday?
The PRIME MINISTER: We will not take it on Monday.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: With reference to the business for the week after next, before entering on Part II. of the Finance Bill, will there be a further resolution of Committee of Ways and Means?
The PRIME MINISTER: So far as I know, there is no necessity for such a resolution with regard to Part II.

COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: In view of the breakdown of the procedure of this House, Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision not to appoint a Committee on procedure?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord knows that he and I are quite agreed about this, and that we want to see the Committee set up, and its labours begun. But the labours which hon. Members have undertaken now are so severe that it is hardly fair to call on them to begin an inquiry so prolonged as this. If the Noble Lord likes, I will certainly give notice of the appointment and of the terms of reference.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Thank you.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee—[21st Day].
[Mr. CALDWELL in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

VALUATION FOR PURPOSES OF DUTIES ON LAND VALUES.
  APPEALS.

    Clause 22.—(Appeals to Referees.)
    (1) Except as expressly provided in this Part of this Act, any person aggrieved may appeal within such time and in such manner as may be provided by rules made for the purpose by the Treasury against the first determination by the Commissioners of the total value or site value of any land; and against the amount of any assessment of duty under this Part of this Act; and against a refusal of the Commissioners to make any allowance or to make the allowance claimed, where the Commissioners have power to make such an allowance under this Part of this Act; and against any apportionment of the value of land or of the consideration on any transfer or lease made by the Commissioners under this Part of this Act; and against the determination of any other matter which the Commissioners are to determine or may determine under this Part of this Act:—
    Provided that—

    (a) an appeal shall not lie against the determination by the Commissioners of the total or site value of any land where a return of the value of the land has not been made by the owner in pursuance of this Part of this Act; and

    (b) the total value and the site value shall be questioned only by means of an appeal against the determination by the Commissioners of that value where there is an appeal under this Act, and shall not be questioned in any case on an appeal against an assessment of duty.

    (2) Any appeal under this section shall be referred to such one of the Referees appointed under this Part of this Act as may be provided by any special or general directions of the Treasury, and the decision of the Referee to whom the appeal is so referred shall be final.
    (3) If any question of law arises in the course of an appeal under this section, the Referee may, if he thinks fit, state the question in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court, and the

    1385
    case so stated shall be submitted for decision to the Court in such summary manner as subject to any rules of court may be directed by the Court, and the Court, after hearing such parties and taking such evidence (if any) as it thinks just, shall decide the question.
    (4) On any appeal to a Referee under this section, the Referee may order to and by whom and in what manner the costs of the reference or appeal or any part thereof shall be paid, and may settle the amount of the costs to be paid.
    Any order of the Referee as to costs may be made a rule of the High Court.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL Lord ROBERT CECIL moved in Section (1), after the word "appeal" ["person aggrieved may appeal"], to insert the words "to the High Court of Justice."
    I think that this Amendment should be moved if for no other purpose than to allow the Government to explain what the effect of their Amendment will be on the clause as it now stands. On this side our anxiety is to receive in some form or other the control of the courts over the administration of this Act, and that the ordinary courts of law shall be reserved. This Amendment, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter) does carry that out in the plainest and simplest possible way by providing for an appeal to the High Court. Until I hear what the Government really proposes in this matter I do not think I should be justified in occupying further time, and I therefore merely move the Amendment.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): This is practically the Amendment which I propose to move, and which is on page 21 of the White Paper, that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Referee may appeal against the decision to the High Court, and so on.
    Mr. GEORGE CAVE: I think the clause as now proposed to be passed is a very great improvement upon what it was. In the first place, we have got Referees appointed, not now by the Crown, but by the Reference Committee. In the second place, we have an appeal from the Referee to the Court. At the same time, I am not quite satisfied that it is wise to introduce this rather complicated procedure in place of the existing procedure under the Finance Act of 1894, giving simply an appeal to the county court in small cases and to the High Court in more
    1386
    important cases. My opinion on that point will be rather affected by the manner in which the details of the procedure are dealt with. What record will there be of the proceedings before the Referee? Is it intended to make the proceedings absolutely informal, or will the parties be at liberty to appear by their nominees or representatives to raise their points, and will there be a shorthand note of the evidence given before the Referee? In the next place, will the Referee be asked to give reasons for his decision, or to give a formal judgment, so that the appeal can be dealt with in the usual way, the grounds being stated on which his decision is based? I think it is a matter of great importance, if the Referee is really going to sit in the judicial capacity to hear evidence and advocates, and to have a record of what takes place before him, that he should give the reasons for his decision. It may be assumed that the Referees will be fit men, chosen for the purpose, because practically judicial decisions will be given by the tribunal. I understand also that there will be an appeal in every case from the Referee to the Court, not only on points of law, but on points of fact. If these two things are secured, of course we have got very much further than we were under the Bill. I think it is a very great improvement, but at the same time I should like to know, before this Amendment is parted with, why we do not have the simple system of appeal to the county court in small cases and to the High Court in larger cases?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): With respect to the last point of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the appeal to the High Court of Justice is from the Referee. In such cases we thought it best to go to the High Court, and not to the county court, in order to get an opinion. With regard to appeals before the Referee, they will not be of the formal character which proceedings take in a court of justice. The Referee will be more a valuer than a judge, so far as hearing the evidence is concerned. If the decision of the Referee is not made in accordance with the rules to be laid down, it is fully intended that his decision shall be given in such a form as will make it perfectly easy for the appellate court to see the reasons on which the decision was based.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: I admit at once, frankly, that the Bill, as proposed to be amended, is a very great improve-

    1387
    ment upon the way in which the provision, as to appeal, was originally framed. I think it would have been a great calamity if the original conception of the Bill had become operative, that subjects who were being taxed were to be left to the tender mercies of the Executive, and that they should have no remedy whatsoever in the courts of justice. However, there is a new procedure in regard to the question of value.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: On points of law.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: Fortunately, we have the courts to exercise jurisdiction in regard to matters of law, and we can hardly deprive them of that under the Constitution. I do not suppose anybody will say that the courts, as regards question of law, ought to have no jurisdiction, though that may be a new Liberal doctrine—I do not know. At the same time, I think that the system of appeal set up by the right hon. Gentleman is not in the least an improvement upon the system which already prevails in regard to the Death Duties. You have really got exactly the same kind of valuation under this Bill, only it is more complicated, though you have exactly, in effect, the same questions to solve as in relation to the Death Duties, Succession Duties, and Legacy Duties. I have never heard it suggested that the present system of valuation in the courts has in the least degree broken down, or that anybody has ever been discontented with it. Why this more cumbersome system should be set up by the right hon. Gentleman I cannot for the life of me understand. The present system is this: You have the right to go before the Court if you do not come to terms with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. They have laid down certain rules as to how value is to be ascertained, and these are comparatively simple. In addition to that you have also the right—as well as I can recollect the sections—when the estate is below a certain amount of money, to take proceedings in the county court. That also, in my opinion, is a very important matter, and will be a very much more important matter in regard to the valuations which have to take place under the Bill we are now considering. What is the proposed improvement? Instead of that, which is a comparatively simple procedure, you are to appeal not in the first instance to the
    1388
    Court, but, having gone first before the Commissioners and furnished them with your evidence, and having had all the expense practically of an adjudication by the Commissioners, you have to go from the Commisioners to a gentleman who is to be styled a Referee. That is the second step. When you have done that, if you are not satisfied with the decision of the Referee, then there is a third procedure, namely, to go to the Court. Just look at the way in which the subject may be harassed in regard to a very small matter. It is to be remembered that the Commissioners will be dealing with very small cases under this Bill. They will not be all dukes and they will not be all black men. Some of them will be very small men, holding half or a quarter of an acre. And they, where they are not satisfied with the decision of the Commissioners, will have to go through all the process provided under the Bill. When the Commissioners have fixed a sum the case may go to the Referee, whose decision may be satisfactory to the appellant, but the Commissioners may take him to the Court, and they must take him to the High Court. Is not that absolutely absurd, and all the more so when the value in dispute may not be worth the cost? It really means in regard to the small cases which will arise under this Bill that it will be disastrous for the small holders to go through all this process. It should be remembered that the very fact that the courts are behind them has kept the Commissioners in very good order up to now. While I was Solicitor-General I do not remember that there was one single case on the question of value. The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Leverton Harris) gave his own case in the House where he was called upon to pay on £50,000. He refused, and then the Commissioners, in some way or other, came to a little more reason, and put the figure at £15,000.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The facts are not accurately stated.
    Sir E. CARSON: He stated that himself, and until I see something that leads me to doubt the veracity of my hon. Friend I prefer to believe him. I do not think he can be very inaccurate, as he had to go through it himself. Eventually a settlement was come to at £10,000. That was done without a court at all, but it was done because the Court was there. The old practice has worked well. It has gone on as regards the Death Duties ever since, so far as I know without a hitch, and in

    1389
    the case of the amounts being small, the subject has the power of going to the county courts. I myself, at all events, so far as I am concerned, will ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd-George) now, even at the eleventh hour, to let us go on with the procedure of which, so far as I know, nobody has ever complained. As to the selection of the Referees upon a panel by the particular tribunal, I have great confidence in the tribunal, but I do not think they will find it very easy to make the panel. Why on earth should you propose a particular tribunal of that kind when we have already set up, by the rules, the inferior court and the county court under the Succession Act, the Legacy Duty Act, and the Finance Act, and where you have methods of value, which for a number of years have been absolutely satisfactory? Why you should propose these Referees I fail entirely to see. I really do think that the Attorney-General will agree with me, because he has now had experience that the safeguards of the courts behind the Commissioners has worked so well, that we might expect it would work perfectly well in the future as regards this particular matter.
    Therefore so far as my criticism goes, while I frankly admit we have gained a good deal by the concessions that have been made, and which we have been fighting for, not to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, I do not think we have in the least improved on the old system which has prevailed in relation to matters for so many years. There are one or two other matters I should like to press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In this hearing before the Referee, surely when we are going to have him interposed at all, we ought to try and make the hearing before him a satisfactory hearing, and not to be driving parties to the further step of going back again to a third hearing to the Court. You make no provision whatsoever for that. As I read the Amendment, it does not mean to have any hearing before the Referee whatsoever.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not a hearing in the ordinary sense of the term.
    Sir E. CARSON: That is, in my view, entirely unsatisfactory. The subject who is discontented and who means to dispute the conclusion of the Commissioners he is not satisfied with seeing simply another official, because, after all, the Referee will be an official, sitting in his back parlour, just as the Commissioners did, and merely
    1390
    being called in and told. Perhaps the man is not at all able to argue the matter for himself, and many a man would probably rather give up the whole thing than try and argue it himself. The man will be called in with the Referee there, the Referee of course being a man of experience accustomed to deal with these things, and an advocate of the keenest kind, because they all become keen advocates in relation to their own business. The unfortunate man who has a quarter of an acre of ground which is going to be valued as building land, or on a lease falling in, or whatever it may be under these fantastic taxes, is called in, and look at the absurdity of it. He will be told that the Commissioners have taxed at so much, and he will be told that the Commissioners have given their reasons. The Referee will say, "I will tell you what they are, and just do you now tell what you have to say." The man has to proceed to say, I suppose, "First, I must uncover the land from buildings," or "I must put the buildings on the land," or "I must go back to the year," whatever the year may be, "and I must see what was the then condition, and I must see how much of the increment—"
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): That seems really out of order. I do not see how it comes under this question of whether the appeal ought to be to the High Court. It is going into the details of the Government proposal, which will be moved later.
    Sir E. CARSON: I thought we were conducting this discussion as regards the system which is now being set up by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: On the point of order. May I respectfully suggest if "High Court" is put in here it will ultimately exclude the Referee later on. Therefore, with great respect, I would submit that the question whether it is desirable to have a Referee or not, which I understand is what my right hon. Friend is arguing, is clearly relevant.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If I may say so, being in charge of the Bill, it does not matter to me at all where the Debate is taken, so long as it is not taken two or three times over. I submit very respectfully, if the Debate is taken here at this stage on the whole issue on the alternative as suggested by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter), that it cannot be taken twice over.
    Sir E. CARSON: I do not know what your ruling is about that.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In ordinary circumstances the detailed discussion on the Government proposal ought to take place when the Government Amendment comes on. But it is not unusual to discuss on one proposal an alternative proposal so being that the one discussion is to be taken as covering the general discussion of both. If that is so understood, I do not object; only there must not be more than one general discussion.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I quite appreciate your opinion. As far as I make it out the situation is this, there are clearly conveniences in taking a survey of the whole question, and I thoroughly understand the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Lloyd-George) view that if that survey is taken it is rather hard for him and the Committee that there should be a second Debate on the same lines. That is an argument in favour of making the Debate general, but there is this disadvantage. There may be questions on which we should like to express our opinion; but how are we to reconcile a general discussion with giving a particular decision on particular points in the general system which the Government mean to set up?
    Sir E. CARSON: I was really arguing on the question of the High Court being put in here. Am I not in order in showing that various other alternatives would not be as good as the High Court?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As to alternative plans, it is more convenient that the discussion should be taken on a general Amendment of this kind, and I am not objecting. The right hon. Gentleman examined very closely the alternative plan of the Government, and I do not object to that; but what I submit is that, if the discussion is taken here, it should not be gone over again later on. I agree that the Opposition ought to have an opportunity of dissenting from the alternative in the Division Lobby, but to have two or three Debates on the same point would be unfair.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): I do not object to the right hon. Gentleman discussing the point on the understanding that the discussion is not taken twice over.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Supposing we desired to express in a concrete way in the Division Lobby our views upon particular proposals,
    1392
    if those proposals had been discussed in their broad general relations on this Amendment, would you absolutely preclude any discussion at all? I quite agree that it should be kept within the narrowest limits, but to insist on absolute silence would be rather severe.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would not go that length.
    Sir E. CARSON: The difficulty is that when a matter of this kind comes up on an Amendment to a section we never have an opportunity, unless we do it in this way, of having a second reading discussion on the proposal at all. This is really in the nature of a new clause. I was pointing out that the subject is to have the privilege of going before the Referee "in consultation," whatever that may be. It is a curious phrase. If you are to have a Referee at all, and if the appeal is to be a real appeal from the Commissioners, the tribunal ought to act only after hearing all the parties concerned. I do not understand the tremendous objection which the Government always have to allowing parties to be heard in regard to their rights in their own property. We had to protest over and over again last year, both on the Small Holdings Bill and on the Licensing Bill, against the attempt to dispose of these matters in a hole-and-corner manner, when the parties are at the most extreme disadvantage, and when it is impossible for them to go through these complicated provisions. Everybody is not qualified to prepare and present his case before trained Commissioners. To say that a man, "in consultation" with the Referee, must go through the complicated sections of this Bill and see that every right is given and every deduction made, is really absurd.
    Another question is, Where is the consultation to be held? Is it to be held locally or in London? Is the man with a quarter of an acre of land in Devonshire to be told that he must come up to Downing-street, or the Law Courts, or wherever it may be, to have this consultation with the Referee? As far as I can see, the man himself, or the trustee, or whoever may be concerned in the property, must come up personally. If you are going to interpose the Referee at all, at any rate you ought to try and do something that is fair towards the subject. It would be far better and fairer for a man far away in the country that you should have the inquiry as near as possible to the place which is being valued. There you have the county

    1393
    court. But the Government hate the courts, even the county court. Then at the hearing itself will the subject be able to put his own valuer forward to place his views before the Referee? Will he be allowed to put questions to the valuers on the other side who have induced the Commissioners to come to a certain decision? I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that to set up any such tribunal will not give the least satisfaction to anyone. As regards the Referee, it is really not worth doing. The only way to satisfy the parties, if they do not come to terms with the Commissioners—they generally do—is to allow them to have their own skilled valuer's view put before a proper independent tribunal, in order that there may be an adjudication between them and the Commissioners. The proposal of the Government appears all the more strange to one accustomed, as I was in earlier days, to be largely concerned in the fixing of rents in Ireland. There we had to do not with the capitalisation of rent for the purpose of taxation, but with merely fixing rents, two-thirds of which probably were under £10 a year. But look at the care which was taken. The person concerned was heard before the legal Commissioner; he could then appeal to another Commissioner of higher rank, with two eminent valuers; and from that tribunal, if he had a point of law, he, could go to the Court of Appeal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself will not deny that the provisions of this Bill are extremely complicated. I do not know of anything upon which opinions vary more and require more sifting than they do upon the question of valuation. No doubt the Attorney-General has to try, as I have had to do, to get land cheap for the Government—a thing which, I am bound to say, I always failed to do. One case, I remember, had to do with a piece of land near Staines, and the question was whether there was a building value. That is not an unlikely case to arise under this Bill. Some of the most eminent valuers in London, gentlemen who will probably be on the panel of Referees, said that the land was worth £75,000; on the other side, equally eminent men said it was worth only £9,000; and in the result the jury fixed the value at £39,000. I do not know how they did it. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Split the difference."] I expect that is what the Commissioners will do. Let the Committee consider what a difference such figures would make in the amount of taxation imposed upon the
    1394
    person concerned. The real taxing body would not be this House, but the valuer, according to the particular view he took of the property. Where opinions vary so widely as they do in regard to the value of land, every possible precaution ought to be taken. As one who has had considerable experience in these matters, both in Ireland and in this country, I say that you will never satisfy the subject, where interests of this kind are at stake, unless he is able, in the long run, to have a patient investigation of his case before an independent tribunal. It is an extremely difficult thing. I hope you will go on with the system which has prevailed, and with complete satisfaction. If you do keep the Referee at all I do press upon the right hon. Gentleman to give an option to the subject who is being taxed of having the matter fully put before the Referee in no hole-and-corner way at all, but with the fullest opportunity of having the case tested. I have only one other matter that I should like to mention. I do press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to take away the jurisdiction of the county court in the smaller cases. It is a very valuable thing to be able, particularly in regard to the valuation of land, whether it be land in towns or in the country, that a man should be able to have the case decided where his own valuers live; where he can bring up people—auctioneers and estates agents— and can prove his case in regard to the increment, on whatever it may be, from land in the neighbourhood. Everybody knows, I suppose, that there is nothing more fallacious than to try to test the value of land in one place with the value of land in the other. You will find even rents—and you cannot account for it—are subject to this law. You will go to one class of land, or into one county, and see land 25 per cent, more than a similar class of land in another county. It is almost impossible to get at the cause of this. Therefore to have these Commissioners and Referees, who will be appointed from the great valuers in London, dealing with places in Devonshire, Cornwall, North Cumberland, and other places, is really absurd. For my own part, I should have thought that really as a rule it would be better—I shall be even prepared to do so—to give increased jurisdiction to the county courts as being much more satisfactory than having people brought up to London.
    In addition to that, there are two other reasons why I press the county court.

    1395
    One is the cost. The cost of trying these cases in the superior courts would be in many of these small valuations prohibitive. It would swamp the value of the whole subject of valuation if you had to do it. Lastly, may I say this, that as regards the superior courts they have really as much to do as they can do, and if you are going to have these cases brought before them, and they should arise in any great number, I think you will find that your valuation will not be complete for many years. Everybody knows the arrears in the courts, and everybody knows the objection of the Lord Chancellor to appointing more judges. To sum up—my request to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not to have a Referee at all, but to stick to the old system. But if you do have a Referee let us try to have the matter as between the parties arranged so that a proper and satisfactory hearing may ensue. This will make the subject think, at all events, that his case has been thoroughly understood and thoroughly sifted. Thirdly, I say avoid as much as possible the cost of bringing a man up to the High Court, or to London at all. Make the inquiry as local as possible. This will be far more satisfactory in regard to questions relating to land. While I think the proposition is an improvement, I think it is really an unnecessary burden. If the right hon. Gentleman had simply indicated that there should be the same right of appeal as under the Finance Act and other Acts, I think we should have come to a better conclusion than we are likely to come to.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: After listening very carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am not really clear as to what it is he wants. I was under the impression that the real grievance was that the landowner was denied access to the courts. I thought that was the grievance. [Several HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but that is a grievance I have attempted to redress. Whether I have successfully done it or not may be a matter of opinion. Now, I understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that is not his grievance, but that it is a question of going to the courts and the cost.
    Sir E. CARSON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would wish to misrepresent me.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No.
    Sir E. CARSON: I did not say going to the courts. I said going to the High
    1396
    Court with small cases which could be tried locally in the county was an unnecessary cost.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am referring to a very much more serious observation. I do not think it is impossible perhaps to meet the case of small owners. But I was referring to the observation made that there ought to be some arrangement to make the decision of the Referee final.
    Sir E. CARSON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can really have listened. What I said was that I objected to the Referee altogether. I said that first. I said if you have a Referee you ought to have such a thorough investigation before the Referee as will make the litigant satisfied not to take the case further. I said that in the Bill the method was unsatisfactory; that after having his hearing before the Commissioners, and then the consultation with the Referee, the man will be driven to go further.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I confess that was not the interpretation I placed upon the words of the right hon. Gentleman. Now I understand what he means by final appeal. He means that it should be so satisfactory that there will be no desire to appeal to a higher court. Let us see what the position is. No one listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman would ever imagine what the real facts of the case are. First of all we put down a clause on the Paper. That only gives an appeal on questions of fact by a Referee appointed, under rules, by the Treasury. The first criticism was that there was no guarantee that the Referee would be impartial. The second criticism was that there was no free access to the courts. I claim that on both of those points I have met the objectors. There is absolute freedom of access to the courts, not merely on law, but on fact. It is not dependent upon the Referee. It is absolutely unconditional. Any man under conditions can go to the courts.
    Sir E. CARSON: First to the Referee!
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: He must go first to the Referee. What have we done in regard to the Referee? The right hon. and learned Gentleman admits that we have taken every precaution to see that the Referee is impartial. What more could we have done? Upon these two points we have absolutely accepted the criticisms of the Opposition and of hon.

