§ Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the advisability of limiting the meaning of the word minerals under the Finance Bill to coal, ironstone, copper, lead, zinc, tin, and the precious metals, so as to avoid the great cost of ascertaining in the courts of law whether any particular substance is legally a mineral or not?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEAs my right hon. Friend explained in answer to the hon. Member for the Barkston Ash Division on the 14th ult., he does not consider it desirable to insert a definition of minerals in the Finance Bill.
§ Mr. FELLArising out of that reply and the reply to the question as to peat, are not those the minerals which are really intended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be taxed, and would it not simplify matters to do so?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI have already said it is not proposed to tax peat.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILWill he explain what the distinction is between these articles and peat from a legal point of view?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI have constantly stated in answer to similar questions, and particularly in answer to the hon. Member from Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox), minerals is a phrase which has a distinct legal meaning, and which is constantly used in legal documents without definition.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSPeat comes exactly within the definition of minerals in the case which he has referred to.