Commons Sitting of 13 July 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (Money) Bill,

As amended, considered:-Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.] Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Ardrossan Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read a second time: to be considered upon Thursday.

Lune Fisheries Provisional Order Bill [By Order].

Second Beading deferred till Tuesday next.

EXPORTS AND IMPORTS (UNITED KINGDOM).
Return ordered, "showing for the year 1908 the value of our exports to and consignments from France, the United States, Belgium, and Germany, respectively, distinguishing between food, drink, and tobacco, raw materials, and manufactures (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 185, of Session 1908)."—[Mr. George Greenwood.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Affairs in Persia (Russian Military Movements.
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any representations from the Government of Turkey regarding the military expeditions of Russia into Persia; and whether he can say whether the young Turks are in active sympathy with the Persian Liberals in their struggle for constitutional Government?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): No representation has been addressed to us from the Government of Turkey, and I cannot say what has passed between the two Governments directly concerned, and I cannot undertake the responsibility of expressing the views of political parties in other countries.
  Mr. J. C. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a large Russian force, including artillery and cavalry, have now marched——
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.
  Mr. FLYNN (for Mr. Dillon)asked the Secretary of State when he will lay upon the Table of the House further Papers on the affairs of Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: Owing to the necessity of referring the papers to His Majesty's Minister at Tehran, it will not be possible to lay further papers on the affairs of Persia for a few weeks, but there will be no unnecessary delay. It has been necessary to communicate with Tehran by despatch about them, and this takes some time.
  Mr. FLYNN (for Mr. Dillon)asked whether the British representative in Tehran expressed any opinion on the terms demanded by the Nationalist leaders; if so, whether His Majesty's Government was consulted before that opinion was expressed; whether His Majesty's Government have condemned those demands as unreasonable; and, if so, on what grounds?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Minister at Tehran informed the Sipahdar that only two of the Nationalist demands were such as could be pressed by the two Legations on the acceptance of the Shah. His Majesty's Government were not consulted beforehand, but as the hon. Member is aware from the answer which I gave to a supplementary question asked by him on the 8th instant, they share Sir George Barclay's view on the subject. I do not think I have hitherto expressed an opinion upon the demands generally, and I do not see why I should go beyond what has already been said.
  Mr. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these demands include the formation of a Liberal Cabinet which would meet with the acceptance of the Persian people?
  Sir E. GREY: They include the formation of a Cabinet, chosen by local assemblies over Persia.
  Mr. FLYNN (for Mr. Dillon)asked whether, in view of the constant communications now passing between the Russian Government and the British Government on Persian affairs, and of the fact that the British Government has by approval made itself jointly responsible for the advance of Russian troops into Northern Persia, he can now see his way to suggesting to the Russian Government the withdrawal of all Russian officers from the service of the Shah; whether Colonel Liakhoff and his fellow officers are still Russian subjects; and whether any injury inflicted upon them would be accounted by the Russian Government as an injury to their subjects, justifying an advance on Tehran?
  Sir E. GREY: The withdrawal of the Russian officers from the service of the Shah is not a matter in which we are concerned. These officers are still Russian subjects, and I am unable to say what view the Russian Government would take of their obligations towards those subjects if the case supposed by the hon. Member were to arise. That is a question for the Russian Government themselves to decide. Nor can I admit that the fact that the two Governments inform each other of the measures which they may think it desirable to take for the protection of their interests in different parts of Persia implies that each is responsible for the actions of the other. Any such assumption is entirely erroneous.
  Mr. FLYNN: Is it not a fact that these are Russian officers on active service, are Russian subjects, and do they not come within the purview of the Anglo-Russian Convention?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir; I do not see how they do. Perhaps the hon. Member will refer to the Convention and see under what Article they would come.
  Mr. H.F.B. LYNCH: May I ask whether as the Nationalists have scrupulously refrained from engaging foreign officers, the right hon. Gentleman will represent to the Russian Government the desirability of withdrawing their officers?
  Sir E. GREY: I must confine the action of the Foreign Office as far as possible to British interests.
  Mr. GEORGE GOOCHasked whether the Russian troops now in Persia have been sent exclusively for the protection of the subjects of European Powers; and, if so, why such a large force has been des-patched?
  Sir E. GREY: I can add nothing to the explicit declarations of the Russian Government themselves, which have already been made public. I am unable to state what considerations determined the number actually to be sent, or to express any opinion as to the strength of the force which would be necessary to deal with the situation.
  Mr. LYNCH: Do not the two Governments who are signatories to the Anglo-Russian Convention consult one another as to these military matters?
  Sir E. GREY: I have already stated that communications have passed between the two Governments, who keep each other informed as to the steps they may think it right to take in their own interests, but there is nothing in the Convention that would make one Government responsible for the action of the other. I entirely disclaim any such proposition.
  Mr. LYNCHrose and asked a question which was inaudible——
  Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member kindly speak up, so that he can be heard?
  Mr. LYNCH: The question I was about to ask was this: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the two Governments consult one another as regards the despatch of troops to Persia. May I ask whether, when the Russian Government informed His Majesty's Government of the despatch of these troops, any opinion was expressed by His Majesty's Government as to the adequacy or excess of the force in question over those required for the protection of life and property?
  Sir E. GREY: I did not say that the two Governments consulted each other. I said they kept each other informed of the steps that they thought it necessary to take in advance. I expressed no opinion as to the strength of the force required.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Are we to understand that so far as Great Britain is concerned Russia has a free hand to do what she likes in Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: It is very misleading for the hon. Member to attempt to draw from