    1397
    and learned Gentlemen on this side of the House who took exactly the same view. I may say they are perfectly satisfied. The right hon. and learned Gentleman criticised rather the method of procedure. Here I join issue with him. It is purely a question whether or not the Referee is a valuer, or whether he is to be a kind of judge sitting in a court listening to evidence, having expert witnesses before him—whether, in fact, he is a man to be chosen by the courts for the purpose of getting at the value. I venture to say that any business man would infinitely rather have a Referee as long as he was satisfied that he was an impartial one. He would rather that he was a valuer who understood the business, and would go and see the land for himself, than that he should be a man of whom it was notified that he would sit in November, say, at such and such a court, to hear all appeals. What would happen in the latter case? Exactly the very thing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman denounces in such eloquent terms—purely the hearing of arguments by lawyers, the calling of expert witnesses on both sides, and a decision dependent largely on the skill with which the case was pleaded. One witness would possibly say that the land was worth £9,000, and another that it was worth £50,000, and the Court would split the difference. That is not a real valuation. What is wanted—here I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman—is someone who can go to the spot and see the thing for himself and decide apart from lawyers and expert witnesses. I am quite certain that the business community would infinitely prefer that method of valuing the land. In the cases referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfaction is not given to anybody. The Treasury have at their command the best services for the purpose. The small landowners in the other case would have no chance, for it would be merely wrangling between lawyers in the courts.
    Sir E. CARSON: Would he have any chance wrangling against the Commissioners?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: He has got an impartial Referee, who goes to see for himself. He does not depend upon what anyone tells him or on any points of law. He does not get his mind perverted by that sort of contention. He is an impartial man, who is not responsible to the Commissioners nor the landowner, for he
    1398
    is chosen by the Lord Chief Justice of England and is a member of the Surveyors' Institute. Therefore you may depend upon it he is a thoroughly impartial man. I believe in a man going to see for himself, and so deciding upon the case. He will have the opportunity of seeing the parties and of entering into consultation, and the consultation will be upon the spot. The valuer will go down there and will be brought into contact with the parties, and they can go along with him while he sees the place. Let us assume, then, that they are not satisfied with his decision—I think the vast majority of cases they would be satisfied, because the Referee is a person who will command the confidence of the courts—but supposing they are not satisfied they can then upon every question, without any restriction, go to the High Courts, and that is the real guarantee. There is perfect right of access to the courts upon every point. If a case comes before the courts where the parties are not satisfied, the courts can settle it or appoint a fresh Referee, or take any other course that they may wish. I agree that there will not be an appeal in many cases. There may be appeals when they want to settle very complicated matters. The Referees sometimes may have some doubt on matters of interpretation, and there probably will be appeals in cases where people are not satisfied with the decision of the Referee. They may have doubts about his judgment in the interpretation of the Act. That, of course, will occur, and the court will then decide the question of doctrine to which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Edward Carson) wants is not valuation, but litigation.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: No, I want fair valuation.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, what the right hon. Gentleman wants is litigation. He wants that every man should not only have the right to litigate, but should be compelled to litigate.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: No, I do not want anything of the kind. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is so persistent in statements of that kind. I specially asked that persons should have the option. I said that over and over again. What I asked for was the person should have the option, and I gave an instance. I took the case of a farmer from Devonshire, who may be entirely unac-

    1399
    quainted with London and the High Courts, and I asked why should he be compelled to have his case tried there. Why should he not have the option to come in?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is now proceeding to argue and not to elucidate his point. The right hon. Gentleman still goes upon the assumption that it is going to be a hearing. I call a hearing litigation, and I say there is an essential difference between litigation and valuation. We want an impartial valuation, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman says "No, I want litigation." Litigation means parties appearing before a tribunal, calling witnesses, having lawyers, and arguing the case, and I infinitely prefer the other procedure. If they are not satisfied they can have their litigation eventually. Now one word about the county courts.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: That is the separate issue.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, it is a separate issue, but perhaps I may indicate generally that in our view there ought to be access to the county courts in small cases. I do think that the limits of the Finance Act, which is £10,000, is much too high. I think £5,000 is too high. I think it should be a very much smaller sum. Usually the sum in county courts in cases of equity is £500, but hon. Gentlemen do not want to discuss now, and I will not pursue it further at the moment, except to say that there will be no resistance on the part of the Government to any Amendment of that character. I should like to say a word upon something which I challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the course of his speech. I have now the full facts in my possession. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made the statement he has made to-day once before. I did not want to enter into a controversy with him, but he is rather forcing me to do it now. I have got the official facts and documents from the Death Duty Department, and I find that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely wrong. The Commissioners never valued in the case which he quoted at £50,000 The highest value was £12,800, and that was after they had received the valuation fixed by the hon. Member for Stepney or his advisers, which was £5,725. Instead of bringing the figure down from £50,000 to £10,000, as was stated by the right hon.
    1400
    and learned Gentleman, they brought it down from £12,800 to £10,500, which is a very different story from the story told by the right hon. Gentleman. The facts put by the right hon. Gentleman were these. He referred to a case in which the Commissioners fixed the value at £50,000, which, he said, they afterwards reduced to £15,000, and which was eventually compromised at £10,000. Now there was no £50,000, and there was no £15,000. The facts are that the hon. Member or his advisers fixed the figure at £5,735; the Commissioners put it at £12,800, and finally there was a compromise at £10,000. That is a very different story from that told by the right hon. Gentleman, and it is based upon the official documents and the official figures.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: There is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should display any heat in the matter. The statement was made by the hon. Member for Stepney in the House, and I do not think that the figures of the right hon. Gentleman are conclusive in the matter at all, and I will tell him why. As I understood the statement made by the hon. Member for Stepney, the first valuation made by the Commissioners was £15,000. The right hon. Gentleman says that that was £12,500, but the first; suggestion, according to the hon. Member for Stepney, was a suggestion of £50,000. Then, upon the hon. Member for Stepney complaining that that was an excessive valuation, I understood the valuation was fixed at £15,000, and it was eventually compromised at £10,000.
    Mr. J. W. HILLS: I quite concur in the idea that this clause, as amended, is a very great improvement on what it was. The door to the courts is now open. My quarrel with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he has not swept away a certain amount of lumber which still bars the way. It is quite clear that there must be an appeal to somebody. We have now got an appeal on questions of facts as well as on law, and in these circumstances I do-not see the use of Referees at all. The appeal to the Referee is an entirely superfluous appeal. May I contrast the procedure under this Bill with that of the Act of 1904. Under that Act you go in the first instance to the Commissioners, and you discuss the matters with them, and, indeed, in nearly all cases-you settle there. If you cannot settle there you go to the courts on the question

    1401
    of value. I never myself have known an appeal on value. In all cases, or very nearly all, the value is settled out of court. Surely the same thing might happen here, and if you appoint Referees you only invite appeals upon value to them, and I do not think that they would be of any service to anybody. I do not see how these Referees will assist matters. All they can assist on are questions of value and not of law. I suppose they are there to strengthen the opinion of the Commissioners on value, but if that opinion does want strengthening, I should suggest you should give the Commissioners power to call in assessors on questions of value and let the panel of Referees be the body from which you choose your assessors. If you want a better opinion, and if you want expert advice upon value from Commissioners, I think some scheme of that sort would work. I am perfectly certain if you give an appeal on value alone you will encourage these appeals, which I do not think will have any real use at all. The Act of 1894 has worked extremely well. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, no."] Well, I have considerable experience of that Act, and, as far as I know, the Act has worked fairly well indeed. It seems to me we are far more likely to get a fair valuation with the Commissioners, who know that the only tribunal that can upset them is the courts, rather than if they knew there was another court between them and the High Courts. The Commissioners will be far more careful in their decisions when they know that they are capable of being reviewed in the higher courts. I should like to make the Commissioners as strong as possible, and I believe you will do that by doing away with the intermediate stages of appeal and only having an appeal direct to the courts. I am quite sure the revenue will suffer, and I am certain that what we are proposing is a far more convenient procedure to the parties concerned.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: I quite agree that the concession the right hon. Gentleman has made is a very substantial one in this respect, but it must be remembered that this is a very important constitutional point. I wish to point out some of the difficulties in regard to the new solution. According to your ruling, Mr. Caldwell, I understand you desire us to speak only upon the broad issues between the Amendments now put down by the Chancellor of
    1402
    the Exchequer and the views which lead us strongly to dissent from the Bill as originally introduced. The point of difference between us was that we thought there ought to be an opportunity to have an appeal to a court of law. That we consider, on constitutional grounds, to be essential as a part of the liberties of the subject. On the other hand, this Bill as originally introduced was hampered very seriously with the right of appeal, which, instead of allowing it to be made to the law courts, gave an appeal only to Referees, who were to be virtually the officers of the Treasury or the Inland Revenue Commissioners. Those are the broad points of difference between us. I agree that in this respect the right hon. Gentleman has come a certain way to meet our difficulty by transferring the appointment of these Commissioners from the Treasury to the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Institute of Surveyors. That, of course, is a very important change. I am not, however, quite sure that in practice this proposal really means all that has been claimed for it. I am afraid the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls will not concern themselves very closely or very attentively in the matter of selecting professional people who will not be paid high salaries, and consequently will not be men of fully established position. I am afraid they will be inclined to listen to the suggestions made to them by the Inland Revenue or the Treasury, and that is one of the difficulties which I feel in regard to this question. I admit that this concession materially changes the position of the Referee. The second change which the right hon. Gentleman has made is that instead of resort to the court of law being doubtful, and subject to the approval of the Referee, it will now be open to anyone in every case to make his own appeal subject to certain conditions. I understand from the Attorney-General that those conditions will prescribe the procedure, and direct their manner and place, and will not in any case tend to prevent anyone resorting to the law courts. I now come to a very serious blot in the provisions now made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Who is going to make these rules? I understand they will be made by the Reference Committee, which bulks very largely in the new proposals. I am afraid this will work out to be of very little practical effect. The Reference Committee will have to make the

    1403
    rules, but they will be subject to the approval of the Treasury. Surely that condition makes this Committee and the selections made by the Lord Chief Justice and Master of the Rolls and the President of the Institute of Surveyors subject to the control of the officials of the Treasury or the Inland Revenue Commissioners as to the rules they make? Who can tell whether those rules may or may not be so shaped to their own views by the Treasury officials and the Inland Revenue or inclined as virtually to largely curb and restrict the power of the Reference Committee, which is the buffer we are told to look to as the guardian of the litigant? I fully agree that it is most undesirable that there should be frequent litigation involving heavy costs. In nine cases out of ten I have not the least doubt that the provisional valuation about which we have heard so much will, after being adjusted between the taxpayer and the Commissioners, be accepted, and there will be no further reference. If there is a reference, then I submit that a Referee is not a good or satisfactory substitute for a court of law. In cases where the Commissioners and the taxpayers were unable to come to a common agreement, I would much rather have had the Referee not as the first court of appeal but used as Referees are generally used in the capacity of assessor in the court appointed by the Judges in the High Court to give them a report on the professional aspect of the question, and to help by evidence, if necessary, as an ordinary assessor in court docs to give professional information that will be useful in judging the question on broad legal principles. I would much rather have had the Referee in that capacity and more or less as an officer, for then the position would be much more constitutional. I think this provision will work very unsatisfactorily and produce a good deal of friction, delay, and vexation. I agree that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now allowed is an improvement on the Bill as it was first introduced, but it has not got rid sufficiently of the objection which I have stated.
    Sir ROBERT PERKS: I understand that a party who may object will have the right of bringing his case before the Referee, who is to be appointed from a panel of practical experts. What I want to know is whether a person who is in some difficulty to know whether his provisional
    1404
    valuation is such as he can safely accept is at liberty to go to the Referee with his legal advisers and experts, or whether the scheme is that the Referee and the owner of the property and the Commissioners are to meet in friendly consultation together without the opportunity of calling witnesses and conducting such an inquiry before an arbitrator as is the case under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts? Under those Acts a claimant has the right to choose whether he will have a jury or an arbitrator. What I want to know is whether the owner of the property can only go to the Referee if he has failed to come to some friendly agreement with the Commissioners, and whether, when he gets before the Referee what is his actual position? I would also like to know what is the meaning of the phrase "that the Referee shall determine any matter referred to him in consultation with the Commissioners and the appellant." Would it be open to the Referee, according to his instructions, to say, if a lawyer appears, "I can have nothing to do with you gentlemen at all, because I have to settle this matter in consultation with the Commissioners and the appellant." Is that the construction to be placed on this clause, or has the owner to submit his case locally to the Referee, who may attend in a country town or village to inquire into the value of the property? I submit that it would be far more practical and economical—and more in accordance with ordinary business habits, and certainly would save a great deal of trouble in the working of the machinery of this Bill, which, I think, is going to impose far heavier costs upon the owner than is supposed—to know what is the construction to be put upon this clause, which appears for the first time in a Bill of this this description. The Referee has to determine these matters in consultation with these two parties, and I want to know if that means that the consultation will be with them and with nobody else.
    5.0 p.m.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I quite admit that this change is a great improvement upon the original proposal in the Bill, but I wish to state briefly my objections to the original proposal. It has been said that the Referee might be or would be a mere official of the Government, and it was also stated that there would not be free access to the Court. In regard to the first objection to the original proposal of the Government, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met us by providing for the

    1405
    appointment of an impartial Referee. I confess I have more doubt as to whether they have given free access to the court. The question is asked, and I think with a great deal of force, "Why have the Referee at all, if you are going to have an appeal to the courts ultimately?" The system of an appeal straight to the courts without any intervention of a Referee has worked very well under the Finance Act of 1894. I quite admit that decisions under this Act will be much more difficult and complicated than decisions under the Act of 1894. Under the Finance Act of 1894 the only parties were the actual taxpayer and the Crown, and the only issue was whether the Crown could get the value of the property put higher than it really deserved. The advantage of the owner of the property was to get it put down to its proper value. The issue here will be much more complicated. It will often be quite as much to the interest of the taxpayer to have the property put high as it will be to have it put low, and you will want to get the value of the property put neither too high nor too low. There will constantly be two taxpayers, one actual and the other prospective. It will be the interest of one that the property should be put as high as possible, and it will be to the interest of the other that it should be put as low as possible. That is the case where you have an existing leasehold with more than 50 years to run. The tenant then will only have to consider the Undeveloped Land Duty, and he will want the property put as low as possible. The reversioner, who is mainly interested in the Increment Value Duty, will want it put as high as possible. The kind of controversies, therefore, which you will have under this Act will be far more complicated and far more difficult to deal with in a rough and ready manner than the controversies under the Finance Bill of 1894. That does not make it less, but more necessary to be very careful about the machinery of your appeal under this Bill.
    The question is really whether the intervention of a Referee is a protection to the taxpayer or the reverse, and I cannot help thinking it is very much the reverse. The objection to the Referee is one, be it observed, which does not really apply to the rich taxpayer at all. He will always ultimately be able to go to the courts and gee the thing put right, as far as it can be put right, by elaborate machinery. He will, moreover, I suppose, be allowed to be represented before the Referee by his
    1406
    agent, who will be quite a skilled person, but the poor man, the landowner with a small interest, will have no skilled agent to represent him. He will come before the Referee and will have to face the Commissioners, who are very highly skilled and trained advocates in a particular branch of discussion alone. The Commissioners will know every trick and turn of land valuation. It is their duty to know it, and they will come before the Referee with immense skill and knowledge to face a poor man—it may, indeed, be a woman or a very young or old person—practically without skill or knowledge. I do not think a decision on those terms is likely to be a fair one. The man goes into the discussion with the dice loaded against him and in favour of the Crown. When he gets to the High Court—supposing he is rich enough or someone lets him have the money to go there—he will have tremendous difficulty in inducing the-Court, on a question of fact, to set aside the decision of the Referee. He will be very hardly used, particularly if he is not able to employ the highest possible skill in order to combat the decision of the Referee. I cannot help thinking that, under those circumstances, it will be far fairer to strike out the Referee altogether, and let the appeal go to a man of trained impartiality in the first instance. We shall discuss the question of the appeal being to the county court later on. I do not believe in all this talk about the tremendous expense of employing experts. It is true, in the case of big estates, where large amounts are in issue, and will always be true, that great expense is incurred, because people who have a great deal to lose will necessarily spend a great deal of money to protect themselves; but the poor man will, I believe, be able to employ someone to state his case before a fair and impartial tribunal. This Referee is merely a device to give an advantage to the Crown in the discussion of these matters. I cannot see that there is any object except that. The proposal appears to me to be utterly indefensible, and I hope the Government will abandon this part of their scheme.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson): Both sides of the House are really striving for the same end, and I shall endeavour to address the Committee on the footing that the plan we have adopted is in the interests of the taxpayer. It can be of no interest to the Government to obtain an unfair valuation,

    1407
    which will, of course, be subject to an appeal. It is really in the interest of the Government, and it is their desire, to get a just valuation in the first instance. Hon. Members have pointed out what they regard as a considerable injustice. They say that, however much the Commissioners may be defended in regard to their character and position, there are many things which might give the most scrupulous a bias which it is desirable to correct. That was put before us when the matter was first before the House, and we therefore thought it was desirable the taxpayer should not, if he liked, be compelled to go on what might be a biassed valuation straight to the Court, where the biassed valuation would have very considerable authority and weight, for the Court would be disposed to say that, after all, the taxpayer is a biassed person and the Commissioners are unbiassed officials. When the two came together before the Court, it might say that after all the Commissioners have great experience, and their bias is less urgent and less effective. I think, and I believe hon. Members will agree with me, that the chances are that the Commissioners' valuation, when before the High Court, which does not see the land, would perhaps have an effect which would tend detrimentally to a perfectly honest taxpayer who is appealing.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Not so much as the Referee's.
    Sir W. ROBSON: Let us see where the Referee comes in. If you cut the Referee out and allow what I will say, simply for the sake of hypothesis, an official biassed valuation on the part of the Commissioners to go before the High Court, the High Court is in a position of some difficulty. The judge cannot go down to value the land, and he will, I think, have a natural tendency to lean to the Commissioners' valuation. It is therefore essential to the taxpayer's interest to get, if he can, an unbiassed valuation first of all, and it also seems desirable to the Government in order to meet the fair justice of the case. There will still be some taint of officialism about it when you have done your best. What we have done is to constitute this panel of Referees who are undoubtedly fair. Nobody can say these distinguished individuals have any prejudice in favour of the Executive; in fact some of the references made by these gentlemen to the Executive show they have no bias; but with generosity and
    1408
    impartiality the Executive, notwithstanding the references made to them, have selected these gentlemen as being the panel who are to say how these Referees are to be appointed and selected. We have done our best to secure, an impartial valuation. The Referee will say, "Now I am selected by these judicial persons, who themselves are chosen by reason of their impartiality, to check the decisions of the Commissioners," and one may assume, if any bias arises at all, it will not be in favour of the Executive. I think we may say we have adopted the best manner open to us of getting an impartial, unbiassed valuation. That is all-important to the taxpayer. He then has a full right of appeal, and he can, if he likes, go to the High Court. I have not the slightest doubt the opinion of the Referee will have great weight and authority in the High Court. One cannot suppose otherwise, and indeed I think it ought. I agree the weight and authority given to the valuation of the Commissioners might tend a little unfairly to the taxpayer, but I am not so disinclined to see some such weight attached to the decisions of the Referees. Still the judge can inquire as to the means by which the valuation is arrived at, and he can exercise his discretion to the best of his ability. There have been suggestions made that the Referee should be turned into a mere assessor, and that is a consideration which may well give us a little thought. We desire, and we believe, that an impartial valuation—an absolutely unbiassed valuation—will put an end to an immense number of disputes between the Crown and the subject. A valuation by an unbiassed valuer will clear out of the way an enormous number of cases. The subject may not be very well satisfied with the valuation, but he will be satisfied with the decision of the Referee if he sees he is independent and hears what his valuer has to say—
    Sir ROBERT PERKS: What I would like to know is whether the Referee, when he sits with the Commissioner on the one side and the owner on the other, will receive evidence from witnesses on behalf of the owner.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I am leading up to that point. Of course, the Referee, as an arbitrator, would be a person under judicial limitations. He could only hear the parties in each other's presence. He would not be at liberty to go behind their backs and collect information from out-

    1409
    side. But that would not be the case with him as the valuer. He is not under judicial limitations; he is at liberty to form his own opinion, exactly as a man of business would form his. He is at liberty to get information as and where he can. He would not be precluded the right to see the valuers of the parties concerned, as is ordinarily done in a valuation where the valuers of both sides meet. I cannot doubt that the Referee would, if he thought it necessary, see the valuers; but if you make him a mere assessor the effect will be that he will never be able to determine litigation. He will not be in a position to make a final award. He will only report to the Court, and this will compel those dissatisfied with the determination of the Commissioners to go to the High Court. I think by far the great majority of appeals to the Referee will be determined by the Referee himself. It is extraordinary how in practice the duties of the High Court are limited in these matters. One might reasonably suppose that as a result of the valuation about to be initiated the High Court will be compelled to close their doors to all other business. But that will not be the case in fact. Parliament very often in discussing these matters fails to properly appreciate the business instincts of the people. It fails to realise that they like to come to an agreement if they can. I believe myself that an impartial, unbiassed Referee will be able to dispose of an enormous number of disputes. But if you make him a mere assessor, and compel him to report to the Court, the result will be productive of a great deal of more or less expensive litigation. The actual proceedings in the High Court will, I think, be limited by the success of the Referee. That really touches the main point raised here, because the objection of hon. Members opposite is principally to the Referee. I think the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) in his argument on this point was scarcely as consistent as usual. He said he thought that the Referee would be of no benefit to the poor taxpayer. But it is the poor taxpayer who will benefit by him, and if you strike him out the taxpayer will be driven to the High Court, which is the very thing we desire to avoid. I am quite certain, if hon. Members will look at the machinery, they will see that it is fairly—I will not say perfectly or adequately—but it fairly meets the points raised. Of course there is the question of the county court left over for subsequent decision. In passing I may observe, in regard to that,
    1410
    that the main difficulty will be to bring cases within the limitation of county court procedure. I think the far more satisfactory conclusion—the one which will work best—will be a Referee appointed by an independent body, with knowledge that his special function will be to see that the values which are arrived at are fair.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I think I am perhaps the only layman who, up to the present, has taken part in this very difficult discussion, and I must confess that I intervene with the utmost diffidence, and with a strong sense of the incapacity under which, in this respect, I labour. We are all agreed, as far as I understand, that the process of valuation must begin with the valuer and that it may end in a court of law. There appears to me to be no doubt about that. The only doubt is whether the court of law should be the High Court alone or whether it should be supplemented by the county court to meet the case of poor owners and small amounts. The real controversy is whether there should be an intermediate step, and, if so, is that proposed by the Government the most suitable? May I say I do not think the explanations given of the duties of the Referee by speakers on the Government side at all correspond with the statements in the Bill as to the manner in which those duties' are to be carried out. I will not go to the length of saying that there is any inconsistency between the statements of the Government and the clauses of the Bill, but this I must point out, that the Government appear to assume as a matter of course that a great many things will happen which they have not said should happen under the actual wording of their Bill. That is the real reason for the dispute which arose between my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in the evening. My right hon. Friend near me assumed that the hearing before the Referee might be in London, and need not take the form of a valuation on the spot of the property in dispute. There is no word in this Clause to suggest that these Referees are to be valuers in the sense that they will go down and look at the plot of land, see the buildings upon it, and form their estimate of the value of the land without the buildings and the value of the buildings without the land. I venture, therefore, to press the Government, in the first place, to make the clause in this respect carry out their own suggestion. If it is to be a distinct part of the function of the Referee to make

    1411
    valuation on the spot, let it be made quite plain in the clause. If we are to have the Referees at all, that is the proper way to treat them. They should go down to the property, and not merely sit in London. I am not arguing this point, however; I am only asking the Government to make their own intentions clear on the face of the clause. The second observation which has already been made in this Debate, and to which no answer has yet been given, is that under the clause you do not give the subject a fair chance. You ask him to argue before one of these Referees, with Commissioners thoroughly competent to deal with the complex problems of valuation, and unless the subject himself is a man of education, with dexterity of speech, and possessing considerable practical knowledge of the question of land valuation, I do not think that the reference can prove satisfactory, unless you make it clear on the face of the clause that the aggrieved subject may ask somebody to help him or her in this interview which is to take place between the Referee, the original valuer, and the subject. I do not say there should be power to call in an expert; but by all means let the subject be able to call in an advisor at his or her own option. I assume it would be the case that in large estates the agent would be allowed to attend, but, under the words of the clause, there seems to be no power for anybody to attend, and, therefore, I think the Government should modify the clause in that direction. Assuming that they would be prepared to make it clear, in the first place, that the Referee may make the valuation on the spot, and, in the second, that the aggrieved person may call in to help him or her any person he or she may think well-acquainted with the case and qualified to put it before the Referee, then there still remains the question whether we should interpolate the Referee between the valuer at the beginning and the Court of Appeal or county court at the end. On that I confess I do not feel qualified to take a strong view, though I should have thought that the objections expressed by my Noble Friend are very strong. I am not, however, qualified to take a strong view, because I am not a lawyer, and have no experience of litigation, though I know that the appearance of a subject before a court will be costly, but there may be some exaggeration as to the expense which will be necessary in calling experts and such like assistants to give evidence.
    1412
    I do not deny that there may be some exaggeration; but then, on the other side, I think I should not be wrong in saying that you cannot have any litigation without some cost. As I have already said, everybody who has taken part in this Debate, so far, except myself, has been a lawyer, and they are far more qualified to speak on that point than a layman. As I understand the matter, there will be absolutely no expense at all before the Referee. There will not be a single halfpenny charge. Of course, if after the Amendment which I suggest an aggrieved subject chooses to call in an expert to help him, that is his own affair, and let him pay for it, but there is no expense involved, I take it. My attention has been called to the fact that the Referee may, if he thinks fit, order any expense incurred by the appellant to be paid by the Commissioners, and any expense incurred by the Commissioners to be paid by the appellant; but I confess that I do not see what these expenses are or can be. He has not got to pay the railway fare of the Referee who comes down to value.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The expenses of the Referee.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Has he got to pay them?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is power.
    Mr. BALFOUR: That would seem to me to be rather a serious matter, but I am not qualified to speak on that, or to speak on it with any assurance that I am stating the case accurately, but I certainly have a leaning to anything which could settle these matters out of court, if it can be done, and I am not sure that I like this absolutely crude position of either taking the original valuation or going up to the High Court. It does not commend itself, at any rate, to the lay mind, and if the Government really could make this kind of reference cheap and satisfactory, my own leaning would be towards some plan such as they have suggested. However, I admit that I am very little qualified to speak on this subject, and I might almost apologise for speaking on a matter on which lawyers are much more competent to speak, but that is the impression which is left on my mind by the Debate, and I rather look to seeing the clause improved in the direction I have indicated than seeing it profoundly modified by leaving what is a sharp antithesis between accepting the valuation or going into a Court, which

    1413
    seems to be the only alternative under the general scheme outlined by the Government.
    Mr. S. O. BUCKMASTER: I examine this clause with some jealousy, because, above all things, I have been anxious with regard to this question to secure two matters. First, that there should be free access to the Courts; and secondly, that, as far as possible, expense should be avoided to the subject. As the Bill was originally drawn, there were, I venture to think, two serious defects. The first was this: that no person who was taking the valuation, either on behalf of the Crown or on behalf of the subject, had behind him the least fear of having his judgment interfered with by a court of competent jurisdiction. In other words, he had not got behind his back the rod of the law, and I was very anxious that that should be secured. Subject to one or two matters, upon which I desire to say one or two words, this clause does now secure that whoever makes a valuation for the purpose of determining any question in dispute under this Bill does it with the knowledge that, under certain circumstances, his judgment will be called into question before a court. That is one of the most important matters of all. The other is that the subject should be able to have free recourse to the courts of law, if he requires it, in his own case. Now that also seems to be secured, and the only point that remains is the question as to whether or not there should be interposed between the original valuation of the Commissioners the further judgment of the Referee, and upon the whole, speaking absolutely for myself, I am satisfied that the interposition of the Referee's judgment will do much to mitigate the risk and the hazard that the subject would be under if he were bound in cases of difference to take his case direct from the Commissioners to the Courts. What is it the Referee is going to be called in to decide? Of course, there may be questions of law arising under the Act, but on those there is a clear right of appeal, and the position of the Referee would not affect them one way or another. The other points to be decided will be pure questions of fact. There will be the question whether value is put too high or too low on the one side and objected to by the other.
    The Referee is to be appointed by a body whom we must assume to be intelligent, and who will most undoubtedly take steps to secure that the Referee who is
    1414
    appointed is a person who has some special knowledge of the circumstances of the particular case which he has to decide. They will see that he has local knowledge, or, in other words, special knowledge of the particular locality. If you appoint a capable, independent man of such a character as that, it seems to me certain that he must decide, and decide satisfactorily, some 80 per cent, or 90 per cent, of the cases that are brought before him, because after all most people are reasonable, and all that a reasonable person will want will be the exercise of an impartial, capable and independent judgment upon the difficulty into which he has got with the Commissioners. That, it seems to me, the Referee will secure, but now comes what is, to my mind, the most important matter. How is the Referee going to determine? I am sure the Attorney-General will not mind my saying that when we come to deal with this question, I felt that his speech left me much in the same position as that of the man who was engaged in fighting with an adversary and found his adversary suddenly removed in a mist. I could not understand, and I do not understand now, and I want to understand, what is in point of fact the proceeding which is to take place before the Referee?
    The first thing that I think is clear is this, that there ought to be power for everybody to be represented before the Referee. I am not satisfied that the Bill provides that power, and it is manifest it must do so, and for this simple reason. You might have a man who is deaf and dumb, or an infant, or a lunatic. There ere hundreds of people under a disability and who are perfectly incapable of stating their own case before the Referee, and it is essential that somebody should be able to put before the Referee, on their behalf, their view of the matter. The point I want to know, and I think the hon. Baronet who spoke on these benches wishes to know is, is that in the Bill or out of it? If the Bill passes as it is drawn, will the Referee be able to say to anybody who comes before him: "You are not the appellant and I have no power to hear you"? A few words from the Attorney-General, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would put that matter at rest, and I have no doubt, that the considerations which I have thrown out, must satisfy them, that there must be power to let a man have his case represented for him. I do not want to have an elaborate trial, I do not want to multiply expenditure, and, above all things, I want to avoid the cumbrous,

    1415
    costly and, I think, scandalous proceedings which I think have taken place under "The Lands Clauses Act." If we secure all that, you have got your independent tribunal, you have got an opportunity of stating the case before the tribunal, and surely that is a great protection to the subject, because it is quite clear that it could be done at little cost, and at, indeed, trifling expense, while the recommendation which is now under the consideration of the Committee, as an alternative, would compel the man to a proceeding which must be costly. He would have to come to the Courts and have the expensive paraphernalia of witnesses on either side. It is an expensive manner of determining, what is in the end, a simple question of fact.
    I am quite satisfied with the Referee, subject to the limits I have mentioned, and the appeal from the Referee appears to me to be an appeal in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, if I may say so respectfully, generously met the objections which were taken before as to the absence of the appeal. To my mind, it is full and sufficient in all respects, but there remains just this consideration. There are two matters from which the Referee himself is excluded. They are to be found in Clause 11, and, I think, in Clause 14 of the Bill. In Clause 11, in Sections (2) and (3), you find that the Commissioners' judgment on questions that are there referred to them is final, and is not to be the subject of appeal. As to the Court of Appeal, there again, I think, there was no real reason why you should not accept the Commissioners that you have appointed, because, after all, they have to decide whether property is a park or a garden, or an open space, which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, is open to the public as a right, or whether, in the case of parks and open spaces, reasonable access is granted to the public. Those are matters which nobody can doubt the competence of the Commissioners to decide, and I do not see why anyone should distrust their judgment on that point, but there is another point which is of very great consequence. They are to decide whether an open space is an open space which has been left open under the scheme originally proposed, or subsequently imposed, for the preservation of open spaces. The thing I am most anxious to secure there is this—
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see how that arises. The hon. and learned
    1416
    Gentleman is discussing a part of the Bill which is already settled and decided. He must suggest something bearing upon the Amendment before the Committee or upon this clause. The matter cannot be raised again and again.
    Mr. BUCKMASTER: I understood that we were discussing the whole question of the appeal.
    The CHAIRMAN: As I understand, it is the appeal excepting so far as it is settled in previous parts of the Bill.
    Mr. BUCKMASTER: When this matter was before the Committee on an earlier occasion, I understood that all questions as to the appeal were to be left over to be raised now, and I think many of us avoided further discussion then because we understood that the fullest possible opportunity of raising at a later stage all questions relating to appeals from the decision of the Commissioners would be left open. All I wanted to say upon it was this. I want to secure, and I think we all want to secure, that there shall be no pressure put upon people who have vacant land in the shape of squares or small pieces of unbuilt-on land near our big towns to turn them into building plots. I should be perfectly willing to accept the final decision of the Commissioners as to whether or no these plots should be built upon provided that the Act defined, in more liberal language than at present is employed, the nature of the open spaces and the nature of the access which is to render them free and immune from the tax. The general scheme of these appeal clauses meets with my unreserved approval. I think they have fully carried out the pledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on the earlier occasion, and I am perfectly satisfied with the whole machinery, but in the two points I have mentioned further explanation is required. I know the Attorney-General intended to give it to us, but he failed to give me an explanation which I was capable of understanding, and I shall be very grateful if he or the Chancellor of the Exchequer would now explain whether the scheme of the Bill is that the right to appear before the Referee is personal or whether it can be delegated.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made, in Section (1), to leave out the words "for the purpose by the Treasury," and to insert the words "under this Section."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    In Section (1), after the word "first" ["against the first determination"] to insert the words "or any subsequent."—[Mr. Watson Rutherford.]
    In Section (1), to leave out the word "and" ["and against the amount"] and to insert the word "or."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    In Section (1), to leave out the word "and" ["and against the refusal of the Commissioners"] and to insert the word "or."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Mr. LAMBTON Mr. LAMBTON moved, in Section (1), after the word "Commissioners" ["where the Commissioners have power"] to insert the words "are required or."
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not quite see the point here. If they are required to do it they must have power to do it.
    Mr. LAMBTON: May I ask the Attorney-General on a point of law whether the words are necessary or not? Under Clause 14 it is stated "the Commissioners shall allow as deductions from site value." I maintain that that is a matter which is required, and not a matter which is within their power.
    Sir W. ROBSON: They cannot be required excepting in some case where they have power. The words "have power" are wider.
    Mr. CAVE: These words will make it perfectly clear. A man might say there is an appeal against him in a case where the Commissioners have power to do a certain thing, and it might be suggested that that does not apply to cases where they must do that thing. The only object is to cover both cases, and I do not see that any harm will be done by accepting the Amendment.
    Sir W. ROBSON: The words "have power" are better.
    Mr. CAVE: Why not both1? They are two different things.
    Mr. STEWART BOWLES: There is no real dispute in substance. The Attorney-General says "Why have both?" The answer is that they are clearly two different things.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Why are they different things? If the Commissioners are required to do a certain thing they must have power to do it.
    Mr. STEWART BOWLES: Yes, I agree it is open to that interpretation, but if it is so there is no earthly harm in putting
    1418
    in the words, and it might be possible for it to be said this is a thing which the Commissioners were bound to do, therefore it is not a matter in which an appeal can really lie.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Amendments made, in Section (1), to leave out the word "and" ["and against any apportionment"] and to insert the word "or."
    After the word "land" ["of the value of land"] to insert the words "or of duty."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved, in Section (1), after the word "or" ["or of the consideration"] to insert the words "any assessment or apportionment." The object is to make it clear that there is an appeal in a case where the Commissioners have to assess consideration. Take, for instance, Clause 21, Section (2). In that case the Commissioners are to assess the value of a covenant. That is not at all an apportionment. It is more correctly called an assessment. The point is to give an appeal in those cases.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think there is any objection.
    Question, "That those words be inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment made, in Section (1), to leave out the word "and" ["and against the determination"] and to insert the word "or."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    6.0 p.m.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), who, I regret to say, is unwell, has asked me to move the Amendment standing in his name. I beg, therefore, to move the addition to Section (1) of the following: "Provided that any rules made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if neither House of Parliament within thirty days passes a Resolution adverse to the said rules they shall be binding in law until varied in the same manner, and shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act, and the validity of any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken under any rules shall not be prejudiced by the subsequent passing of a Resolution adverse to them." My right hon. Friend raised this question at an early stage of the Bill. I think it was when Clause 3 was under discussion that he raised the

    1419
    question of the necessity of having the rules made under this Bill laid before Parliament. At the time he made this proposition the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would be prepared to have the rules laid on the Table of the House in accordance with an Amendment somewhat different from that proposed by my right hon. Friend. On that occasion the whole difference between the two right hon. Gentlemen was as to whether either House of Parliament ought to have power to reject these rules. My right hon. Friend was interrupted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who stated that both Houses of Parliament ought to agree before there was any alteration in the rules. He said that the form adopted in the Agricultural Rating Act, for which my right hon. Friend was responsible in the late Government, was the form which had been followed in this case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in a very amiable mood at the time. He said, "The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the precedent which he himself set in the Agricultural Rating Act. I have followed exactly the form in that Act almost in so many words." The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had not the Act before him. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I admit that.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time made any acknowledgment that he was wrong, and I will tell him why. Having severely scolded my right hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon he said that he was following exactly the precedent in the Agricultural Rating Act, though my right hon. Friend had denounced it in every form which his very inexhaustible vocabulary could command. Now considering that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong, and that my right hon. Friend was absolutely right, I think the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a little strong, and that was why I said that he was not in one of his most amiable moods at the time. May I say that my right hon. Friend felt somewhat aggrieved that he should have been told in that kind of way that he had absolutely forgotten his own Act and used his inexhaustible vocabulary in denouncing his own child. It was a little hard, I think, on the right hon. Gentleman. I have looked into this Act myself, and it is quite plain that, so far from the
    1420
    fact being as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the precedent is entirely on the other side. The precedent is that when rules of this character are to be enacted they are laid before Parliament in the form proposed in this Amendment. The procedure we are setting up is a matter of great importance. In point of fact, if it were not that we are taking this course for the purpose of saving time, it would be far better that we should lay down the procedure ourselves, and not leave it to be laid down by any rules to be drawn up and laid on the Table. I certainly think we ought to retain control over procedure which may have vital importance attached to it, and that is the proposal of my right hon. Friend. Taking the most analogous case that I can find, I would remind the Committee that in the case of the Irish Land Commission, where for purposes of valuation and other matters of that kind there was power given to the Land Commission to make rules, Parliament thought it proper, as in a number of other matters, that the rules should be laid upon the Table of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon has framed this Amendment in exactly the same way. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the occasion to which I have referred said that he was following out the invariable practice of his own Government, I may say that was not so in the case of the Old Age Pensions Act. In that Act there is power given to make rules, and these rules have to be laid on the Table under exactly the same conditions as my right hon. Friend proposes in the Amendment which I have now the honour to move. I do not know any case where procedure in relation to an important matter of this kind has been left to be regulated by somebody outside the House of Commons. I do not know any case where the rules have not been laid on the Table of the House under similar conditions to those suggested in the Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. and learned Member (Sir E. Carson) has not in his history of this question brought the narrative right up to the point at which it is relevant to this Amendment. What happened on the occasion to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred was that two Amendments were moved on behalf of the Opposition, and they were both withdrawn when I undertook that a new clause should be introduced dealing with all these rules and