  1831
  my answers a general statement of that sweeping kind. Our object is to protect British interests in Persia. When we consider these interests are affected we shall take suitable measures. It is quite unfair to draw from any statement I have made a general statement of that kind, which goes far beyond anything I have said.
  Mr. FLYNNasked the Secretary of State if he can state what is the strength of the Russian force now in Northern Persia; has he seen the statement of the responsible Nationalist leaders that their forces are commanded not to fight unless forced to do so, and their desire to secure a real and not a paper constitution; and what is the justification, under these circumstances, of the military occupation of Northern Persia by the Russian troops?
  Sir E. GREY: About 4,000 men are understood to be at Tabriz, and about 1,700 on their way to Kazvin, and about 600 more are distributed at other places in the north of Persia, besides the ordinary Consular guards. The troops are stationed at the various places for the protection of foreign lives and property from the possibility of danger, and are to be withdrawn as soon as that possibility no longer exists. A statement such as that described in the question was addressed from Kazvin to the foreign legations at Tehran, but there have been occasional statements from Nationalist sources of a different character.
  Mr. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that this force which has been reinforced to-day is necessary for the sole purpose of the protection of lives and property of non-belligerents in Tehran; and does it not rather point to its being used against the Persian popular forces?
  Sir E. GREY: I have already stated twice this afternoon that I am not in a position to express any opinion as to the strength of the force that would be required.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Is it not the general policy to make Tehran a little St. Petersburg?
  Mr. J. D. REES: Is the Government in a position to decide who are the responsible Nationalist leaders?

  Greek Bands in Monastir.
  Mr. GEORGE GOOCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether
  1832
  he had any information as to the existence and activity of Greek bands in the neighbourhood of Monastir and elsewhere; and, if so, whether he will make representations to the Greek Government?
  Sir E. GREY: The number of murders which Greeks are reported to have committed in Macedonia was five in March, two in April, and six in May. No report has been received of exceptional activity of Greek bands in the vilayet of Monastir during the last three months. The attention of the Greek Government has recently been called to the reported secret landing of three Greek bands on the Gulf of Salonica in April last, but they have denied the truth of this rumour.

  Affairs in Morocco (British Interests).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State whether he can make any statement as to affairs in Morocco and the safety of British life and interests?
  Sir E. GREY: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to a similar Question addressed to me by the hon. Member on the 24th ultimo. From the latest reports which we have received, the country near Fez appears still to be in a disturbed state, but there is no disturbance at the ports.

  Russian Troops at Meshed.
  Mr. HART-DAVIES: I desire to ask the right hon. Baronet whether any Russian troops have been sent to Meshed?
  Sir E. GREY: I beg to refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply just returned to the hon. Member for North Cork.

  Russian Rights in Persia.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Russian Consul-General at Resht, in a letter dated 23rd March addressed to the Sipahdar, stated that the road from Resht to Tehran was the property of the Russian Government; will he say if this is the case; and, if so, does any provision exist in the Anglo-Russian agreement giving Russia the right to guard the road by the armed force of her own troops?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information as to such a letter. The road in question was constructed by, and is the property of, a Russian company. The Anglo-Russian Agreement has been published as a Parliamentary Paper, so that the hon. Gentleman can satisfy himself at any time as to

  1833
  the nature of its provisions. There are numbers of contingencies for which the Anglo-Russian Convention does not provide and was not intended to provide.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is it not a fact that this road is under Persian jurisdiction?
  Sir E. GREY: It was made by Russian money.
  Mr. REES: Is it not a fact that there are only two roads in Persia. One was made by the Russian Government and the other by the hon. Member for Ripon?
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is it not a fact that one of the provisions in the Convention says that it is the special interest of the two Powers to maintain peace in certain parts of Persia itself, and that all this has taken place in parts not provided for by a Convention?
  Sir E. GREY: What parts are not provided for in the Convention? I do not understand the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. O'GRADY: The passage in the Convention I refer to is——
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. That is not a question.

  Persian Nationalist Leaders.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I wish to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he is aware that the Russian and British Consuls-General informed Satar Khan and other leaders of the Nationalists that the Shah had granted an amnesty to all political offenders, and that as soon as the Nationalists attempted to take advantage of such information they were attacked by Cossacks, and had to seek sanctuary in the Turkish Legation; if so, whether the Consuls had the authority of the Shah to so inform the Nationalist leaders; and what steps His Majesty's Government intend taking to see that the Shah will carry out the promise of an amnesty?
  Sir E. GREY: The British and Russian Consuls-General were authorised by their Legations at Tehran to inform the Nationalists that no one, whatever his nationality, would be molested for his share in recent events. I have heard of no reason to suppose that this promise was violated. As to the reasons why some of the Nationalists took refuge at the Turkish Legation, I can add nothing to the answer which I gave on the 8th. My information does not bear out the statement in the question on this point.

  Russian Consul-General's Action in Persia.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that it has been the practice of the reactionaries in Persia to attach themselves to the Russian post on the road from Resht to Tehran for the purpose of giving information to the entourage of the Shah respecting the disposition of the Nationalist troops in the field; whether, on the Nationalists taking action to prevent these proceedings, they were threatened with armed intervention by the Russian Consul-General; and, if so, whether such threat amounts to an interference in the internal affairs of Persia and is a breach of the Anglo-Russian Agreement?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information as to the practice or the incident referred to.
  Mr. FLYNN: I wish to ask the right hon. Baronet whether the Persian troops at Tehran have not been received with enthusiasm by the populace; and whether that fact points to any violation of order?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not heard about that.
  Mr. REES: Can the Secretary for Foreign Affairs take any cognisance of anyone known as "reactionaries in Persia"?

  Persian Constitutional Forces.
  Mr. A. H. SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state which of the demands formulated by the leaders of the Constitutionalist forces surrounding Tehran His Majesty's Government consider unreasonable; and on what grounds?
  Sir E. GREY: This was answered in my reply to the question put by the hon. Member for East Mayo.
  Mr. LYNCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman state which of the demands have been considered unreasonable by His Majesty's Government?
  Sir E. GREY: I said there were only two of the demands which the British Minister at Tehran considered could be made the subject of representation by the two Legations. So far as I am aware I have said nothing at all about the other demands. I do not think it is my business to comment upon it.
  Mr. LYNCH: On what grounds were the demands as a whole thought unadvisable by His Majesty's Government?
  Sir E. GREY: It is not our business to say whether they are advisable or unadvisable. The question is whether we should take any part in supporting any of them. There were only two which came within the cognisance of the Legations.
  Mr. LYNCH: Why were the others not taken into account?
  Sir E. GREY: Because Northern Persia is not British territory.