    1421
    regulations. I acknowledge that all these rules and regulations ought to be laid before Parliament. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is very desirable that Parliament should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on these rules and regulations. We could not agree at the time as to the form in which they should be laid before Parliament, and the Government agreed that a new clause dealing with this matter should be introduced. I promise that there will be a clause put down if the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with this clause.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: I think the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman is a very good one. It was when Clause 3 was under discussion that he promised to bring in a new clause, and we have not yet seen it. I do not know when we will see it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. GEORGE CAVE: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (a). Of course, my objection to paragraph (a) in the Bill extends also to paragraph (a) in the amended clause, and perhaps I had better deal with the amended clause for the purpose of my argument. It will be in the recollection of some Members of the Committee that at half-past five o'clock this morning I suggested that any person other than the owner who had an interest in land which the Commissioners were valuing should have notice of the valuation and the right to object to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer met me to some extent and he accepted an Amendment that a person interested, other than the owner, should have the right to object, but he would not agree that he should have notice of the valuation. I was not quite satisfied, but I accepted the concession. But it may happen that a person who has an interest in the land may not have notice of the valuation, or may not know of it, and therefore may not object. My object is, if that should happen, to make it possible for any man, whether the owner or anybody else, who has omitted to make his objection in time, to take the case before a Beferee. For that reason I take objection to paragraph (a) of the clause, and hope that it will be omitted. No harm can be done by this, and it is undesirable to restrict the right of appeal.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In pressing this Amendment I think that the hon. Gentleman has not quite appreciated the con-
    1422
    cessions made by the Government last night, because notice by the Commissioner of the valuation will be served the moment a person makes a request. If he does not take this precaution of applying, then I do not think that a person who comes in at the last moment should serve a notice of appeal where, if he had only taken the ordinary precautions of making application in the first instance, he could have done so. I think this proposal would dislocate the whole business. The remedy is entirely in his own hands. Any man interested in property can easily apply for the provisional valuation, and get it served on him as a matter of right.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is it contemplated as being possible—I understood it was—that under the new Amendment a man can serve notice on the Commissioners, saying whenever a valuation is made he wants to have notice of it? If that is so, I think that the Chancellor is correct. Another point is this. This objection has to be made within 60 days. The 60 days run from the date on which the notice is delivered. Within what period does the person on whom a notice has never been delivered make objection? Is the time calculated from the delivery of the notice to the owner of the land?
    Mr. G. S. BOWLES: The Chancellor says that a man is deprived of the right of appeal whatever his interest unless he has made an objection to the first provisional valuation. My hon. Friend (Mr. Cave) has asked what about the case of an owner who does not know that the provisional valuation has been made at all? In reply, the Chancellor says, "Last night we provided that the owner or anybody interested in the land should be able to get knowledge of the valuation on requesting that he should be supplied with it." That does not in the least meet the case of my hon. Friend, because his hypothesis was that the owner does not know that the valuation is going on. In valuing the land of the entire country there may be thousands of cases of persons interested in land who might be abroad, or away, or thousands of people with small interests who might not have the least notion that any of this performance was going on in regard to their land. And it is no excuse for depriving persons in that position of all remedy against what they might regard as an unfair valuation to say "you did not know what was being done, but if you had made a request you would have been supplied with the figures."
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think this point is covered by what I understand took place very early in the morning, and by the Amendment of which I have given notice now, which covers the point, that I am told was referred to last night, and which probably will meet the case now raised in the next Amendment.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Would it be in order to say what the next Amendment is? We are discussing the whole Amendment of my hon. Friend, and instead of enacting that there shall be no right of appeal except to a person who objects, what this proposes to do is to say that there shall be a right of appeal to everybody except the person who wilfully neglects. I would ask the Chancellor to consider this point, because the wording of this is extremely strong. There is no discretion vested in anybody. If a person who is liable to the fax, and upon whom the valuation is made, does not object from any cause, it may be entirely through no fault of his own, he has no locus standi, and nobody can give him a locus standi. What about the case of notices being served on the wrong person1? The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that the difficulty of identifying the ownership of some of these little plots of building land is extraordinarily great, and it may happen that notice may be served on the wrong person, and the valuation made by the Commissioners all in good faith; and it is perfectly clear that nobody will be any the wiser, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows very well that a very large class of persons on whom these notices will be served will take no notice of them whatever. They will simply think that the notice is some legal document which they do not understand, and they will pay no attention to it. And the Commissioners will be perfectly accustomed to sending out notices of which no acknowledgment is ever received by them. They have no means of ascertaining whether they serve the notices on the right or the wrong persons. They will then proceed to make the valuation. The next stage will be to claim the duty, and they will claim the duty from the wrong person if they have served notice on the wrong person. The real owner will then, after further investigation, suddenly find himself saddled with the duty against which he has no opportunity of making an appeal. It is perfectly clear that instead of giving no right of appeal as a principle, with an exception in favour of the man who has objected,
    1424
    the principle ought to be to give a right of appeal generally, but to deny it to a person who, through a fault of his own, has neglected to do what clearly he ought to do, namely, to appeal. I entirely agree with the principle of this clause. It is right that a person who has the opportunity of objecting and does not take the trouble to object should lose his locus, but I do say that it ought to be put before him that he should have a general right of appeal which he may lose by his own wilful default, but not that he should be deprived of his right of appeal unless he does something which he may fail to do entirely through no fault of his own, and further than that, through no fault of the Commissioners, who may serve the notice on the wrong person.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is the very form of the clause. There is a general right of appeal provided. Where a man has not taken the precaution of making objection there is no right of appeal. I think that is perfectly right. I do not think that the whole machinery of valuation should be stopped through gross negligence, because it would be gross negligence. I think I have met the Opposition very fairly in this matter by the-Amendment that was accepted last night. That will make a very substantial difference. It may have been served on the wrong person, but there is one person who-will know that a valuation has taken place, and that is the owner himself; and if the owner himself, knowing this, does not get notice, he should communicate with the Commissioners.
    Mr. W. R. PEEL: The Chancellor says that the owner will know that a valuation has taken place, and if he does not get notice, that is to say, if the notice goes wrong, he has got the right to ask that notice should be served upon him. This valuation is taking place through one or two or more years, and he may be living away from the place; and I do not see how he is necessarily to know that that particular valuation has taken place at that particular time. I quite believe that if the land were being valued all over the country at exactly the same moment, then he might be assumed to know that a valuation is taking place, and that the notice was given wrongly. But the valuation will be at different times in different places; and, as owners live in different places, it is very hard to assume that a man ought to know that notice should have been served on him, and to debar him the

    1425
    right of appeal for what may be merely an accident for which he is in no way responsible.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Both sides probably will agree to settle this question as to Sub-section (a) in one or other of two forms. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow me to read Sub-section (a) with my Amendment to leave out the word "not," making it read, "an appeal shall lie," instead of "shall not." In one way it would read:—
    "An appeal shall not lie against the provisional valuation made by the Commissioners of the total or site value of any land" (leaving out the word "except") "on the part of a person who has wilfully neglected to make an objection to the provisional valuation in accordance with this Act."
    The other way, according to my Amendment to leave out the word "not," would be:—
    "An appeal shall lie against any provisional valuation made by the Commissioners on the total or site value of any land, except on the part of a person who has wilfully neglected to make an objection to the provisional valuation in accordance with this Act."
    Either of those two ways of amending the clause would, I believe, satisfy the point raised by my hon. Friend, and if I am not mistaken would probably meet the views of the Government. The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend puts the case one way in order to carry it out, and my Amendment would carry it out in another way, but I think either of them would be satisfactory to us.
    Mr. CAVE: I am quite prepared to accept that suggestion, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, with a view to its being moved in the form which my hon. and learned Friend gave, and which would have exactly the same effect.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, to leave out of Sub-section (a), the word "not," coming after the words "an appeal shall," making it read, "an appeal shall lie."
    It would make the Sub-section read:—
    "An appeal shall lie against any provisional valuation made by the Commissioners on the total or site value of any land, except on the part of a person who has wilfully neglected to make an objection to the provisional valuation in accordance with this Act."
    1426
    That Amendment would be followed by the two Amendments in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in later portions of the sub-section, and which would be consequential on this Amendment. The object of my Amendment is to make it quite clear that appeal will lie against any of these valuations, with one exception, namely, that when a man has had notice of the provisional valuation, and has paid no attention to it, he should not be heard to appeal at all. Everybody else should have the right of appeal, which we understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer this morning to say would be given, and which I rather gather from what he said just now he is prepared to give. The same idea could be carried out by leaving out the word "except" in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman which is on the White Paper, and if that were done the Sub-section would read:—
    "An appeal shall not lie against a provisional valuation made by the Commissioners on the total or site value of any land on the part of a person who has wilfully neglected to make an objection to the provisional valuation in accordance with this Act."
    Either of these two would entirely satisfy us with regard to this question of appeal.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As far as form is concerned, I think the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman to leave out the word "not" would be very bad drafting. What is proposed is that where a person has neglected to make objection to the provisional valuation he shall not be heard to appeal, and the hon. Gentleman proposes to begin by saying that an appeal shall lie. That is very bad drafting to begin with. It is far better to put it in the form that an appeal shall not lie where a person has neglected to make objection to the provisional valuation.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: May I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment in favour of that of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave), and it could then be taken to a Division?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We have accepted the withdrawal of the first Amendment. Here is a second Amendment moved, and we are now asked to allow withdrawal of that also, in order that a third may be moved, I think it would be better that we should take a Division on the point, which we all understand.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There is the other point which I mentioned. Under the Bill notice of objection is to be given within 60 days, but if a person has received notice of valuation, and therefore does not make objection, from when are the 60 days to be counted?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If there were any circumstances which established a sound reason for considering a particular case there is power to extend the time. We have met, I think, every reasonable objection. It is not our business to create difficulties in the way of valuation, and I do think that the man who has really neglected his duty ought not to be allowed to appeal. On the other hand, we do not want any man to be injured if he can show
    satisfactorily why he had failed in the duty to raise an objection to the provisional valuation.
    Mr. CAVE: I think all of us understand the point. We want to cover the case of a man who is guilty of no neglect at all. He may be abroad or in Australia at the time the valuation is going on, and, therefore, he will not get notice of it. We want to protect a man in such circumstances. Perhaps it would be better to take the division on the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend.
    Question put, "That the word 'not' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 84.

    Division No. 478.]

    AYES.

    [6.41 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Essex, R. W.

    Lever, w. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Armitage, R.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Lupton, Arnold

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Gill, A. H.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Maclean, Donald

    Barnard, E. B.

    Glover, Thomas

    Macpherson, J. T

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Bell, Richard

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

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

    Bellairs, Cariyon

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    M'Micking, Major G.

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

    Hancock, J. G.

    Maddlson, Frederick

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Mallet, Charles E.

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Black, Arthur W.

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

    Massle, J.

    Brace, William

    Harwood, George

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Branch, James

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Middlebrook, William

    Brigg, John

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Bright, J. A.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

    Hazleton, Richard

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

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

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Myer, Horatio

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Napier, T. B

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Henry, Charles S.

    Nicholls, George

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Grady, J.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Partington, Oswald

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Hodge, John

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    Cleland, J. W.

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Clynes, J. R.

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

    Pointer, J.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Hornlman, Emslie John

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

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

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Radford, G. H.

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

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Crooks, William

    Jackson, R. S.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Crossley, William J.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Rees, J. D.

    Cullinan, J.

    Jenkins, J.

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

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Richardson, A.

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Laldlaw, Robert

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lambert, George

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lamont, Norman

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Erskine, David C.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Rowlands, J.

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Tillet, Louis John

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

    Tomkinson, James

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Seely, Colonel

    Toulmin, George

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Shackleton, David James

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Snowden, P.

    Verney, F. W.

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

    Steadman, W. C.

    Walsh, Stephen

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

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Wardle, George J.

    Winfrey, R.

    Summerbell, T.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Watt, Henry A.

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

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Whitehead, Rowland

    NOES.

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

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Percy, Earl

    Ashley, W. W.

    Haddock, George B.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Ronton, Leslie

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Renwick, George

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hills, J. W.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Salter, Arthur Claveil

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Keswick, William

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

    Clyde, J. Avon

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Stanier, Beville

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Starkey, John R.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

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

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Newdegate, F. A.

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

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Oddy, John James

    Gordon, J.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Cave and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

    Moulding, Edward Alfred

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

    Amendments made:
    In Section (1), Sub-section (a), leave out the words "the determination," and insert the words "a provisional valuation made."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    In Section (1), Sub-section (a), leave out the words "where a return of the value of the land has not been made by the owner in pursuance of," and insert the words "except on the part of a person who has made an objection to the provisional valuation in accordance with."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    In Section (1), Sub-section (b), to insert the word "original" after the first "the."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    In Section 1, Sub-section (b), after the second "the," to insert the word "original," and after the second "value"["Commissioners of that value"], to insert "and the site value as ascertained under any subsequent valuation."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, in Section (1), Sub-section (6), to leave out the word "shall" ["the site value shall"] and to insert the word "may."
    I do not think the Government mean that that is the only possible way of objecting to the total site value. It ought to be possible to arrange the matter without appeal.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think it is possible that that is meant, but I promise to consider the point. It is obvious it might be desirable to settle it without appeal.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendments made: In Section (2), to leave out the word "any" ["any appeal"] and insert the word "an."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    After the word "the" ["the referees"] insert the words "panel of."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    To leave out the words "provided by any special or general directions of the Treasury," and insert the words "selected in manner provided by rules under this section."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    To leave out the word "appeal" ["to whom the appeal"], and insert the word "matter."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Section (2), after "shall" ["shall be final"], to insert the words "be given in the form provided by rules under this section, and shall, subject to appeal to the High Court under this section."
    Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out the word "High" ["High Court"].
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I accept that Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I want to know what is the force of the word "final"?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That unless there is an appeal, the decision of the Referees is final.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to omit Section (3), and from Section (4) to omit all the words to the words "Any order of the referee," and to insert instead thereof the words "The referee shall determine any matter referred to him in consultation with the Commissioners and the appellant, and may, if he thinks fit, order that any expenses incurred by the appellant be paid by the Commissioners, and that any such expenses incurred by the Commissioners be paid by the appellant."
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir E. CARSON: We have not yet had the point cleared up as to the power of attendance by agent or solicitor or other person selected by the particular litigant in the case. I have handed in an Amendment to insert after the word "appellant" the words "or his agent if he so desires."
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have already promised to accept an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave).
    Question, "That the words 'if any question' stand part of the proposed Amendment" put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
    Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved to insert, after "appellant," the words "or any persons nominated by them for this purpose."
    I do not think the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be intended to mean that the Commissioners or the appellant should be compelled to attend personally. The Commissioners themselves could not appear personally, and, as has been pointed out, the appellant might be deaf and dumb, or rendered incapable of appearing by some other cause.
    Sir E. CARSON: Are we right in accepting these words? When can the Commissioners be the appellants?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is an appeal from the valuation of the Commissioners. Therefore the appeal cannot be by the Commissioners; the appellant must be the landowner.
    Sir ROBERT PERKS: Will "persons" include simply a surveyor, or lawyer, or agent? Is it intended to include professional witnesses, or simply that the appellant, if he happens to be a country farmer, may go into the town and select a local land agent, or a personal friend, or whoever it may be, who alone is to appear before the Referee?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is rather to enable the appellant, where he does not feel himself competent to meet the Commissioners, to take a professional valuer, or a friend, or an agent, or whoever it may be, to assist him in presenting his case to the Referee.
    Mr. J. A. CLYDE: The Referee is to enter into consultation with the Commissioners and the appellant. Is it intended that the consultation should be not with the Commissioners, but with somebody representing them?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Commissioners, of course, will have somebody representing them.
    Mr. CAVE: The object is that the Commissioners or the appellants may nominate a valuer or someone else for the purpose of consulting with the Referee.
    Sir E. CARSON: In reference to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman to the hon. Baronet behind him (Sir R. Perks) I take it there is nothing to prevent the appellant nominating a surveyor or anybody he likes? There is no limitation?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Oh, no.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out "costs" ["Any order of the Referee as to costs may be made a rule of the High Court"] and to insert the word "expenses."
    Mr. BALFOUR: What is the view of the Government with regard to costs incurred before the Referee? I do not think their policy has been made quite clear yet.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We have already disposed of that by a special sub-section. We are now dealing with the costs of the High Court.
    Lord R. CECIL: No; it is a consequential Amendment, but it is the same point. The necessity for this Amendment is that the word "costs" has been struck out of the clause as amended, and the word "expenses" substituted in regard to the reference. Personally, I think it is a very desirable change. The word "expenses" is much wider than the word "costs." I have always thought that true justice required that the whole expense of litigation should be recovered by the successful litigant, and that the artificial rule of cutting down the expenses to legal costs was a very unfortunate one. Now that we are allowing somebody to be nominated to appear before the Referee, it may well be that expenses will be incurrd.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We have already decided that the Referee shall have power to order expenses. The only point is in reference to making the order of the Referee as to expenses a rule of the High Court. It is purely consequential. It does not raise the issue whether the Referee should have power to order expenses.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think it is very doubtful what the word "ex-
    1434
    penses" includes. It is quite clear what the word "costs" includes. There are several decisions on that point, and the expression is well known; whereas the word "expenses" might mean merely a man's omnibus or railway fare, and might not include professional or other assistance at all. I am strongly in favour of retaining the word "costs." It is quite clear that "costs" includes expenses, but it is not at all clear that "expenses" includes costs.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We are not deciding the question of "costs" or "expenses" now. The word "expenses" has already been inserted, and the whole point is whether the order as to expenses shall be made a rule of the Court.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I have never heard of a rule as to expenses being made a rule of the Court, but I have often heard of a rule as to costs being so treated.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to add at the end of the Clause:—
    (4) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Referee may appeal against the decision to the High Court within the time and in the manner and on the conditions directed by rules of court (including conditions requiring the payment of or the giving of security for any duty claimed); and Sub-sections 2, 3, and 4 of Section 10 of The Finance Act, 1894, shall apply with reference to any such appeal.
    (5) Provision shall be made by rules under this section with respect to the time within which and the manner in which an appeal may be made to a Referee under this section, and with respect to the mode in which the Referee to whom any reference is to be made is to be selected, and with respect to the form in which any decision of a Referee is to be given, and with respect to any other matter for which it appears necessary or expedient to provide in order to carry this section into effect.
    Those rules shall be made by the Reference Committee, subject to the approval of the Treasury.
    The Reference Committee for England shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Surveyors' Institution.
    The Reference Committee for Scotland shall consist of the Lord President of the

    1435
    Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk, and the President of the Surveyors' Institution.
    The Reference Committee for Ireland shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, and the President of the Surveyors' Institution.
    The President of the Surveyors' Institution may, if he thinks fit, appoint any person, being a member of the council of that institution and having special knowledge of valuation in Scotland or Ireland, respectively, to act in his place as a member of the Reference Committee in Scotland or the Reference Committee in Ireland.
    Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved, in Section (4) of the proposed Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to leave out the word "requiring" ["and on the conditions directed by rules of court (including conditions requiring the payment of or the giving of security for any duty claimed)"] and to insert the words, "enabling the Court to require." I move this Amendment because I think that as the Amendment stands it might be obligatory in every case to require payment of or security for the duty.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved, in Section (4) of the proposed Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after the words, "shall apply with reference to any such appeal," to add the words, "provided always that where the total or site value, as alleged by the Commissioners of the property in respect of which the dispute arises, does not exceed £500, the appeal under this section may be to the county court for the place in which the appellant resides, or in which the property is situate, and this section shall for the purpose of the appeal apply as if such county court were the High Court." What I propose to do is to follow the precedent of the Finance Act of 1894, Section (10), Sub-section (5), except as to amount, and in any case where the valuation is not over £500 to substitute the county court for the High Court.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. F. W. LAMBTON Mr. F. W. LAMBTON moved, in Section (5) of the proposed Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after "to whom any reference is to be made, is to be
    1436
    selected," to add the words, "So always that the Referee selected shall be a person having experience in the valuation of land, or, as the case may require, minerals, in the district in which the same are situated." During all these discussions a promise has been made by the Government that this Referee shall be a person having local knowledge; a man, therefore, having a confidence of the people of the district in which he is sent to hear these appeals. I think it ought to be an Instruction to the Committee that draw up these rules to see that a provision shall be made on the lines I have indicated. Conceive a man who belongs to Middlesex, and has knowledge of that county, going to Northumberland, or a man with a knowledge of Welsh coals going to Durham to value the coals there. I trust that the Chancellor will accept this Amendment, if not perhaps exactly in these words.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree that it is desirable that the Referee, more especially in the case of minerals, should have local knowledge; but I think it would be a very great mistake to lay it down as an imperative instruction that in every case the Referee must have local knowledge. I can well understand cases of great importance where it may be highly desirable, and the Court may consider it desirable, to send down someone of considerable standing who may not have local knowledge. I even imagine that the Court, especially in an appeal where the case had been decided by a Referee with local knowledge, may come to the conclusion that it was desirable that a fresh Referee should be appointed. I think that it would be very undesirable that the hands of the Court should be tied.
    Mr. LAMBTON: I do not think the answer of the Chancellor is quite satisfactory. It is absolutely impossible in respect to minerals that anyone in the district should have confidence in the valuation of a Referee who comes from another district. As to laying down an Instruction to the Committee, I do not think there can be any harm in that. The thing is one which has been promised over and over again by the Government, who have said that these men should have local knowledge. I maintain, therefore, that it had better be laid down before this becomes an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. G. STEWART BOWLES: Our business here is to protect the taxpayer. The whole of these clauses and the whole of this

    1437
    scheme is framed too much with a view to the revenue, the Treasury, and the officials, and with too little regard to the unhappy gentleman who has to pay the tax. The rules upon the application of which the means of taxation is going to depend are to be approved by the Treasury, who are a party in the case. The taxpayer, so far as we can see, has really no security whatever that they will protect his interests. The interests of the Treasury and the Crown are fully protected because the rules cannot be made until the Treasury agree. The interests of the taxpayer will nowhere be considered unless we consider them now. You run the risk of gravely affecting the confidence with which the whole of this scheme of the Government will be regarded unless it is laid absolutely down that you will put into the districts men with local knowledge. I do not see how you can depart from that in any case without raising in the minds of those who pay the duty the feeling that they have been subjected to a tribunal which really could not deal fairly with their case, which is not a mere matter of dispute between man and man, but a matter affecting taxation. It is quite clear that a man with local knowledge will be the rule in nine cases out of ten. Then why not take the smple precaution that in the tenth case the ordinary rule should apply and equal justice shall be done?
    Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: I agree it might be inadvisable to lay down a hard and fast rule that no one but local valuers should be employed.
    Mr. LAMBTON: I do not propose that.
    Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that in agricultural valuation local knowledge is no doubt very necessary. In both agricultural valuation and mineral valuation a man having local knowledge in many cases may not be a local man, and that a man having local knowledge should be employed is absolutely essential. There is a tendency on the part of those who direct the operations from London to think a London man is often superior to a man having local knowledge and to a local man. That such an idea should prevail in regard to this valuation would, I think, be a great misfortune. If this valuation was to be made in the North of England or in Scotland I do not think that it should be conducted exactly according to the views of the head of the Surveyors' Institute, who is an unknown person in Scotland.
    1438
    I think the valuer who makes the agricultural valuation and the mineral valuation should be a local man in the sense that he should have real local knowledge, which no stranger to the district could possibly possess.
    Mr. ABEL SMITH: The Board of Agriculture have a list of valuers whom they employ to do local work under the Settled Land Acts and other matters, so that the principle underlying my hon. Friend's Amendment is already admitted. It is very desirable that valuers having local knowledge should be employed by the Government Departments.
    Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON: I agree with the hon. Member for Leith Burghs, and I am of opinion that reconsideration will have to be given to the words in the Amendment in which it is stated that "the President of the Surveyors' Institute may, if he thinks fit, appoint any persons being a member of the council of that institute."
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That will be done.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that raises a separate point.
    Mr. A. B. MARKHAM: I do not think the Amendment, as it stands, carries out the idea that you must have a local man with local knowledge. In point of fact, there is no difficulty about these valuations. The Charity and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have very large incomes, and in both cases one central firm do their work. There would, be no difficulty among mining engineers of experience in the North of England in making a valuation in any part of the North of England. The country, if divided into three parts, such as the North, of England, Wales, and the South of England, could, so far as minerals are concerned, be valued by mining engineers in any of these districts. The mining engineers are quite separate in their organisation, but as to the actual work in practice there is no difficulty.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The meaning of the speech delivered by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is that local knowledge is a very desirable thing in valuation.
    Mr. MARKHAM: Yes, in the sense of local knowledge of large areas, but not that you are to have a local man for every separate place.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am sure my hon. Friend does not mean it to be confined in that way. He means it to apply to men "having experience in the valuation of minerals in the district in which they are situate." It means that you must appoint a man who must know something about the district which he is going to value. It may be a large district or a small district, and I should think, if you are creating a piece of machinery, the main purpose of which is to avoid appeals, it is very desirable that the man who forms that piece of machinery should be a man with local knowledge. I say that the Government themselves adhere to this principle in the last paragraph of their Amendment, because they provide that "the president of the Surveyors' Institution may, if he thinks fit, appoint any person, being a member of the council of that institution, and having special knowledge of valuation in Scotland or Ireland respectively, to act in his place as a member of the Reference Committee in Scotland or the Reference Committee in Ireland." That is to say, you are giving a special protection to Scotland and Ireland which is not extended to England, which is not even extended to Wales. Surely the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be anxious to give some pro-
    tection to the principality of which he is so distinguished a native. At any rate, whether he will protect the principality or not, I hope this Amendment will be insisted on, and will be carried, so that we may have extended to England and Wales the same principle which is extended to Ireland and Scotland.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I think it is most desirable that in the valuation of minerals the valuer should be a man acquainted with the district. It would be quite absurd to send a man with experience in South Wales to value minerals in the North of England or in the Midlands, because the coal seams vary so very much in thickness and in quality.
    Sir JOHN RANDLES: I am not sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not quite right, and that it might not be a disadvantage to be compelled to have persons of local knowledge and local prejudices, who might be committed to a particular view. It is quite conceivable, to my mind, that it might, on exceptional occasions, be an advantage to have a Referee who has no local knowledge.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 219.

    Division No. 479].

    AYES.

    [7.40 p.m.

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

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Percy, Earl

    Ashley, W. W.

    Haddock, George B.

    Perks, Sir Robert William

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

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Renton, Leslie

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Renwick, George

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hills, J. W.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hunt, Rowland

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Cave, George

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Keswick, William

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Clive, Percy Archer

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Stanier, Beville

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

    Starkey, John R.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

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

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Thomson. W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Morpeth, Viscount

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

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Winterton, Earl

    Forster, Henry William

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Younger, George

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Oddy, John James

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Lambton and Mr. S. Bowles.

    Gordon, J.

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Armitage, R.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Bell, Richard

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Barnard, E. B.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

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

    Harwoad, George

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

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

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

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Radford, G. H.

    Bethell, T. R (Essex, Maldon)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Rees, J. D.

    Brace, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Branch, James

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

    Richardson, A.

    Brigg, John

    Henry, Charles S.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Bright, J. A.

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Brooks, Stopford

    Higham, John Sharp

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Bryce, A. Annan

    Hodge, John

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rowlands, J.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hooper, A. G.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

    Byles, William Pollard

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

    Samuel, S. M. (Whltechapel)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Hornlman, Emslie John

    Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Hudson, Walter

    Sears, J. E.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Seely, Colonel

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Shackleton, David James

    Cleland, J. W.

    Jenkins, J

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Clough, William

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Snowden, P.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Stanley, Hen. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Steadman, W. C.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lambert, George

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

    Lamont, Norman

    Summerbell, T.

    Crooks, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Crossley, William J.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Cullinan, J.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Maclean, Donald

    Tomkinson, James

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Toulmin, George

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Treveiyan, Charles Jhilips

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Vivian, Henry

    Erskine, David C.

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

    Walsh, Stephen

    Essex, R. W.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Walters, John Tudor

    Esslemont, George Birnle

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Wardle, George J.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Marnham, F. J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Watt, Henry A

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Flennes, Hon. Eustace

    Middlebrook, William

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Wiles, Thomas

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Gill, A. H.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Myer, Horatio

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Napier, T. B.

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Glover, Thomas

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Nicholls, George

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

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Norman, Sir Henry

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

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    O'Grady, J.

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

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Partington, Oswald

    Winfrey, R.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pointer, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

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

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Sir HENRY CRAIK Sir HENRY CRAIK moved to omit from Section (5) the words "subject to the approval of the Treasury" ["those rules shall be made by the Reference Committee, subject to the approval of the Treasury"]. I am surprised that some of my hon. and learned Friends opposite do not find in those words a fatal objection to this proposal. It is astonishing that rules to be drawn up by the Lord Chief Justice and
    1442
    the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Surveyors' Institution should be subject to the approval of the Treasury. Surely the judges may be trusted to lay down rules in regard to this matter, and why should it be necessary to make them subject to the approval of the Treasury officials? I hope the Attorney-General will see that the interests of his own profession are properly safeguarded.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Executive must be consulted in this matter, because they are responsible to Parliament, and the rules have to be submitted to Parliament. Therefore I cannot possibly accept this Amendment.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: I wish to point out that having appointed a very eminent Reference Committee, consisting of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Surveyors' Institution, it would be a little hard that the Treasury should have power to send back to those gentlemen the rules they have framed, and be able to insist upon any rules they like. You might as well strike out of this clause the two eminent judges and the president, because all the Treasury have to do is to say "unless you alter your rules we will not have them." Let us see what that means. It really means that one of the parties who will be affected by these proceedings has a voice in making the rules whilst the other party affected has no voice at all. Surely it is far better to leave the matter to two eminent judges and the president of the Surveyors' Institution, who have to frame the rules in the first instance. Unless the Attorney-General can give some better reason than the mere fact that the rules have to be defended in this House I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: If we leave these words in the Amendment would it be possible, to have a discussion on the rules upon the salary of the Secretary to the Treasury?
    Sir W. ROBSON: That is a point of Parliamentary procedure upon which I am not able to offer a definite opinion. I should imagine, however, that any executive act on the part of the Treasury would be a fit subject of criticism in this House when my right hon. Friends at the Treasury come here for their salary. Of course, every Department would like to be free from the control of the Treasury, but, as the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow (Sir H. Craik), who was once a distinguished official himself in a Department which was subject to the control of the Treasury, knows, every Department must be under the Treasury. It is far better that the rules should be such as the Treasury can approve of. The approval of the Treasury in all cases is a condition, and this seems to be a case in which that approval is particularly required.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: The Attorney-General has referred to the fact that I was once a Civil servant under the control of the Treasury, but surely that is a very different thing to putting the head of the judges of England under the same control. It is a most extraordinary argument for the Attorney-General to use to say that, because I was a Civil servant for many years subject to the control of the Treasury, therefore the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls should not have power to frame rules regarding the Referee whom they themselves appoint, and for whose action they are responsible, and should be subject to the approval of the officials of the Treasury. That seems to me to be carrying Treasury control almost to an absurdity. If there are a few official rules and a few other matters which have to be arranged for the general convenience, surely the Treasury officials might make them known to the great legal functionaries who are to regulate these proceedings? By this proposal you are tying the hands of the judges, and if the officials at the Treasury do not quite approve of the rules drawn up they can send them back, and say to the judges, "Try your hand again." I do not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division in view of the definite refusal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am surprised that the leader of the English Bar seems to think so little of his position as to-defend a proposal that the heads of that profession ought to do their work subject to this strict official control.
    Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON: I wish tore-mind the Committee what these rules really are. Section (5) of this Amendment lays down that, "Provision shall be made by rules under this section with respect to the time within which and the manner in which an appeal may be made to a Referee under this section, and with respect to the mode in which the Referee to whom any reference is to be made is to be selected, and with respect to the form in which any decision of a Referee is to be given." I am sure all these are rules which these eminent public servants should be able to make without being subject to the approval of the Treasury.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: We all know that the Treasury hold the power of the purse, and ought to have monetary control over the other Civil Departments of the State, but when you come to look at the words of the Amendment it

    1445
    will be found that they have nothing to do with money at all. This appears to be a matter in which the Treasury is not concerned. Are you going to contend that the Treasury ought to have the power to override the rules drawn up by these great men acting within the ambit of their own absolute knowledge? It looks to me as if this panel is put into the Bill merely for shop window purposes, and to delude the public into believing that everything is perfectly safe, and that justice is sure to be done, because we have got this splendid panel to decide the matter, when it is nothing of the kind. There is the trail of the Treasury over everything. I am surprised that the Attorney-General, who, I am sure, desires to see justice done in this matter, should say this is a financial matter when it is nothing of the kind. It is a professional matter absolutely within the knowledge of the panel established by the Bill, and their control ought not to be subject to any such revision.
    Captain CRAIG: I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division. I have had considerable practical experience of the Treasury in matters of legislation, and there is no doubt the Government are reserving for themselves a sort of back door way of working these appeals as they like, because, if the Commissioners draft rules which do not suit the convenience of the Government, they can immediately put the screw on by saying the Treasury do not approve. The administration of education in Ireland and of the Land Acts are hampered at every turn from the fact that matters are subject to the approval of the Treasury. No matter how the House gives authority to certain persons to perform certain things it knows and understands perfectly well that these duties are really handed over to them only in form, and the Government of the day are reserving to themselves the right of vetoing the most important decision these men may
    take with regard to the carrying out of appeals under this Bill. I certainly think it is unfair to ask the Committee to be reassured on account of the names of these great men being put in the panel, and for the Government immediately to turn round and say these men have got no authority at all, because a Treasury Minute later on may upset any of their decisions.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: There are two sets of rules provided for in this Amendment. There is no stipulation that the rules of the Court shall be approved by the Treasury. They do not require to be approved by the Treasury. The Government have made a splendid selection of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the president of the Surveyors' Institution, and these rules with regard to the Referees surely ought to be made by this Reference Committee. It was suggested by the Attorney-General that they might involve questions of salary. It is impossible they should do so, because the very next clause, Section 2), says:—"There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to every Referee appointed under this section such fees or remuneration as the Treasury direct." We are quite willing the Treasury should deal with this question of salaries, but what on earth has the Treasury to do with the regulations as to how the Referees shall conduct their business, the places where they shall sit, and the hours, I presume, at which they shall sit? Surely you can trust a Reference Committee, consisting of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the president of the Surveyors' Institution, to make proper rules which have nothing to do with the question of salaries, without the interference of the Treasury?
    Question put, "That those words stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 60.

    Division No. 480].

    AYES.

    [8.9 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Beck, A. Cecil

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

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bell, Richard

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

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

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Armitage, R.

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

    Buxton,. Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Brace, William

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Branch, James

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Brigg, John

    Cleland, J. W.

    Barnes, G N.

    Bright, J. A.

    Clough, William

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Brooke, Stopford

    Clynes, J. R.

    Beauchamp, E.

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

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jenkins, J.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

    Jowett, F. W.

    Rowlands, J.

    Cox, Harold

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Crooks, William

    Laidlaw, Robert

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

    Crossley, William J.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Lamont, Norman

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

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Sears, J. E.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Seely, Colonel

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Shackleton, David James

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Essex, R. W.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Steadman, W. C.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Everett, R. Lacey

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Ferens, T. R.

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

    Summerbell, T.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Maddison, Frederick

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Gill, A. H.

    Marnham, F. J.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Glover, Thomas

    Middlebrook, William

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Tomkinson, James

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Touimin, George

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Worrell, Philip

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

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

    Verney, F. W.

    Hancock, J. G.

    Myer, Horatio

    Vivian, Henry

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Napier, T. B.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Wardle, George J.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nicholls, George

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Watt, Henry A.

    Harwood, George

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Hasiam, James (Derbyshire)

    O'Grady, J.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Partington, Oswald

    Wiles, Thomas

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    Williams, W. Liewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pointer, J.

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

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    Hodge, John

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

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Holt, Richard Durning

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

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

    Hooper, A. G.

    Radford, G. H.

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

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

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Winfrey, R.

    Howard, John Geoffrey

    Rees, J. D.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Richardson, A.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    NOES.

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

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gordon, J.

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Renwick, George

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hills, J. W.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Stanier, Beville

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Starkey, John R.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Younger, George

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Henry Craik and Mr. G. D. Faber.

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane)The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane) moved to amend the paragraph regarding the Reference Committee for Scotland by substituting the "Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Surveyors' Institution" for "the President of the Surveyors' Institution." This he proposed from purely patriotic motives.
    Sir E. CARSON: What is the Scottish Committee? Is there a similar body in Ireland? Is Ireland to remain under the jurisdiction of the President of the English Surveyors Institution? If my countrymen below the Gangway are willing to do that it shows we certainly are getting a much closer Union. I was under the impression that the Surveyors' Institution applied equally to England, Scotland, and Ireland. Why is this distinction being drawn at the last moment? The right hon. Gentleman suggests it is for patriotic motives, but why it should be considered necessary to single out the particular case of Scotland I do not understand.
    Mr. HALDANE: I can only say if the right hon. and learned Gentleman can point out there is a similar Committee in the case of Ireland, the Government will be prepared on the Report stage to consider a similar Amendment to meet that case.
    Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON: I understand that the Scottish official designation will be given?
    Mr. HALDANE: Yes.
    Sir E. CARSON: I take it that somebody in the Government who knows something about Ireland will look into this question.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think it is most unfortunate that this alteration should be sprung on the Committee without notice. I have had a good deal to do with members of the Surveyors' Institution, and I never before knew there was a Scottish Committee. It is possible the President of the Surveyors' Institution may be a Scotchman living in Liverpool. The result of this Amendment would be to prevent him taking a part in reference to the affairs of his own native country which his official position should entitle him to take. There is another objection to the Amendment: it seeks to give us, in the place of a man for whom the whole country has great regard, someone perfectly unknown. I think it very objectionable that the Government should propose such an Amendment at the last moment.
    Amendment made: To leave out the word "President," and the words "Chairman of the Scottish Committee" inserted instead thereof.
    Further Amendments made to proposed Amendment:—
    To leave out the words "Scotland or" ["Scotland or Ireland"].
    To leave out the word "respectively" ["respectively to act"].
    To leave out the words "Scotland or" ["in Scotland or the Reference Committee in Ireland"].
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Motion made, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—[Mr. Haldane.]
    Sir E. CARSON: This clause has been framed to a large extent to meet the views of the Opposition, and, as we have already stated our objections to it in detail, I do not think it is necessary to add much more. The rules to be framed for the guidance of the Referee and the Court are matters of great importance, but I especially attach importance to the rules which guide the proceedings before the Referee, because it will depend upon what takes place before the Referee as to whether the valuation will be carried out smoothly or not. Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will place these rules on the Table of the House before this Bill becomes law? It is a request which I think is reasonable. We might very well have taken up a good deal of the time of the Committee by ourselves suggesting by way of Amendments various matters which will have to be included in these rules. The whole matter is now left at large, and there is no direction of any kind given. We have not objected to that, but I think the suggestion I make is a reasonable one, and that we should have a draft of these rules laid upon the Table of the House before the Bill becomes law.
    Mr. HALDANE: I think it is reasonable that these rules should be as soon as possible available, but we cannot have them before the Bill becomes law, because they cannot be made until the Reference Committee has been set up; but I will undertake, on the part of the Government, that on an early day the rules shall be laid on the Table?
    Sir E. CARSON: Will that be before the House adjourns?
    Mr. HALDANE: I am afraid not. I hope the House will adjourn soon after the Bill becomes law, and these rules
    cannot be made until the Reference Committee is set up.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 53.

    Division No. 481.]

    AYES.

    [8.29 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Pointer, J.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

    Armitage, R.

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

    Radford, G. H.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Harwood, George

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Rees, J. D.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

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

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Richardson, A.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

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

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Beauchamp, E.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Bell, Richard

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Rowlands, J.

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

    Hodge, John

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Holt, Richard Durning

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

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

    Hooper, A. G.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

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

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Korniman, Emslie John

    Sears, J. E.

    Brace, William

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Seely, Colonel

    Branch, James

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Shackleton, David James

    Brigg, John

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Bright, J. A.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Brooke, Stopford

    Jenkins, J.

    Snowden, P.

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

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Steadman, W. C.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jowett, F. W.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Summerbell, T.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Lamont, Norman

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Clough, William

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Clynes, J. R.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Tomkinson, James

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Toulmin, George

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Crooks, William

    M'Callum, John M.

    Verney, F. W.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Vivian, Henry

    Crossley, William J.

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

    Walsh, Stephen

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Maddison, Frederick

    Wardle, George J.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Middlebrook, William

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Essex, R. W.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Morrell, Philip

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Everett, R. Lacey

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

    Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Myer, Horatio

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

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Napier, T. B.

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Nicholls, George

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

    Gill, A. H.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Nerman, Sir Henry

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Winfrey, R.

    Glover, Thomas

    O'Grady, J.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Partington, Oswald

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    NOES.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gordon, J.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

    Renwick, George

    Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hills, J. W.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cave, George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stanler, 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)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Cralk, Sir Henry

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Question, "That the words 'local or' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    Clause 23.—(Appointment of Referees to Hear Appeals.)
    (1) His Majesty may, if he thinks fit, appoint any number of persons having experience in the valuation of land to act as Referees for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
    (2) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to every Referee appointed under this section such fees or remuneration as the Treasury direct.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the words, "His Majesty may, if he thinks fit, appoint any," and to insert instead thereof the word "Such."
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question put, "That the word 'Such' be there inserted."
    Mr. CAVE: How many of these Referees are intended to be appointed?
    Sir W. ROBSON: I think the Government act wisely in not attempting to say. It would be very difficult indeed to tell until the Bill comes into operation. There will have to be a good deal of consideration and discussion as to the mode in which they are to be selected, and that, of course, will be decided by the facts that arise. Then there is the question of how much they are to be remunerated, and that depends upon the question how they are to be selected, and all these matters will have to be decided after the Bill has passed and after discussion with the distinguished Reference Committee becomes an accomplished fact. The Government will then have to discuss the question of number and the mode of appointment, and that which will largely affect
    1454
    the question of the amount of payment will be whether they are to be paid by salary or fees. None of these matters can be considered now, but they will have to be considered then.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is rather a large order for this Committee to be asked to give the Government a blank cheque in regard to the machinery for appointing these Commissioners. I think the Government should give some distinct indication of their views as to the very important point of salary. The question of the number cannot now be conveniently settled. The Government might give us some idea as to their views on number, but we cannot tie them down very closely. I think, however, they ought to have some views of their own and put them before the Committee on the question of salaries, and whether the Referees are to be paid by salary or by commission. Have the Government no views on that point?
    Sir W. ROBSON: I think I have fairly expressed the view of the Government. What I said was that it does not seem advisable at the present stage to decide the question of salary or fees. It may be that both methods may be adopted or only one. A great deal will depend upon the appointments which are made by the Reference Committee. The Reference Committee will make the panel and decide how the selection is to be made. Then when the panel is made up and the mode of selection is determined the question of payment will be decided. I think the Government will be well advised in not committing itself now to any definite opinion, much less to a definite statement, as to which is the better plan. Of course, the matter has been considered, and is now being considered, but no final con-

    1455
    clusion ought to be arrived at until after consultation with the Reference Committee. I think when the whole organisation is mapped out it will then be the most appropriate time to decide the question.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman puts forward two very different propositions, and I do not quite understand which it is that he relies upon. As to the matter of number, I think me are agreed; but he says it is right that the Government should have an opportunity of consulting with the Committee of Reference. That is one suggestion in which there may be some reason. That would not take very long to do. In the same breath he says it would not be wise to settle the question of salary and how the salary is to be paid until these gentlemen are actually appointed. That is a very different proposition. I think some settlement should be arrived at before that stage. I think the Government might very well take counsel with this Committee of Reference, which is a very strong Committee, and it may be reasonable to ask that the consultation should take place before any definite statement is made; but I do not see why that should not have been done already. It seems to me that it would have been possible to ascertain their opinion privately and put some suggestions before the House. That might certainly be done before the Report stage. Friends of mine have Amendments down, and they hold strong views on the important question in regard to the difference between salary and commission. There are pros and cons on both sides, and I agree it is not a thing which can be settled without very careful consideration. I quite see that if you pay by salary it is extremely difficult to settle, because you cannot state beforehand how much work is likely to fall upon the Referee. If you pay by commission, you are giving a direct incentive to high valuations, and one of my Friends has an Amendment down to distinctly prohibit that form of payment. I admit there is a difficulty, but it has to be faced, and I submit that that is a point on which we are all competent to form some judgment, and we ought to have an opportunity of exercising it, and it is the duty of the Government to give us some considered proposal on these very important points of principle. I think my Friends will be prepared to leave the matter over to the Report stage and not to press the Government unduly to give their
    1456
    decision, because it is obviously a fair suggestion that they should consult the Committee of Reference. But on the Report stage they should be prepared to give us their views, and we should have an opportunity of coming to a decision upon it, and that it should not be left entirely to rules to be settled after the matter has passed entirely out of the hands of the House of Commons.
    Mr. A. B. MARKHAM: I hope the Committee are not going to divest themselves of all their powers in this matter and hand over to the Reference Committee a question of high principle, namely, payment by commission or salary. I think the whole principle of payment by commission is vicious and wrong, and it is highly vicious and wrong in this particular case where there will be a direct incentive to make high values. I hope the Attorney-General will consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that on the Report stage we shall have something definite before the House, and that the House will not divorce itself from this power to settle what is, after all, a question for the House.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I entirely concur with what my hon. Friend has said as to payment by commission, but I do not think there is the slightest fear of that mode of payment being taken out of the hands of the Treasury into those of the Reference Committee. The Treasury have to approve the rules. The provision with regard to rules is that they cover the mode of selection of the Referee. That mode of selection is certainly a matter material to the consideration of the mode of payment. All I would say is that it is desirable that the rules should be drafted before the appointments are made, and that those who make the appointments should have ample means of considering the mode of selection. In fact, they must see what the mode of selection is to be before deciding as to the mode of payment. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said about considering the matter between now and the Report stage will not be neglected. Though I do not desire to make any definite pledge, I would say that I see some difficulty in taking private expressions of opinion in regard to this matter. I am disposed to think that those to whom we might apply would not care to give any expression of their opinion, because they would not have all the material facts before them. I do not think we shall be able to get any indi-