  Russian Troops in Persia.
  Mr. LYNCH: I desire to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he can state the number of the Russian troops at present in Persia, and approximately their distribution?
  Sir E. GREY: I beg to refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply just returned to the hon. Member for North Cork. I have not included in the enumeration the guards attached to Russian Consular establishments in Persia, except in cases where they have recently been increased.

  Shah's Amnesty Decree (Political Offences).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Shah's decree of 10th May, granting an amnesty for political offences, with licence for exiles to return to Persia, has been communicated officially by the Persian Government to the Governments of Great Britain and Russia; and, in view of the fact that similar proclamations from the same source have frequently been broken, can he state whether any and, if so, what guarantees have been given to the exiles that their lives and property will be scrupulously respected upon their return to Persia?
  Mr. REES: Before the right hon. Baronet answers that question I would like to ask him whether the execution of any such guarantees would not be a flagrant breach of the policy of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: The decree in question has been so communicated. No special guarantees have been given, but the two Legations would, of course, use all their influence to see that a promise given through them was not violated.

  Russian Advance in Tehran.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there
  1836
  is any understanding with the Russian Government that before their troops advance beyond Kazvin the consent of the other party to the Anglo-Russian Convention should be obtained, and that their troops should not advance unless the lives and property of Europeans in Tehran are in imminent danger?
  Sir E. GREY: The Russian Government have explicitly declared that their troops will not advance to Tehran except for the protection of European lives and property against imminent danger. There is no other understanding between the two Governments.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Has the Secretary for Foreign Affairs received any information to-day about this question?
  Sir E. GREY: The information from this district is very confused, and it is very difficult to make any definite statement in regard to it.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received no definite information to-day?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not received information which states definitely whether there is danger or not. I understand that telephonic communication is interrupted, and it is quite possible events have occurred of which we have not heard.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Is it not a fact that the Cossacks at Tehran are defending the market square?
  Sir E. GREY: I have already answered that question.
  Mr. REES: Are those Cossacks not ordinary Persian subjects?
  Sir E. GREY: I think that is understood.
  Mr. REES: I doubt it.

  Persian Nationalist Leaders (Demands).
  Mr. PONSONBY: I wish to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he is aware that the demands formulated by the leaders of the Nationalist forces in the neighbourhood of Tehran are, in many respects, identical with those presented to the late Sultan of Turkey by the general of the Salonika troops, prior to his entry into Constantinople; and can he state the grounds upon which the representatives of Great Britain and Russia have informed the leaders of the Nationalist forces in Persia that, should they persist in their intention to enter Tehran, a Russian force would also enter that city?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no knowledge of any formal list of demands presented to the late Sultan at the time mentioned. The objects which the Salonika troops had in view appear to me to be dissimilar from those of the Bakhtiaris and Nationalists. The representatives of Great Britain and Russia made no intimation to the leaders of the Persian Nationalists respecting an entry into Tehran. It was stated to those who were threatening Tehran that the best way to avoid foreign intervention was to restore order and give the Constitution as now re-established a chance.
  Mr. LYNCH: I understand that if order is maintained by the Nationalist forces, there will be no excuse for foreign intervention?
  Sir E. GREY: The hon. Member must give me notice of that question.

  Russian Troops in Tabriz.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to statements made on Russian authority to the effect that the Russian troops in Tabriz have disarmed the population of that city, including the Nationalist force; and will he inquire of His Majesty's Consul-General at Tabriz on this subject?
  Sir E. GREY: My information is to the effect that the commander of the Russian forces at Tabriz originally suggested disarmament, but that the Russian Government replied that only Russian subjects should be disarmed, and I see no reason to address a further inquiry to His Majesty's Consul-General at Tabriz on the subject.

  Portuguese West Africa (Cocoa Plantations).
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: I desire to ask the right hon. Baronet whether, with reference to the conditions of labour on the cocoa plantations at St. Thomé, Portuguese West Africa, any modifications or alterations have taken place in the manner in which such labour is recruited in Angola; and if he will state their nature?
  Sir E. GREY: I understand that new regulations respecting recruitment in Angola are being drawn up, and will shortly be published. From statements previously made in the Cortes it appears that the districts within which recruitment will be permitted will be limited very strictly. The new arrangements will be
  1838
  placed under the supervision and direct control of specially appointed officials, who will be responsible to the Governor-General of the Province. Full particulars of the number of labourers recruited, their place of origin, and a certificate that their contracts have been properly entered into will be periodically published in the official paper. In all cases of future engagements repatriation will be ensured whenever the native desires it, and in Angola measures will be introduced to protect repatriated natives and to facilitate, as far as possible, their return to their homes. I must add, further, that the Portuguese Government have decided that until the new regulations become effective no further recruitment will be permitted in Angola, which is evidence of their intention to prevent abuses.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: With reference to repatriation, will the regulations ensure that those natives who have been sent to Angola and to St. Thorne will be allowed to return to their own country, and I would like to know whether they will be compelled to return?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not think people should be compelled to return against their will if they wish to stay. What is understood is that if they desire to come back there is an obligation to provide them facilities for doing so. The regulations which have been drawn up are shortly to be published, and then we shall have fuller information about them.
  Mr. H. BELLOC: During the diplomatic conversations on this subject, has the Portugese representative ever alluded to the conditions of labour in British South Africa?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not aware that any such references have been made.
  Mr. BELLOC: Then they have missed an opportunity.

  Russian Military Expeditions into Persia.
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked whether, in view of the fact that the Nationalists have always protected the lives and property of Europeans and are prepared to continue to do so, the right hon. Gentleman will make representations to the Government of Russia that a large and growing body of public opinion in this country regards the Russian military expeditions into Persia as unnecessary to the safety of Europeans and hostile to the establishment of law and order under a permanent system of constitutional government?
  Sir E. GREY: It is no doubt the case that the Nationalist leaders are prepared to do their best to protect the lives and property of Europeans, but it is difficult to say whether they would under all circumstances be able to control all their followers or the consequences of disturbances. The advance of the Russian force to Kazvin is a measure of precaution which, it is to be hoped, it may prove unnecessary to follow up by any more active steps. The matter does not appear to me to be one as to which representations can properly or usefully be made to the Russian Government.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether the Royalist leaders have also failed to protect the lives and property of Europeans, and whether the Foreign Office, in communicating with foreign Governments, recognises the hon. Member for Brentford (Dr. Rutherford) as representing a large and growing public opinion in this country?

  Protection of Europeans in Persia.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER(for Mr. Ramsay Macdonald)asked whether the Persian Cossack force which was attacked by the Nationalist forces at Shahabad on 4th July tore to pieces the bodies of some of the attacking force who had fallen in battle; whether the Cossack force was under the command of Russian officers; and, in order to avoid reprisals upon the persons of these officers, involving the safety of Europeans in Persia, are the Russian Government taking any steps to withdraw from Persia the officers in question?
  Sir E. GREY: I hare seen a report to this effect, but I cannot say what the circumstances were. It has also been reported that the maintenance of control of the Russian officers over Persian Cossacks was doubtful.