    1457
    cation of their views before the Bill has actually become law. So far as it is practicable, I think the Government should put themselves in the position of giving some indication to the House of their own view.
    Mr. CAVE: Is it proposed that the appellant, or whoever goes to the Court, should pay the fees, or that he should have the assistance of the tribunal without payment of fees? Of course, that would have a bearing on the question of remuneration.
    Sir W. ROBSON: That probably would have to be considered by the framers of the rule.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I do hope that the Attorney-General will be able to say more with respect to this matter before the Report stage than he has indicated in his reply. We have on the Paper several Amendments dealing with the question of the Referees. We are leaving the most important part, namely, the appointment of the Referees to a Committee or to a Treasury official. There is, I regret to say, a tendency to place matters of this kind in the hands of officials. I would ask the Committee to look at the importance of this question. The Referee is to have absolute power as to the payment of costs. Supposing he is a salaried official, then, of course, it does not matter to him who has to pay the costs of a particular litigation, but, if on the other hand, his fees have to be charged as part of the cost of the trial, as frequently happens in the case of Referees, he will be interested in the time of the settlement. His interest will be to give costs against an appellant. I do not think that is a desirable state of things myself. Surely it is a question for the House to determine. If the Referee has an interest in a particular job the House ought to determine how the remuneration is to be met, and the question of payment should not be left to the Committee of Referees subject to a certain kind of consent on the part of the Treasury. The Government will be bombarded with applications for appointments as Referees in different parts of the country, and it is perfectly right that the Committee of Reference should be the people to choose the applicants who should be appointed. I do hope that the Government will see their way to let the House on the Report stage have an opportunity of determining the very important question of how the Referees are to be remunerated.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The important point which emerges in this matter is whether the Referees are to be paid by salary or commission. I think there will be a general feeling that, although there are objections to both courses, obviously the objections to payment by salary are more objections as to machinery which can be adjusted. I quite understand that it is extremely difficult to know beforehand how much work is likely to fall to the Referees, and therefore to fix a salary which is to be enduring, but it does seem quite possible to fix a preliminary salary which might be varied after we have had experience in the matter. The objections to payment by commission are objections of principle which cannot be got over. I think everybody will admit, without imputing any motives to anyone whatever, that you cannot take out of the purview of any question of this kind what is the interest of the person himself. He may be the most honourable man in the world, but even if he does not act in his own interest there is always a suspicion which is repugnant. There is an Amendment standing lower down on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. G. D. Faber) to insert the words, "Provided that such fees or remuneration shall in no case be fixed on a sliding scale according to the value ascertained." I hope when that Amendment is moved the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept it.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think it would be undesirable to introduce any form of words here. I do not mind saying now that nothing could be more undesirable than that anything in the nature of payment by results should be adopted. It is no reflection on the honour of anyone to say that no man ought to be put in that position. I agree that that ought not to be the method of payment. I think I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this question will be carefully considered.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: May I take it that it will be provided for in the rules?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It must be in the rules.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That payment shall not be by commission?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance now.
    Mr. CAVE: I would point out to the right hon Gentleman that in the lower

    1459
    part of the clause there are the words "as the Treasury shall direct." This matter, therefore, is entirely in the hands of the Treasury.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If it is entirely in the hands of the Treasury, I have no hesitation in saying that it would be a most undesirable way of payment.
    Mr. MARKHAM: There is one point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has lost sight of. The President of the Institute of Mining Engineers is not on this panel. Mining is a very much larger industry than agriculture, and surely the President of the Institute of Mining Engineers ought to be a member of this panel? I make that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendments made, in Section (1), after the word "persons" ["number of persons"], insert the words "being persons who have been admitted Fellows of the Surveyors' Institution or other persons."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    In Section (1), after the word "land" ["valuation of land"], insert the words "as may be appointed for England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively by the Reference Committee shall form a panel of persons."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, at end of Section (1), to insert the words, "in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, and persons having experience in the valuation of minerals shall be included in each panel."
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Having put off the question of mineral claims, might you not do the same with regard to this? It would seem to be rather prejudging the question to put these words in there.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not want to prejudge that question. I have inserted this Amendment at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Durham and others. It does not really prejudge the question; but it will be considered on Report.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: There is one point in reference to the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. G. D. Faber) to insert at end of Section (1) the words, "all such appointments to be
    1460
    yearly but renewable, provided that the holders of such appointments, or the firms of which they are members, are not to act as valuers for private individuals in Crown matters during their term of office." The first part, I think, has already been dealt with by the Attorney-General, but I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give us his views as to the latter part of the Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The suggestion as to not acting as valuers for private individuals in Crown matters is to ensure that they are absolutely impartial. I will consider that point.
    9.0 A.M.
    Mr. PRETYMAN Mr. PRETYMAN moved, at the end of Section (1), to insert the words, "Provided always that the Treasury shall cause an account of all appointments of Referees with salaries to be laid before each House of Parliament within twenty days after their appointment respectively if Parliament shall then be sitting, and, if Parliament shall not be sitting, then within twenty days after the next meeting of Parliament." This Amendment, which was put down by my right hon. Friend (Sir Edward Carson), follows exactly the precedent of the Income Tax Act, 1842. The reason for this is most obvious. It is most desirable that this House, and the Members of this House, should have cognisance of the appointments made.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This is not the kind of case provided for by the Income Tax Act. That Act referred to special Commissioners who received permanent appointments, and I can quite understand that it would be most desirable to have a provision of the kind in the case of these Commissioners. The Referee is a totally different class of person. You do not appoint Referees with salaries. You have a panel from which you draw. A valuer is chosen from that panel, with a fee for the special case, and the appointment is not a case in which we could possibly notify Parliament of the appointment of the Referee chosen to decide in every individual case. I think that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) must have had something else in his mind; such as, for instance, that the Referee was a salaried person, an official of the Crown. That is not true at all.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: It seems reasonable that the Treasury should have some control over the amount which the Treasury is to allow.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Parliament must decide the scale of fees. The right hon. Gentleman was under the impression that these Referees are salaried persons like the Special Commissioners, and that their appointment ought to be notified to Parliament. Obviously, the kind of transaction which takes place here, the selection of a Referee, is not such a matter as could be notified to Parliament.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLEMENTAL.

  CLAUSE 24.—(Exemption for Land held by Rating Authorities.)
  (1) No duty under this Part of this Act shall be charged in respect of any land or interest in land held by a rating authority, and 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.
  (2) For the purposes of this section the expression "rating authority" means anybody who have power to raise a rate or administer money raised by a rate, and the expression "rate" means a rate, the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes, and which is leviable on the basis of an assessment in respect of the yearly value of property, and includes any sum which, though obtained in the first instance by a precept, certificate, or other instrument requiring payment from some authority or officer, is or can be ultimately raised out of a rate as before defined.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER moved, in Section (1) to leave out the word "rating" ["held by a rating authority"], and to insert instead thereof the word "local."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I accept the Amendment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: As to the word "local," it might refer to various bodies, such as the parish council or other local authorities.
  Mr. CAVE: Some authorities are within the definition of rating authorities who are not local authorities, such as joint committees and bodies of that kind. Unless
  1462
  there is a definition of "local" it would rather lead to confusion to insert that word.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I rather understood the suggestion was to exclude such persons as Commissioners of Rivers and so forth with power of levying rates. As the Bill stands it would include all such bodies as those. If the word "rating" were struck out and the word "local" put in, such bodies would come within the purview of the Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will consider the point raised by the hon. Members.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I would suggest the words "local or rating authority" would cover the whole ground.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: This Amendment was put down by the President and Vice-President of the Municipal Corporations Association, who are not in the House, for the purpose of excluding rating authorities.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The word "local" might be inserted in front of "rating."
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I accept the Amendment in that form, and ask leave to withdraw my own Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I move to insert the words "local or" before the word "rating," making the section read, "held by a local or rating authority."
  Mr. HOLT Mr. HOLT moved to insert after the words "local or rating authority" the words "and situated within the area in which the authority has power to raise a rate."
  I move this Amendment with the object of getting a certain amount of information. The Committee must be aware that there are certain local authorities who have landed estates entirely outside their own boundaries. It is obvious therefore that they are going to be relieved entirely from the payment of this tax in respect of land outside their own boundaries. I should like to understand first of all on what principle the rating authorities have been relieved from the tax, as I understand it, in respect of land inside their own boun-

  1463
  daries, and is it quite fair that in regard to land which they hold outside their boundaries that they should be entirely relieved from this taxation?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If this were a rating proposition I could well understand the Amendment, but it is a question of Imperial taxation for Imperial purposes, and I really cannot see that there is any distinction between rating and taxation. [An HON. Member: "Part goes to the rates."] Part has to go to the rates, but not to the rates of the particular locality in which the land is situated. I think it would be very undesirable if you are going to exclude the property of local authorities at all, that the provision should not be made as complete as possible.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment for this reason, which immediately occurs to any of us who have made a study of this Bill. There are a great many cases in which the rating authorities own very large properties which are necessarily outside their own boundaries. Take the Corporation of Liverpool, for instance. That city has one of the finest water supplies in the world. It owns a very large property in Wales, and a very large property in Lancashire, where there are immense watersheds, and where hundreds of thousands and millions of money have been sunk in order to secure a water supply, not only for Liverpool but for certain towns on the way lying between the watersheds and that city. It is a right thing that the rating authorities should be relieved from paying this special form of taxation, which is more or less in its nature punitive, and from which I think they ought to be relieved, because no case has been made out why rating authorities, which represent the aggregate public, should pay any such taxes as are proposed by this Bill. If they are to be relieved in respect of lands within their own boundaries, there seems to be no logical reason whatever why they should not be also relieved in respect of those properties which, for public purposes, they are obliged to own outside their own area. It would be impossible, within the boundaries of a city like Manchester, to have a water supply, and so they have to go to the lakes and have an immense estate in which they have to spend large sums of money. I think those properties should be free from such a tax as the Increment Tax and the other
  1464
  Land Taxes. I think the hon. Member's Amendment, in which he seeks to bring those properties within the purview of the Bill is ill-conceived, and I hope he will take the hint he has had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and withdraw it.
  Sir ROBERT PERKS: I think there is something more to be said for this case than what has been suggested. Let me put the case of the City of London, the case of a large number of houses in Bond-street. The Corporation of London has no power to levy rates in Bond-street, and yet it has a number of most valuable shops, which, because they belong to the Corporation of the City of London, will be exempt under this Clause from Increment Taxes. [An HON. Member: "Why not?"] I am only putting that case as it seems to me. I do not believe in the principle, and I have said so at the beginning. I am only pointing out the importance, if you are going to deal this blow all round, deal it fairly, and do not exempt some of the richest corporations in the world, simply because it is convenient perhaps to make these concessions to them. It seems to me that the case of the Corporation of the City of London, where they hold shops on leases renewable every few years on payment of fines is, if any case is indefensible at all, just the sort of case where die Increment Tax would be fairly chargeable. I do not know what the Corporation do with them and whether they use them for the purpose of entertaining foreign potentates or for perhaps a variety of purposes better known to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) than to me. No doubt those uses may be most important and most useful to the community, but, at the same time, I do think that, if this tax is going to be equitably levied and if you do not charge this duty on shops belonging to the City of London, then the inference is that the taxation of the adjacent men will rise. Consequently, if you are going to charge the duty, you want to have as few exemptions as possible, either for charitable institutions, and I mentioned the case of the Ecclesiastical Commission the other day, or of various corporations that I could quote. I think the illustration I have given is germane to the subject, and I think there is a great deal to be said for the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The hon. Baronet, who has just spoken, has said

  1465
  that the principle of the Bill, as I gather, is inequitable, and with that I quite agree. But because the principle is inequitable I am charitable enough to exempt all those people from the inequitable principle that I can manage to do. Therefore, I am opposed to the Amendment. May I point cut to the hon. Baronet that his speech is hardly logical. If he had moved an Amendment, which said that every body or corporations or societies, charitable or otherwise, should be included in the Bill, and that there should be no exemptions, I am not at all sure I should not agree with them.
  Sir R. PERKS: That is the view I hold.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is not the Amendment. The Amendment is quite different. It is to the effect that certain corporations shall be exempted for certain property, but that they shall not be exempted for other property. That seems to me to be absolutely unfair. Corporations may hold property outside their own area, and the hon. Baronet asked what the City of London did with the property which they held outside their area. I can tell him some of the usages to which they put the property outside their area. Take the Bridgehouse estates of the Corporation of the City of London. They were given to the City of London as far back as 1274, and they have been used ever since that year in building the bridges, the four bridges—Blackfriars, Southwark, London Bridge, and Tower Bridge—not only for the benefit of the City of London, but for the benefit of the citizens of the whole of what is called London. The consequence of that is that those bridges have been managed in a perfect system of efficiency, and have been freed from all tolls, and have been used not only by the City, but by everybody who comes to London from all parts of the world. Why should that particular property which has been put to that use be excluded from the exemptions which apply to some small corporation which happens to have a little land in its own area, and which is used for some small local purpose. I fail to see any reason in the defence of the hon. Baronet, who generally is a very good debater. I must say I agree with the attitude he has taken up on this Bill, but I fail to see any reason for supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member. It is an invidious Amendment, which is aimed to strike at the larger corporations where they happen to have property outside their own area, and which property they use for the good
  1466
  of the community, and if the Amendment is pressed I shall vote against it.
  Mr. HOLT: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I must say, at the same time, I really cannot see the justice of allowing the citizens of London to collar the whole of the increment in Bond-street or the citizens of Liverpool the whole of the increment in Vyrnwy.
  Mr. PEEL Mr. PEEL rose.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: On a point of order, I understand my hon. Friend has asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Leave to withdraw the Amendment being withheld,
  Mr. PEEL: I want to get an answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a particular point on this matter. No doubt a great deal may be said on the general question as to whether property in the hands of the municipalities should or should not be charged with those duties. On that point there might be a considerable amount of argument; but whether you should draw a distinction between property of the municipality inside and outside their area is a matter which does not bear much argument. It is perfectly well known that under the Housing Act municipal authorities have power to acquire land outside their area as well as inside. It is the whole tendency and policy of municipal activity nowadays to carry people for housing purposes, if they can, to areas outside the towns, and is it really suggested that they should be penalised for trying to follow that enlightened policy? It would be absurd to do so; it would have the effect of confining housing operations to inside the municipality. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a reference to the allocation of these grants to municipalities. That raises a very important point. I should like to know whether the statement of the Prime Minister as to the net amount of these taxes—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is not strictly germane to the Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. PEEL: Then I will not press the point further. But it is a very important matter, closely affecting municipalities, and I should not have attempted to raise it had not the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to it.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that this was not a rating question, but a question of giving

  1467
  general assistance to municipal authorities. Are we to understand that this money is not to be allocated to the various local authorities in proportion to the amounts received from them? I should like to know what the principle of allocation is to be.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Obviously that does not arise on this Amendment.
  Mr. CAVE: One of the arguments urged in favour of the Amendment was that it is very hard to deprive an authority in whose district there is situate property belonging to another authority of its share of the tax from that property. The answer given was that that would not arise, because it was not proposed to give to each authority a moiety of the tax arising within its own borders. Are we to understand that that is the proposal of the Government? Or is it proposed to divide, on some other principle, the whole of the land taxes arising under this part of the Bill among the authorities generally throughout the country?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I simply referred to the intention of the Government as stated by me on an earlier occasion. I said that, in my judgment, when we came to the distribution, I did not think the money ought to be allocated merely to the district in which the money was raised.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER moved, in Section (1), after the word "authority" ["in respect of such land which would have been collected from the authority"], the words, ("whether on the occasion of the transfer on sale of the land, or any interest in the land, or the grant of a lease of the land, or on the periodical occasions provided in this Act").
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I accept that.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. PEEL Mr. PEEL moved, at the end of Subsection (1), to add the words, "No Reversion Duty under this Part of this Act shall be chargeable in respect of the period during which any land is held by a rating authority and is not so held at the determination of the lease of such land, and in such event the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act be deemed to be the amount (if any) by which the total value
  1468
  of the land at the time the lease determines exceeds the amount of the consideration paid to the rating authority for their interest in the reversion."
  The object of this Amendment is to apply to local authorities as regards the Reversion Duty the same principle as is to be applied in regard to the Increment Duty. It is perfectly clear, if the Reversion Duty-is to run against the property of local authorities, that when they wish to sell it they will get less than they otherwise would because the purchaser will have to consider in the price he gives the amount that will have to be paid for Reversion Duty. Therefore the effect of the Amendment is that, as in the case of Increment Duty, no Reversion Duty should be deemed to have been paid or should not run through the period during which the property is owned by the municipality. This is by no means an academic Motion on behalf of municipalities. May I give one or two instances of what would happen in the case of the London County Council, on whose behalf the Amendment is chiefly moved, although, no doubt, it applies to other municipalities as well. The London County Council owns a great deal of property and some large ground rents. Under the present law those ground rents have to be sold, some by 1929, others by 1941, others by 1949, and all within periods of 60 years from the date of the Act authoising the improvements in connection with which they were acquired, as the lands are held as assets for a sinking fund and the Council's authorised stocks redeemable at the dates mentioned. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that if these lands have to be sold their value as assets will be considerably diminished by the fact that the purchaser will have to take into consideration the amount of the Reversion Duty which will become payable. I submit, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he proposes to exempt from these taxes the local authorities, is bound almost to accept an Amendment of this kind, which places the property of the municipalities on the same basis as regards the Reversion Duty as the section does with regard to the Increment Value Duty. It protects their property from any diminution from the fact that the duty may be levied on the property.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot accept this Amendment.
  Mr. W. PEEL: The matter is a perfectly simple operation. You simply take the

  1469
  difference between the time the lease was granted and the value of the land when the reversion falls in, if it has belonged to the municipality some time. It is exceedingly easy to calculate the value by which it has increased. It is certainly easy in the case of ground rents created by the municipalities, because at a certain
  date they are sold; and they can be valued; and the duty runs from that date.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 201.

  Division No. 482.]

  AYES.

  [9.40 p.m.

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

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gordon, J.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester;

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Renwick, George

  Bridgeman W. Clive

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hill Sir Clement

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cave, George

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

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

  Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Fell, Arthur

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Peel and Mr. J. W. Hills.

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newdegate, F. A.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hooper, A. G.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

  Armitage, R.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hudson, Walter

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Elibank, Master of

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Essex, R. W.

  Jenkins, J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire).

  Beauchamp, E.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jowett, F. W.

  Beck, A Cecil

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bell, Richard

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Laldlaw, Robert

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

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lamont, Norman

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Gill, A. H.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Brace, William

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Brigg, John

  Glover, Thomas

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Bright, J. A.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Hancock, J. G.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

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

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Harwood, George

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Maraham, F. J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Clough, William

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Middlebrook, William

  Clynes, J. R.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Worrell, Philip

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

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Henry, Charles S.

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

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Myer, Horatio

  Crooks, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Napier, T. B.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hodge, John

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Crossley, William J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nicholls, George

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Verney, F. W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Vivian, Henry

  O'Grady, J.

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

  Walsh, Stephen

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sears, J. E.

  Wardie, George J.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Seely, Colonel

  Waring, Walter

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Shackleton, David James

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Watt, Henry A.

  Pointer, J.

  Snowden, P.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Radford, G. H.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Summerbell, T.

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Rees, J. D.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  Richardson, A.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Winfrey, R.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wood, T. M-Kinnon

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Tillet, Louis John

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Tomkinson, James

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Toulmin, George

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

  Rowlands, J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Question, "That the word 'means' be substituted for the word 'includes'" put, and agreed to.