  Midnapur Conspiracy Case.
  Sir HENRY COTTONasked the Under-Secretary for India whether the magistrate of Midnapur, whose conduct was impugned by the Chief Justice of Bengal in his judgment on the Midnapur conspiracy case, has been appointed by the Government to assist the Commissioner of Burdwan in his inquiry into the facts of that case?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (the Master of Elibank): The suggestions
  1840
  made in the hon. Member's question are entirely without foundation. Mr. Weston, the magistrate referred to, has no authority whatever in the inquiry.
  Sir H. COTTON: Does not Mr. Weston cross-examine the witnesses who are produced before the court?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I understand he has a perfect right to cross-examine witnesses in connection with his own conduct.
  Sir H. COTTON: One other question——
  Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member kindly put the question down; it has evidently been prepared beforehand.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked whether the judgment of the High Court, reversing on appeal the convictions and sentences in the Midnapur conspiracy case, has yet reached the India Office; and whether, having regard to the observations of the judge as to the methods adopted by the subordinates of the Indian Government, the enforcement of confessions, and the opinion that the bomb explosion was the work of the Indian police, that judgment will be laid before Parliament?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has received a copy of the report of the judgment published in the Calcutta newspaper Press. The full text, having been so published and made accessible, the Secretary of State does not consider that its presentation to Parliament is called for.

  Gazetted Officers in Bombay (House Rent Allowances).
  Mr. REESasked whether house rent allowances have been sanctioned for gazetted officers, in Bombay similar to those which have been drawn for the last three years by officers in the like position in Calcutta?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has not yet received any proposal from the Government of India for providing house accommodation or house rent allowances for Government officers stationed at Bombay.

  Deportations in India.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he has any official information that Mr. Lajpat Rai, who was deported in 1907 without charge

  1841
  or trial by the Government of India for alleged sedition, has brought an action against the "Englishman" newspaper of Calcutta for libelling him by alleging that he had been guilty of sedition in that he had tampered with the loyalty of the Indian sepoys, and that Mr. Justice Fletcher, of the Calcutta High Court, after hearing the evidence of Mr. Lajpat Rai, held the statement to be a malicious libel upon him and awarded him damages to the amount of £l,000?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has as yet received no official Report on the subject.
  Mr. REES: May I ask the hon. Member whether an appeal lies, and whether he has any information that an appeal has been presented?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I have no information to that effect.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Would it not be in the interests of justice, in view of the charge made on the floor of this House two years ago, that the truth should be declared here at the earliest possible moment, if that charge has been disproved and found utterly false by a judge of the High Court?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has taken into consideration all these matters, and he has asked for a mailed Report of the proceedings.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: When shall we be entitled to know the result?
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked whether the cases of the nine British subjects in Bengal who were deported and imprisoned without charge or trial in December last were reconsidered by the Government of India on 1st July; and, if so, would he state what decision was arrived at and the grounds for that decision?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has no doubt that the provisions of the Regulation in this respect have been complied with, but he has received no communication on the subject from the Government of India. He will inquire.
  Mr. REES: May I ask a supplementary question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has a great many questions to ask. Will he put them down.

  Assassination of Sir Curzon Wyllie.
  Mr. MacNEILLasked whether the Indian Government will, in accordance with the precedent of the pension conferred on the widow of Earl Mayo, confer a pension on the widow of Sir Curzon Wyllie?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The precedents are under consideration, with a view to the best way of dealing with this most grievous case.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to the Secretary of State (Lord Morley) and the Government the wisdom of providing this pension out of British and not out of Indian funds?

  Advocate-General of Bengal.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that Mr. G. R. Kenrick, a barrister of 16 years' standing, practising at the Outer Bar in England, without previous experience in India, has been appointed by the Secretary of State to the position of Advocate-General of Bengal, and thereby becomes chief law officer to the Bengal Government and official head of the Bar in India, with an official salary and precedence of other members of the Bar; what is the date of the last occasion on which an appointment was made from Home to this office; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Advocate-Generalship has been given for a generation to gentlemen practising at the Indian Bar of long experience of the making and administration of courts of law in India, he will state the reasons in this case of the departure from established practice?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The office of Advocate-General at Madras was filled by an appointment from this country in 1900. The appointment referred to in the question was made by the Crown on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, who is fully responsible. The Secretary of State does not consider it desirable to state the reasons for his recommendation.
  Mr. MacNEILL: I did not ask about Madras. I want to know the date the office of Advocate-General of Bengal was last filled by a gentleman of the Outer Bar of England, who had never been to India and knew nothing about Indian administration?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I will make inquiry.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Was not the last occasion in 1874?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Gentleman put that question down?
  Mr. MacNEILL: It is put down in the question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must really remind the hon. Member that there are 80 questions on the Paper. It is very easy to put these questions down if the hon. Member will give himself the trouble.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Of course, I will not press it further, but, with great respect, the question is put down.