  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER moved to leave out the word "rating" ["For the purposes of this section, the expression 'rating authority' means any body who have power to raise a rate"], and to insert the word "local."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Is this a consequential Amendment? I think it is a definition of rating, and, therefore, is not quite consequential. Here the words are "for the purpose of this section, the rating authority means any body." You cannot have a local or rating authority defined in this way. We have no definition of "local," and I should like to ask the learned Attorney-General: Is it necessary to have a definition? The Amendment we are now considering is to insert the word "local" for the word "rating." Clearly you cannot have local as a definition of rating. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the meaning of the word "local" is so clearly established that it is unnecessary to define it, and if it is not unnecessary, could he tell us where the definition is inserted?
  Sir W. ROBSON: We have in the preceding sub-section called the rating authority the local authority.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: We have said "local and rating."
  Sir W. ROBSON: Well, then, it should be "local or rating." [An Hon. MEMBER: "No, no."]
  Mr. CAVE: So far from this Amendment being consequential, its results would be to destroy the effect of the previous Amendment. The effect of the
  1472
  other Amendment was to extend, to add to the rating authority the local authority.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right; it is not consequential.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER moved to leave out the word "means" ["For the purposes of this section, the expression rating authority means any body"] and to insert "includes the mayor, alderman and burgesses of a borough, the council of any county, urban or rural district, or parish, and." It is necessary to have some further definition; the mere word rating will not do, and although the words I propose may not be the best words, still I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider them.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the hon. Gentleman will find these words are quite unnecessary, but if they were necessary at all they would rather come in in the definition of the local authority. I will consider the question whether it is necessary to define the local authority, and if I find that such is the case I will consider the words of the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think it is very desirable that a few words should be said upon this question. Some light was thrown upon this clause in the discussion which took place moved by the hon. Member for

  1473
  Hexham (Mr. It. D. Holt), and we now see what a curious position the Government find themselves in with regard to this duty. We have, first of all, the suggestion that local authorities are not chargeable with those duties in their own area, and then it becomes obvious that some local authorities have property outside their own area; then someone on the opposite side of the House discovered to his horror that the City of London was included among the rating authorities, and that the Corporation of the City of London owned property in Bond-street. From all that emerges this fact, that the local authority and the rating authority hold property exactly as other people do, and that they are in the estate market as competitors with private individuals. Let us consider for one moment what effect this duty will have upon both sides. First of all, its effect upon the private individual in competition with the local authority; and, secondly, what is going to be the effect upon the rating authority themselves, notwithstanding this exemption. The rating authority for the future is going to be a competitor in the open market with private owners. It is going to be given a great advantage, and the private owner is going to be handicapped because in the first place the local authority will have to pay none of those duties, in the second place it is exempt from the Death Duties, and in the third place it is going to receive from a half of the sum which is withdrawn by these three taxes from its private competitor. To that extent it is a great handicap to the private individual, and in favour of the local authority. It might appear that there is going to be given to the local authority a tremendous advantage and a great gain under the Bill. I very much doubt whether that result is going to come about, because, after all, the object which the Government have themselves stated, when they produced these proposals, is to cheapen land. How is that process to be brought about? Land is to be cheapened by reducing competition for it. You are by putting on these taxes reducing competition for land, and therefore you Eire going to reduce the price. If you succeed in that you are also going to affect the local authorities quite as much as the private individual. Take, for example, property in Bond-street, owned by the City of London. Is it conceivable that the City Corporation or the County Council of London, who own leases of property in various parts of the
  1474
  Metropolis, are going to continue to get a high price when the adjoining property, belonging to private individuals, is going to be lowered in price? The mere statement of that fact disproves it, and you cannot reduce the value of the property of private individuals by competition without reducing the value of the same class of property belonging to local authorities. But that argument carries us even further. Hon. Members below the Gangway may realise that the increment, which it is the object of this tax to obtain for the State, only accrues by private competition, and if you reduce that by taking the increment the more you take the more you will reduce private competition in property. When you have taken a certain amount of increment you will destroy all competition for the property, and then there will be no increment to take. That is what must happen. As long as you have sufficient inducement for private individuals in the hope of profit to purchase and lease this class of property, so long will these corporations engaged in exactly similar transactions have the advantage of the estates market mainly created by the exertions of private individuals. By attacking those private individuals as you do by this tax you reduce the value of property, and thus affect the market. In this matter the laws of supply and demand are too much for you, and you cannot raise the value of property in the hands of corporations and at the same time depress property which is in the hands of private individuals. The thing cannot be done. The measure of the injury to private individuals is exactly the measure of the injury to public authorities. I think that is rather important in view of this particular clause, which is an exemption of rating authorities. To that extent we are glad to see any property from the broadest standpoint, quite apart from the question who owns it, exempted, because the more property is brought within the purview of this tax the less you will depreciate the value of other property. Anything we can do to reduce the burden of this tax or reduce the area upon which it falls is going to be to the benefit of the community as a whole. From that point of view I think it is desirable that I should say these few words, because we cannot allow this occasion to pass without emphasising the facts which a clause like this brings out, and which show how impossible it is for a tax of this kind to carry out the object of the Government.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not intend to make a speech. All I want to do is to ask two

  1475
  or three questions. We all know that the object of these Land Clauses must be one of two things, either to bring revenue or improve the method by which the land affected is used by the owners. We all know it will not bring in revenue, because it is admitted by everybody that these taxes will bring in no revenue. We may, therefore, confine our attention to the supposed improvement in the manner in which the property is used. I would like to know what information have the Government at their disposal showing that property in the hands of corporations is used better than property in the hands of private individuals. Has it a different origin? Take a case where a local authority owns land in the region of some other local authority. Why should the ratepayers under the first local authority benefit by the social efforts of the ratepayers under the second authority? Why should the ratepayers of the second local authority, who have done all that has been done to increase the value of the land, contribute to the rates of the first authority? I would also like to ask whether there is any ground for believing that the sin of holding up land and preventing it coming into general use for building purposes is more exemplified by the private owner than the local authority? I know two local authorities which have been holding up land in their possession for a higher price for many years—the County Council of London is one, and the Corporation of Glasgow is the other. You could not find two greater or more public-spirited bodies representing greater communities than those two great local authorities. Do the Government deny that those two authorities have been holding up land? I am sure they cannot deny it. If holding up land be a crime against social order why are the local authorities which commit that crime not subjected to the same fine as private individuals? My third question relates to the manner in whch house property is dealt with when a lease comes to its end. Have the Government any ground for believing that the blackmailing practice of which private owners are accused is any the less practised by public authorities. I know for a fact that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests do exactly what every private owner does, and they do it with at least equal ardour for the gain which comes to an owner of property at the end of a long lease. Is there any ground for believing that a municipal authority does not act in this way? As far
  1476
  as I know they act in precisely the same manner.
  They are, like private owners, blackmailers, and, being blackmailers like private owners, I suggest they should be treated like private owners, and that their crime should be visited upon their heads by the same fiscal machinery by which the Government mean to visit the crimes of private owners upon their heads. These are the main points upon which criticism has been directed against private owners of building property in this country. On every one of those points the course pursued by private owners is precisely the same course pursued by municipal owners, and I venture to suggest there is no justification in logic, equity, or utility for treating the one in a way different than you treat the other.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman put a series of interrogatories to me. I do not think he really asked for information; it was his method, and a very effective method, of criticism. He forgot one thing altogether. The main; object of these provisions is fiscal. These are proposals for raising revenue. That seems rather to amuse the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. Let us take the first point. The right hon. Gentleman, realising that, starts by saying very airily, "It is admitted by everybody that no revenue will be raised." Who is everybody? The Ministers in charge of the Bill have certainly never admitted that. On the contrary, I am Budgeting for £675,000, to be raised this year. That is not a mean revenue after all, and next year I venture to say it will certainly be more than double that amount, and it will grow year after year until I have not the slightest hesitation in saying it will amount to millions a year. I have not the slightest hesitation in declaring that. The main object, therefore, of these provisions is purely a fiscal one, and when the right hon. Gentleman says that everybody has admitted that no revenue is being raised, I challenge him to point out a single statement made by any responsible persons on this side of the House in which any admission of that kind has ever been made. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to criticise the action of local authorities.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Oh, no, I did not; I said it was the same as that of private-individuals.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: He said they hold up land; but, after all, local authori-

  1477
  ties acquire land very often under the compulsion of the central authority for purely public purposes. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman another thing. They acquire land for which, as a rule, they are compelled by local landowners to pay five times its value. That is a considerable distinction. I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to follow some of the transactions. Local authorities are compelled to acquire land for public health, for water, and for the essential needs of the community. They pay for barren moorland as if every yard of it were most valuable land, although it is scores of miles away from any population. That is the condition of local authorities. They are not land speculators; they are people who simply acquire land because they are obliged to acquire it for public purposes. That is a very different thing. Then I come to the right hon. Gentleman's third point. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks the Office of Woods and Forests a local authority. I am not sure it is relevant to this clause, but what is the position with regard to that? I quoted those cases, and let me remind him I am not the first person to use the word "blackmail." The charge of blackmail was brought in respect of one of these very transactions by one of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, the proprietor of the "Daily Telegraph," the paper which has been more abusive of my use of the word than any other, who said transactions of that kind were blackmail. Therefore my adjective was a second-hand one. It had not even the merits of originality. I borrowed it from one of the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will give his supporter a really good, sound talking to. Let me take that point: Every penny of the value of the land which comes to the Office of Woods and Forests goes to the Treasury, and the right hon. Gentleman would mete out the same treatment to the private owners. Would he really like us to mete out the same measure of justice, as he puts it, to the private owner? One hundred per cent, is what the Office of Woods and Forests contributes to the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Treat private owners in the same way." I am a much more moderate man than he is. I am satisfied with 10 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman says, "No, I will have nothing but 100 per cent.; equality, that is what I am in for." His views are very extreme,' very revolutionary,' very confiscatory. I am here
  1478
  urging the acceptance of this moderate pittance of 10 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman says 100 per cent. I do not go quite so far. Those are the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and I claim to have answered every one of them, and to have dealt with them exhaustively, fairly, and, I think, in the spirit in which they were put to me. The only other point is with regard to the public authority. The same criticism applies as with regard to the Office of Woods and Forests. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) talked about the local authority as if they were a sort of rival landowner outside competing in the market. The local authority are the people of this country. Whatever advantage and profit they get, it is a profit we all get. It is not like the private local landowner, and therefore you cannot tax it. If you tax the local authority, it is merely taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. That is why we are drawing the distinction which we have done. We have been asked why we give this favour to local authorities? My reply is that it is because they are public bodies, representing the bulk of the people, and doing work in the public interest.
  Lord R. CECIL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer began what was a purely humorous conclusion to the Debate with a paradox which, I think, perhaps, rather went beyond the ordinary limits of a paradox. He said this was a purely fiscal proposal, and he proceeded to justify that by the statement that he Budgeted for a return of £675,000. But he did not Budget for that amount. He Budgeted for a return of £500,000, and he forgot to tell the Committee that from that £500,000 would have to be deducted the cost of collection, so that the net result could not be more than £200,000, because he has informed us that this year the cost of collection will be £300,000. Apart from that, since his Budget statement, considerable reductions have been made in the tax.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I explain that the £300,000 is due to the fact that the burden of valuation has been undertaken by the State, and when the Government introduced their new valuation proposal they also introduced a new proviso which added to the tax, so as to make it produce £675,000.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: That makes it £370,000. A considerable deduction will also have to be made in respect of the

  1479
  Amendments the right hon. Gentleman has put into the proposal, and, as far as the Exchequer is concerned, not less than one-half of the result is to go, in some form or another, to local purposes.
  Sir F. BANBURY: We have it on the authority of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, given in answer to a question today, that the sum to go to local authorities this year is one-half of £675,000. Therefore the result is practically nothing.
  Lord R. CECIL: I do not propose to go into the details of this question. It is quite plain that one fact emerges from the whole discussion, and that is that the morality of certain actions depends entirely upon whether they are done by private individuals or by local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman has wholly failed to meet this point. He has made in the country charges—I will not say of immorality—but of the gross misuse of private rights by private individuals, and it is folly for him to come to the House and deny that that is the meaning of those charges. Everybody knows that he meant that, and if he did not mean it, then the proper and straightforward course is for him to get up and say that he withdraws this charge, and is sorry for it, but if he adheres to the charge against private individuals—the charge of dealing with the land in an unconscionable way—it is equally a charge against the local authorities. It is perfectly immaterial what happens to the money, but it does matter that the money is obtained. Otherwise it might be said that you may steal for a good purpose. Let us probe this question. It is said that if you use the power you have as the owner of land to exact a large price for granting the renewal of a lease you are acting in a way which may fairly be called blackmailing to the future tenant. That is a charge that you are using your ownership of land in an improper and unconscionable way against the individual tenant. If it is a charge of blackmailing in the case of a private owner, how can it possibly not be a charge of blackmailing in the case of the local authority? As far as the individual is concerned, the person who is alleged to be blackmailed, it makes no difference to him at all; it is absolutely immaterial to that individual whether he is blackmailed by the local authority, or by the private individual. The truth is that blackmail, or any such expression, is utterly contrary to the facts.
  1480
  There is no such case, as the Leader of the Opposition said, and the Prime Minister himself pointed out. There is no ground for making such a charge, and in my humble opinion it never ought to have been made. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that, at any rate, the local authority have paid for this land five times its real value, and that they have often paid for moorland the price of building land. I think the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that that is a very gross exaggeration, and I will give the reason why I think it is a very gross exaggeration. Everyone knows that some years ago in London the London County Council had a Betterment Scheme, but they abandoned it for reasons that satisfied them, and they adopted in its place a different scheme, which was to buy compulsorily under their private Act when they were carrying out an improvement a considerable section of land on both sides of the improvement, and the reason they did that was this—they bought the land at the fair market price, no doubt, with 10 per cent, added, according to the custom of surveyors for compulsory purchase—they bought the land at the same price as anyone who exercised compulsory powers, and they re-sold it, improved by the improvement they carried out, and made a profit sometimes more, sometimes less, upon the transaction which went towards the cost of the improvement. If they pay five times the value of the land it is quite inconceivable that they should always have resold it and made anything like a profit. As a matter of fact, though unquestionably there are cases in which, by the clauses of arbitration, very much too large a sum has been given in cases of compulsory purchase, on the whole compulsory purchase does not act anything like as unfairly as is constantly alleged. The Under-Secretary for Home Affairs has no doubt a much larger experience than I have.
  The UNDER - SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): I have been in the Local Government Board.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Of course, I can only speak from my own experience, and I have seen something of these transactions, is not of that description. Sometimes too much is paid and sometimes too little, but on the whole, though there is a tendency, no doubt, to give an ample measure of compensation when land has been

  1481
  taken compulsorily, to say that five times the value is usually given is a grotesque exaggeration. It is true you may give a very much larger sum than the value of the land in its then condition. That is to say, you have to pay for its prospective value. I need not go into that, but there is no ground for the allegation of the right hon. Gentleman, and if there was I do not see what it has to do with the justification for these taxes. The right hon. Gentleman says after all these local authorities hold the land for public purposes, and that makes a distinction. One gross injustice arises from this very clause. The local authorities are in competition with private individuals in trading matters all over the country. You are going to say that in these very trading undertakings the local authority is to be free from taxes while the private individual is to pay them. Take the case of a gas company as one of many instances. It constantly happens that a gas company is in active competition with a municipality, yet the municipality is to be free from all taxes and the company is to pay them. There is no defence to that under this clause. In my judgment, though I entirely agree that any clause that diminishes the incidence of this tax is worthy of our support, who disapprove of it, I must say that the exemption of local authority appears to me to be absolutely unreasonable and absolutely indefensible on any theory of rating or taxation that has hitherto obtained in this country. Local authorities now pay rates, and there is no reason in the world that I can see why you should distinguish between rates and taxation. I shall certainly not vote against the Clause because it diminishes the amount of money which will be obtained by these taxes, but it appears to me to demonstrate that these taxes are based upon no real logical foundation and are absolutely indefensible in argument when it comes to the test.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to tell us that it did not very much matter how much he gave, either by way of the proportion of taxes raised or exemptions, to the local authority, because that is the same as giving money to the people. He went on to say, "Why did they give half of these taxes to the local authorities?" Because it was giving money to the people, whereas, of course, it is quite obvious that it was done to a very considerable extent to remove the opposition of local authorities all over the country to the way
  1482
  in which the taxes are levied. But the right hon. Gentleman went on, I understood, to rather dispute the statement that large local authorities held very large amounts of land for other than public purposes, but it is a fact that these local authorities hold large areas of land and hold them up. If there is holding up of land the local authorities are in a position of advantage over all private individuals, inasmuch as they can hold up land without paying this Undeveloped Land Tax, whereas a private individual has his land forced upon the market, and the local authority, by holding if- up, is able to gain a considerable advantage. These taxes have always been defended as being taxes on a windfall, which has come into the pocket of the private individual through the effort of the community. But I think we ought to pay attention to a case which certainly has occurred, and does occur in certain localities, where the exact converse is the case, and where the windfall is in the lap of the community by the expenditure and effort of private individuals in its immediate vicinity. There are several cases of towns in which the community, by the efforts and expenditure of private individuals—who own, of course, a large proportion of the land which has been developed—have derived enormous benefit. In these cases the windfall is entirely into the lap of the public authority, which has done nothing whatever to earn it, and yet they alone are to be exempt from any portion of the burden.

  CLAUSE 25.—(Exemption of land Held for Public or Charitable Purposes.)
  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, 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.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to move that this Clause be postponed.
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 26.—(Power to Charge Duty on Settled Land in Certain Cases.)
  (1) Where any land or interest in land in respect of which any duty under this Part of this Act is charged is settled land within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1882, and the tenant for life is the person who is liable to pay any sums on account of the duty, he shall be entitled to charge by deed upon the settled land any amount paid by him or which he may become liable to pay in respect of the duty, and the benefit of any such charge may be transferred in like manner as a mortgage.
  (2) A deed executed for the purposes of this section shall not take effect until notice thereof has been given to the trustees of the settlement for the purposes of the Settled Land Act, 1882.
  (3) Sections sixty and sixty-two of the Settled Land Act, 1882 (which relate to the exercise of powers on behalf of infants and lunatics), shall apply to the exercise of the power under this section in the same manner as they apply to the exercise of the powers of a tenant for life under that Act.
  (4) In Scotland, where any person having a limited interest in the land or interest in land in respect of which any duty under this Part of this Act is charged is the person who is liable to pay any sums on account of the duty, he shall be entitled to the like charge as if the sums paid in respect of that land or interest in land had been raised by means of a mortgage to him.
  Mr. LAMBTON: I beg to move to insert after the first word "land" the words "or minerals" in the first line of the clause. I submit this Amendment for the purpose of getting the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the mineral clauses.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Member wants a declaration from the Government as to whether the word "land" in this connection includes "minerals." The insertion of the words "or minerals" is not at all essential to the object of this clause.
  Mr. LAMBTON: If that is so I do not wish to press the Amendment. On other occasions we have been told that land does
  1484
  not include minerals. It is very doubtful from the discussions which have taken place whether land does include minerals. When we moved Amendments with respect to that question we were told that the matter would be discussed later on under the mineral clauses. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Further Amendment made: In Section (1), to leave out the words "charged is settled land within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1882," and to insert instead thereof the words "Increment Value Duty or Reversion Duty. "—[Mr. Pretyman.]
  Mr. LANE-FOX Mr. LANE-FOX moved, in Section (1), after the word "life" ["tenant for life"] to insert the words "or any person having the powers of a tenant for life within the meaning of said Act." This is a purely drafting Amendment which has been suggested to me as being necessary.
  Sir W. ROBSON: We are about to put down an Amendment ourselves to exactly the same effect, which will give an intimation to mortgagees, minors and others that they shall have power to add any duty that they might be obliged to pay, or in the case of trustees, that they should have power to charge the land with any duty that they might be called on to pay.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. PRETYMAN Mr. PRETYMAN moved, as a consequential Amendment, in Section (1), to leave out the word "duty" ["on account of the duty"] and to insert the words "either of these duties."
  Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, in Section (1), after the word "deed" ["charge by deed"] to insert the words "or deed poll under his hand and seal." I think that the effect of this Amendment would be carried out if the Government would leave out the word "deed." It is obvious that in a great many cases persons would simply want to create a statutory charge, that would be done by deed poll, and not by deed.
  Sir W. ROBSON: A deed poll is a deed, and there is no doubt a deed poll would be the instrument, because there are no other parties.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: A deed poll must be a deed, but a deed is not a deed poll, curiously enough. It is the same sort of argument as the dog and the animal; every dog is an animal, but every animal is not a dog.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Further Amendments made:—In Section (1), after "may" ["which he may become liable "], to insert the words "then be or may thereafter become."—[Mr. Lane-Fox.]
  In Section (1), to leave out the words "the duty" ["sums on account of the duty"], and to insert the words "either of these duties."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
  Mr. PRETYMAN Mr. PRETYMAN moved, after the word "duties" ["sums on account of either of these duties"], to insert the words, "and the amount of any expenditure which he may have reasonably incurred in connection with the valuation." The amount spent on valuation is clearly capital expenditure in order to ascertain the value of the property, and the tenant for life certainly ought to be allowed to charge that on the settled estate.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think it is perhaps desirable that this Amendment should be allowed.
  Mr. J. A. CLYDE Mr. J. A. CLYDE moved, in Section (4), to leave out the words, "to the like charge as if the sums paid in respect of that land or interest in land had been raised by means of a mortgage to him," and to insert the words, "to charge such land or such interest therein by means of a bond or disposition or assignation in security in his own favour which he is duly authorised to grant."
  As it stands that section is modelled, I think, on a somewhat similar Clause in the Act of 1894, which there applies to Scotland a really different principle from that which the present Bill proposes to apply to England in Section (1) of Clause 26. Under that section the plan is that if a tenant for life has had to pay duties he may himself charge the duties on the estate by an appropriate deed for the purpose. The object of my Amendment is to apply exactly the same procedure to the same cases which occur in Scotland, and to avoid what the Bill as it now stands would involve, namely, the incurring automatically of a charge on the
  1486
  land by the mere circumstance of the payment of the duty. Difficulties have arisen under a similar Clause in the Act of 1894 in Scotland, with the result that in one case in particular it turned out that a man's representative had to pay the duty on the instalment Death Duty paid by the deceased which he never intended to charge, but which the law told him otherwise, and which the law never told him how he could have discharged during his own lifetime. I think it is worth while to avoid risks of that kind, and so I move the Amendment.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Viscount HELMSLEY: What will be the powers of a tenant for life under this Clause as regards selling part of the land to pay the duty? We know, for instance, that a tenant for life can sell part of the property in order to pay the Death Duties out of the proceeds; he can also sell part of the property and invest the capital sum. What we want to know is whether he will be able to use that capital sum for the discharge of these duties? I cannot see anything which enables him to do so. Another point is whether under this section the tenant for life who reaps advantage from increment accruing when either Increment Duty or Reversion Duty is due can take the increment so accruing to him and yet charge the estate with the duty? That does not seem to be at all a fair proceeding. If he gets the increment, it ought certainly to be deducted from the amount he can charge on the estate.
  Sir W. ROBSON: A charge upon the estate will, of course, give a right of sale to the mortgagee, so that any person who is to have the benefit of the charge will by reason of the charge be entitled to make the sale necessary to get the charge paid.
  Mr. CAVE: Supposing a tenant for life pays Undeveloped Land Duty and at the same time gets an income from the land, ought he to keep the whole income in his own pocket and yet charge the capital of

  1487
  the estate with the amount which he has paid for Undeveloped Land Duty? It appears to me that he ought to deduct from the Undeveloped Land Duty the income actually received before the charge on the capital of the estate. May I also ask: Would a charge given by a life tenant under this clause rank before or after existing charges?
  Sir W. ROBSON: As to the second point the charge takes its place with the others. With regard to the point relating to the Undeveloped Land Duty under the clause, the Government having accepted the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford, the Undeveloped Land Duty falls solely upon the existing tenant.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: We are rushing through this at such a rate that we are very likely to omit matters of considerable importance, and so make the Bill unworkable. The point raised with reference to the charge on the tenant for life seems to be well worthy of the attention of the Attorney-General and of the Government. I understood the Attorney-General to reply to my Noble Friend (Viscount Helmsley), "Oh, well, if you create a charge you can then enforce your charge, and in that way sell." That is a very cumbersome and ridiculous way. What you would have to do is to go to the expense of executing a deed poll, or mortgage, or whatever it might be, and put it into the charge on the land. You would then after that have to take some proceedings in the Court of Chancery for the purpose of carrying out the sale and realising sufficient on the land to pay that charge. I do not think that that is really a businesslike way to carry out this matter. I put it to the Attorney-General that the suggestion of the Noble Lord is well worth consideration as to whether you cannot devise just what machinery is needed for realising sufficient land for the purpose of paying off these charges instead of creating, and so making it more easy for the tenant for life to carry out his obligations.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. STANLEY BUCKMASTER: The tenant for life possesses power to sell by statute already, and there is nothing in the world to limit his power to sell. It is his absolute right, and having sold the money becomes capital money under the statute.
  1488
  He sells by virtue of the powers which the Settled Lands Acts confer.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: I do not dispute that—
  Mr. BUCKMASTER: Then the whole-point vanishes.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I quite agree the tenant for life has power to sell, and I quite agree that under this Bill the tenant for life has power to mortgage. What we want to get at is, when this Act passes does that affect the question of priority of any mortgage executed for the purpose of providing the money. Would it come behind existing mortgages on the land? What we want to know is whether the limited owner as entitled to sell or mortgage the land in order to provide his duty in advance of the existing encumbrances? I am dealing with a legal point on which the Attorney-General seemed rather to differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Buckmaster) behind him—that is whether the power to sell or raise money is to be in priority of all existing charges on the land. I rather gathered that was the opinion of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Buckmaster), but that the opinion of the Attorney-General was to the contrary, and that any power of raising money did not affect the question of priority of existing mortgages. I think we are entitled to have an explicit statement whether in fact this duty is charged upon the land in front of existing encumbrances, and whether the money raised by sale or mortgage to pay this duty to the revenue is to go in front of existing encumbrances.
  Mr. BUCKMASTER: The hon. Member has entirely misunderstood what I said, or has not taken the pains to follow my observations because the power to sell under the Settled Land Acts has nothing whatever to do with encumbrances. It is a power entirely independent of it, and whether an encumbrance created under this statute is to come in front or is to be subsequent to other encumbrances cannot affect the right of the tenant for life to sell. The question of the Noble Lord was, Is there power in the tenant for life to sell and by means of sale pay encumbrances according to their priority? Of course, the Noble Lord's comment has nothing whatever to do with the order of the encumbrances, but with the capital money, which is entirely independent. Therefore the suggestion made by the hon. Member

  1489
  who has just sat down that there is some difference between myself and the Attorney-General must be due to an entire misconception of what I said.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry that I was not able to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but at this moment I do not quite see, when the land has been sold under the provisions of the Settled Lands Act and the capital money has been received, whether that money is to be devoted first to paying existing charges on the existing encumbrances of the land or in paying this duty. I want to know whether the proceeds of the sale of the land are to be devoted to the payment of this duty in priority of existing charges or encumbrances of the land, or whether existing mortgages come first and then the duty is payable?
  Mr. JAMES MASON: When the Attorney-General was answering the hon. and learned Member for Kingston he said that Clause 26 would not affect priorities. As I refrained from moving my Amendment on this point, I should very much like to know whether that is so, and whether existing priorities can be prejudiced? I understood that priorities were not affected.
  Sir W. ROBSON: That is my view.
  Viscount HELMS LEY: I should like it made quite clear whether this tax comes under the same footing as the Death Duties under the Finance Act of 1904?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think we use precisely the same language. I can only say that a tenant for life has the power given to him by this Bill. I have not compared the exact phraseology with the Act mentioned by the hon. Member, and an expression of opinion upon that point would require a considerable amount of minute investigation.

  CLAUSE 27.—(Definitions).
  In this Part of this Act the expression "land" does not include any incorporeal hereditament or tithe, or any rentcharge as defined by this Act:
  The expression "rentcharge" includes tithe or tithe rentcharge, or other periodical payments or rendering in lieu of or in the nature of tithe, or any fee farm rent, rent seek, chief rent, rent of
  1490
  assize, or any other perpetual rent or annuity granted out of land:
  The expression "rent" has the same meaning as in the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, and does not include a rentcharge:
  The expression "lease" includes an agreement for a lease, but does not include a term of years created solely for the purpose of securing money:
  The term of a lease shall, where the lease contains a covenant to renew the lease, be deemed to be the period for which the lease may be renewed, and in the case of a lease for life or lives, shall be deemed to be a number of years equal to the mean expectation of life of the person for whose life the lease is granted, or in the case of a lease granted for lives, of the youngest of the persons for whose lives the lease is granted:
  The expression "interest" in relation to land includes a reversion expectant on the determination of a lease, but does not include any other interest in expectancy or an incumbrance as defined by paragraph (vii) of Section two of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, or a lease for a term of years less than seven years:
  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 (xi) of Section two of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881) 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:
  The expression "agriculture" includes the use of land as meadow or pasture land or woodland, or for market gardens, nursery grounds, or allotments, and the expression "agricultural land" shall be construed accordingly.
  Mr. G. RENWICK (for Sir H. Kimber)Mr. G. RENWICK (for Sir H. Kimber) moved in the first paragraph, after the word "Act" ["The expression 'land' does not include any incorporeal hereditament, or tithe, or any rentcharge as defined by this Act":] to insert the words "or any offices, flats, or chambers above the ground floor or basement of the building."
  The object of this Amendment is to make it perfectly clear that the interest in the land does not include offices, flats, or chambers above the ground floor or basement of the building. The hon. Member for Wandsworth is anxious to make this

  1491
  perfectly clear, and I shall be pleased to hear from the Attorney-General that the expression "interest in land" does not include them.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The intention of the Government is that these separate tenements and flats shall not be deemed to be an interest in the land, but I think it would be better to settle the words rather more carefully. The words in the Amendment are not quite suitable. I hope the Committee will accept the assurance that the matter will be dealt with on Report, and perhaps the Amendment will now De withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir E. CARSON Sir E. CARSON moved in the first paragraph, after the word "Act" ["any rentcharge as defined by this Act"] to insert the words "or buildings or other structures on such land."
  Considerable difficulty arose during the discussion of Clause 2 as to the circumstances under which land shall be deemed to be divested of structures and buildings, and with reference to certain Amendments the Government said they would reconsider the question as to how the matter should be treated, and see whether something clearer could not be put in on Report. I have put this Amendment down in order to suggest that the proper method of treating this divesting of the land of the buildings upon it would be upon the definition clause. The main purpose of these clauses is to tax land and not buildings, and it is with a view to that I have put this Amendment down.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think the Definition Clause would be the proper place to deal with that matter, having regard to the use of the word "land" in other parts of the Bill.
  Sir E. CARSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not taken into account the fact that the Government have undertaken to reconsider this question of the divesting of the land.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed in the second paragraph to omit the word "includes'["The expression 'rent-charge' includes tithe"], and to insert instead thereof the word "means."
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved to leave out from the same paragraph the word "perpetual" ["or any other perpetual rent "]. It is quite obvious there are a considerable number of rents and annuities which are not perpetual, but which come within the purview of this section.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I consider the Amendment quite unnecessary.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Under these circumstances, I withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in the fourth paragraph, after the words, "The expression 'lease' includes an agreement for a lease," to insert the words "and underlease."
  Sir W. ROBSON: This is a mere drafting Amendment, as at present the Clause does not include underlease.
  Sir E. CARSON: Has this been considered in relation to the previous provisions of the Bill, because it seems to me that apart from the question of valuation between the various parties, this may give rise to great difficulties as to how you are to value in the case of a lease and underlease?
  Sir W. ROBSON: It has been considered.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, after the words in the same paragraph, "but does not include a term of years created solely for the purpose of securing money," to insert the words "until the term becomes vested in some person free from any equity of redemption."
  Sir W. ROBSON: This again is a drafting Amendment, and the paragraph will now read, "The expression 'lease' includes an agreement for a lease and underlease, but does not include a term of years created solely for the purpose of securing money, until the term becomes vested in some person free from the equity of redemption." In other words, where money is got by the creation of some long term of years, the mortgagee may foreclose and may become the owner.
  Sir E. CARSON: This may be a matter of great importance, for the reason that very often in settlement, terms are created merely for raising and creating the money in settlement, and is it intended that if

  1493
  there is a term of that kind simply for securing money in settlement if it falls in it will be included? The words of the Attorney-General appear to cover it.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that the clause does not include a term of years created solely for the purpose of securing money, but where the term of years is in the hands of the mortgagee, so that he comes within the words of the Amendment, it becomes vested in some person free from the equity of redemption. He may become the owner of the land for 500 years and then it is not for all the years that his term exists merely for the purpose of securing money. Where there is an equity of redemption it is merely for the purpose of securing money, but where the mortgagee has entered into possession of the land and becomes the owner for a term of years then it becomes a different matter.
  Sir E. CARSON: It is impossible to argue a matter of this kind without having seen the Amendment, which is not on the Paper, and I am sure that considering the time we have spent upon it, and the time the Government have had for further consideration, it is a very slovenly way of doing business, that we should never have an opportunity of considering what the effect of these Amendments is. It not even has been given to us across the Table. I am bound to take What the hon. and learned Gentleman says, that it does not apply to a term created for the security of money, but supposing the term falls in?
  Sir W. ROBSON: As long as it is a term for securing money it comes within the words of the Bill as it now stands, but when once the security has been acted upon and the person entitled to enforce the term has done it, he becomes the owner of the land, and comes under the same tax.
  Mr. CAVE: Supposing the mortgagee forecloses and then the term falls in to the owner of the inheritance, on what amount would Reversion Duty be charged? Reversion Duty is charged on the value of the estate when the lease falls in less the consideration given for the lease. What in this case is the consideration given for the lease? I do not think that point can have been fully considered. I want also to support the protest against having these very important Amendments at half a minute's notice.
  Sir W. ROBSON: With regard to not giving notice of Amendments, I have frequently been the victim as well as the oppressor. We have without complaint had to receive a great many Amendments without notice. Those I have moved up to now have been purely drafting Amendments. I really cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) where the term is created in order to secure money. The term generally created for that purpose is 500 or 1,000 years. Now he says what is to happen if the term falls in? These terms will fall in at dates when we really need not trouble.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 72.

  Division No. 483.]

  AYES.

  [11.30 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Elibank, Master of

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Essex, R. W.

  Armitage, R.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Channing, Sir Francis Ailston

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Ficnnes, Hon. Eustace

  Barnard, E. B.

  Clough, William

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gill, A. H.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Beauchamp, E.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Cooper, G. J.

  Glover, Thomas

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Giasgow)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Berridge, T. H. D.

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Crooks, William

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Brace, William

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Bright, J. A.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hancock, J. G.

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

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Harwood, George

  Maddison, Frederick

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire).

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Summerbell, T.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Middlebrook, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hodge, John

  Myer, Horatio

  Tomkinson, James

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Napier, T. B.

  Toulmin, George

  Hooper, A. G.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Nicholls, George

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Verney, F. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Grady, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Wardle, George J.

  Jenkins, J.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Waring, Walter

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pointer, J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire))

  Lambert, George

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

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Lamont, Norman

  Radford, G. H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roes, J. D.

  Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

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

  Lupton, Arnold

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rowlands, J.

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

  Macdonald J. R. (Leicester)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  Winfrey, R.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

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

  M'Callum, John M.

  Seely, Colonel

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Shackleton, David James

  NOES.

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

  Percy, Earl

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gordon, J.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Gretton, John

  Renton, Leslie

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Renwick, George

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D,

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Cave, George

  Keswick, William

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Stanier, Bevilie

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Clive, Percy Arthur

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

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Clyde, J. Avon

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Helmsley and Mr. J. W. Hills.

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Mr. F. W. LAMBTON Mr. F. W. LAMBTON moved in the fourth paragraph, after the word "money" ["for the purpose of securing money"] to insert the words "and does not include a yearly tenancy of land."
  On the face of it, it looks as if a yearly tenancy could not be a lease, but I want to make sure that tenants of land for one year will not come in under the expression
  1496
  leases, because under the Agricultural; Holdings Act (1906), yearly tenancies practically become leases.
  Sir W. ROBSON: They are expressly excluded under each tax. In the Bill the Increment Tax is dealt with in Clause 1, which limits the term lease to seven years, which was afterwards made fourteen

  1497
  years. In the case of the Reversion Duty it is twenty-one years, and it is fourteen years in the case of undeveloped land. So these taxes cannot be charged in the case of yearly tenancies.
  Mr. F. W. LAMBTON: A single year lease becomes a perpetual lease under the Act of 1906.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The Act of 1906 does not by saying that turn a yearly tenancy into a perpetual lease.
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: If it is the intention of the Government that a yearly tenancy should be excluded it would be much better to accept this Amendment, which makes it clear.
  Sir W. ROBSON: We think it is quite clear.
  Mr. F. W. LAMBTON: If it is quite clear, I do not wish to press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: To leave out the second word "be" ["deemed to be"] and to insert the word "include."—[Mr. Cave.]
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out "paragraph (vii.) of Section two of the Conveyancing and Law Property Act, 1881, or," and to insert the words "this Act or any fixed charge as defined by this Act or any purely incorporeal hereditament (other than a profit a prendre not annexed to any other land) or any leasehold interest under."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer give any reason why this Amendment should not have been put on the Paper? On this side of the House a copy of every Amendment we have prepared has been furnished to the right hon. Gentleman, one to the Chairman, a third being retained in the hands of the Mover. I think a similar courtesy should be extended to us. These are very technical matters and require consideration.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I recognise that these are very difficult matters, but they are only drafting Amendments, most of them prepared in deference to the criticisms of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I regret that it was impossible to put this Amendment on the Paper, and that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not
  1498
  supplied with a copy of it. It would have been better to put the Amendments on the Paper but we are working under very considerable pressure. I have accepted some of the Amendments of hon. Gentlemen opposite, though I have hardly had time to consider them. I have done my best to meet the position.
  Sir E. CARSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain what this Amendment means?
  Sir W. ROBSON: The Amendment is wholly in favour I may say of the views put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Frequent objection was taken during the course of Debate of the number of occasions upon which Increment Value Duty was to be collected. It was to be collected on the transfer of every interest in the land, and it was pointed out, and I must say I thought with some considerable force, that we were multiplying somewhat unduly the occasions upon which Increment Value Duty was to be collected, and that no particular loss would be incurred if we took larger amounts at less frequent intervals. We wish, therefore, to modify this clause in a very technical, but, I hope, not in an unintelligible manner. The expression "interest in relation to land" includes the determination of a lease, incumbrances, and other matters, and for the definition of incumbrances we borrowed from the Conveyancing Law on Property. Instead of going to the Conveyancing Act for our definition we propose to insert a definition of the word incumbrance which will come later on. When I say the proposed Amendment includes sporting rights, the importance of the words will be seen. They also include rights of common. It is not proposed to treat them as occasions of transfer for collection of duty, and it really means that detachable rights, like the rights of common or sporting rights, are not to be treated as occasions for collecting Increment Duty unless the holding to which they are attached is transferred. Of course, if you have got a sporting estate where the whole value is simply sporting rights, then you may value your sporting rights as if they were wholly detached, and charge increment on them, but if they are attached to the land then that is not an occasion on which you ascertain the amount.
  Sir E. CARSON: I am bound to say perfectly honestly and frankly that I do not understand one word of what the Attorney-General has been talking about. Being

  1499
  well acquainted with the hon. and learned Gentleman, I know that when he understands anything, that is not his method of speaking; and if he were as candid with the Committee' as I am he would say that what he has read out is to him the merest gibberish. Really, we ought not to go on legislating in this way. In dealing with a serious Bill of this kind, affecting great interests, we have a right not merely to consider the effect of the Amendments, but also to see whether we should suggest Amendments to the Amendments. It is almost a scandal that brings the House into contempt that we should attempt to deal with these serious matters when hardly a single Member has any idea what they mean. It is a very poor excuse to say that the House was sitting all last night. I feel so strongly that we ought not to pass these matters without proper consideration that I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Sir W. ROBSON: This Amendment was put down at the request of the hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil), who thought that sporting rights and sporting leases ought not to be made an occasion for taxation or any ground for ascertaining value. We agreed that that was reasonable. On the other hand, where there are sporting rights independently dealt with, which constitute the real value of an estate, they are on a different footing, and the Amendment is to deal with those—
  The CHAIRMAN: A motion to Report Progress having been made, the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot now discuss the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As the Attorney-General has said, these Amendments were really all promised to meet suggestions or criticisms on the other side of the House. I agree that if the right hon. Gentleman and those associated with him feel that they cannot accept the responsibility of accepting or criticising these Amendments without seeing them on the Paper, they are entitled to take that course. The only alternative I can suggest is that they should be accepted in this form. If they cannot see their way to accept that, because they are entitled to see the
  1500
  Amendments set down on the Paper, then I should like first of all to make the suggestion that the Amendments should be incorporated in the Clause at the present stage, reserving full opportunity for the Opposition, if they desire it at a later stage, for discussion.
  12 P.M.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I quite accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that the particular Amendment before us, probably some others—perhaps all the others for anything I know to the contrary —should be put on the Paper. I do not wish to be too strong on the matter, for the right hon. Gentleman has not really affected to make any excuse to the House. May I remind him that these promises were made weeks ago—on Clauses 1, 2, and 3 of the Bill. Why on earth the Amendments have not been put down on the Paper weeks ago I am utterly unable to understand. There is only one possible explanation which I can conceive is the real explanation—that the pressure of work upon the right, hon. Gentleman, upon the Attorney-General, upon the draughtsmen, and upon the officials of the Treasury has been so tremendous that they could not carry out their pledges, except in a very unsatisfactory and imperfect manner, in which they have done so. It is regrettable. Surely a severer commentary upon the manner in which this Bill has been conducted could not possibly be made. There can be no explanation of the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman himself admits, and now disarms opposition by offering absolutely no defence at all for. There could not be a fuller justification of the comments he has made from time to time as to the impossibility of getting this Committee, and those who serve this Committee outside the House, to do their work under conditions in which the work is attempted to be done. I do not wish to press the matter just now. The Question before the House is what we ought to do. I understand the. Government are disposed to postpone she Scottish Clause, and I should think that the best plan would be for them to defer at the same time the further consideration of this Clause. I do not wish to drive that suggestion to the extreme, but I think that would be the proper course. If the Government do not approve of that, and if they have any more manuscript Amendments, I think it would save time if they postponed them. I do not pretend in the speeches

  1501
  and the Motions I have made that my desire always was to help the Government. I make no such pretence, nor would I be believed if I did; but I honestly say to the Government now if they have other Amendments in manuscript dealing with technical matters it would be better they adjourned them with the Scottish Clauses.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the Opposition are entitled in the circumstances to make that request, and, indeed, to demand from the Government that their views should prevail under these conditions. If they feel they are not in a position to Criticise manuscript Amendments which are highly, technical I will consent to the Motion.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do Report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Motion agreed to; Committee to sit again upon Tuesday, 31st August.
  Adjournment.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes after Twelve o'clock.