  Portuguese Native Labour in the Transvaal.
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether the Portuguese native labourers recruited for the Transvaal mines are confined in compounds?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government, before authorising the Governor of the Transvaal to sign the Convention with the Governor of the Portuguese province of Mozambique, satisfied themselves that the conditions which led the Transvaal Ordinance, 1904, to be described as partaking of slavery would not become operative in the case of the Portuguese native labourers recruited under this Convention?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The Portuguese native will, when on the mines, live like other natives in a compound, and will require, like other natives, a pass when he wishes to leave the mine. He will not, however, be like the Chinaman, imported under special legislation and subjected to special restrictions, which place him, if he gets outside the Witwatersrand district, practically in the position of an outlaw. Before authorising Lord Selborne to sign the Convention His Majesty's Government satisfied themselves by telegraphic communication with him that no such objection existed.
  Mr. ASHLEY: How long will these natives be kept in compounds, except when they go out on special passes?
  Colonel SEELY: There is no difficulty about their going out whenever they want to. Their presence is not in the least unwelcome in the district in which they are situated, and there is therefore no diffi-
  1844
  culty. The point in the other case, of course, was that there was objection to their going outside, and there had to be a special police cordon to keep them in.

  Chinese Labour in Transvaal.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he can state the number of Chinese labourers still at work in the mines of the Transvaal; and when the next shipload is expected to leave South Africa on the return voyage to China?
  Colonel SEELY: There were 5,378 Chinese in the Transvaal on 30th June; 2,330 were discharged for repatriation in June, but I have no information as to the date of sailing.

  New Submarines.
  Mr. J. T. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state when the D 1 Submarine will be ready for service; and what was her speed on trial?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. R. McKenna): I regret that we have no information to give on this subject.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether any more of the type of the D 1 submarine have been commenced; and can the right hon. Gentleman, without making any statements the publication of which would be detrimental to the public interest, give the House some idea of the efficiency and battle value of these craft?
  Mr. McKENNA: I regret that I have no information to give on this subject.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Navy Estimates for 1909–10, bearing the date 5th March, 1909, show that two submarines of the D class are under construction, and that the Dilke Return, in which are included ships building on 31st March, 1909, show that only one vessel of this class was under construction; and whether he will say what was the actual number of submarines of this class built, and building, for the fleet on the latter date?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Navy Estimates are prepared some time in advance, and at the time of preparation it was estimated that D 2 would be ordered before the end of the financial year. This anticipation could not be realised. The Dilke Return was corrected up to the last moment, and was correct.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Does the right hon. Gentleman pledge himself to the accuracy of the Return?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, at the moment it was made, it was quite accurate.

  British, French, United States and German Destroyers.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many destroyers there are in the British, French, United States and German Navies with a trial speed of 30 knots or over?
  Mr. McKENNA: The numbers are as follows:—

  Great Britain

  …

  …

  …

  67

  France

  …

  …

  …

  9

  United States

  …

  …

  …

  Nil

  Germany

  …

  …

  …

  27

  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: How many of these 07 English destroyers can maintain their speed now?
  Mr. McKENNA: Given a limited distance and smooth water, and I should think the whole of them would. I should not think they would for a long distance.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean more than 100 yards?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes.

  Coal Depot at Turnchapel.
  Mr. F. B. MILDMAYasked whether there is any intention of proceeding with the work of providing a coal depot at Turnchapel?
  Mr. McKENNA: After full consideration, it has been decided that it is better for the rapid and economical handling of coal to place the depot at the Keyham North Yard instead of at Turnchapel.
  Mr. MILDMAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel at liberty to say to what purpose this land and wharf which have been acquired by the Admiralty are intended to be devoted, and whether considerable expenditure had not already been incurred upon this coal wharf before the reversal of policy?
  Mr. McKENNA: I could not say how much expenditure, but certainly some, was incurred. I do not myself know for what purpose the land was to be used, but I will inquire.

  Royal Marines (Establishment).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether there is any intention to reduce the strength of the Royal Marines below the number at which they now stand?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Handsworth on 6th July.
  Lord BALCARRES: Is it the fact that this reply indicates that the right hon. Gentleman has not finally made up his mind?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of Marines is fixed to meet the requirements of the time. The policy is stated every year when the Estimates are introduced.
  Lord BALCARRES: Has there been no alteration since the Estimates?
  Mr. McKENNA: None.

  Coaling His Majesty's Ships (Accidents).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would issue instructions that patients treated in the sick bays for injuries received while coaling should be separately shown in the Returns?
  Mr. McKENNA: The entries on the sick list of His Majesty's ships on account of injury are already divided and sub-divided into various classes, and I do not think that the benefit to be derived from a special Return for coaling injuries would justify giving up the existing forms and making a further sub-division.
  Mr. ASHLEY: In view of the fact that within the last twelve months there were six fatal injuries and a large number of minor injuries from coaling, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain what the injuries are? It is a very important matter.
  Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire further into the matter.

  Manning of Navy (Special Service Seamen and Stokers).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the special service seamen and stokers serving in His Majesty's Fleet are distributed over the whole of the commissioned fleets, or whether they are confined to certain fleets; if the latter is the case, to what fleets are they confined; and what is the maximum proportion of special service seamen and stokers borne in any of His Majesty's ships?
  Mr. McKENNA: Special service seamen and stokers are drafted to all fleets. With regard to the second part of the question, it is undesirable in the public interest to give information concerning the complements of His Majesty's ships.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is the information refused because the special service seamen and stokers are less well trained than the ordinary seamen and stokers?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, there is no such reason.

  Naval Floating Docks.
  Mr. FELLasked what depth of water is required for the station of a floating dock capable of containing ships of the "Dreadnought" class.
  Mr. McKENNA: About 60 feet of water under the dock.
  Mr. FELL: Would not a large amount of dredging be necessary for these floating docks on the East Coast?
  Mr. McKENNA: It depends on the particular spots chosen.
  Mr. FELL: Are there any harbours on the East Coast where it is possible to find the necessary depth?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, there are certain places in which there is a depth of 60 ft. of water available for such docks.

  Stoke-on-Trent Telegraphic System.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received a communication from the Town Clerk of the Borough of Stoke-upon-Trent relative to the defective telegraph arrangements for that district; and, if so, what action dose he propose to take to remove this grievance.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I have received a communication from the Town Clerk, but I see no reason to think that the telegraph arrangements are defective, so far as the Post Office is concerned. It was the practice, after the closing of the post office at Stoke-on-Trent, namely 10 p.m., to send urgent telegrams viâ Manchester to Stoke Railway Station for delivery by the North Staffordshire Railway Company. The company, however, finding that the number of such telegrams had diminished (the diminution was not due to any action on the part of the Post Office) decided
  1848
  three months ago to abandon the service, except as regards delivery within the station. There is no case for keeping the post office open all night for telegraph purposes, and, of course, I cannot compel the railway company to keep the station open for delivery.

  National Telephone Company's Plant.
  Mr. RENWICKasked the Postmaster-General whether he had now considered the memorial from the Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom in regard to the telephone service; and what steps he intended to take in the interests of users as to the conclusions in the memorial, that the antiquated and obsolete plant of the National Telephone Company was a serious barrier to the efficiency of the service, that the National Telephone Company should be compelled to incur the necessary expenditure of capital to ensure a more efficient service between now and 31st December, 1911, and that the new measured rate is-exorbitant and beyond what is a necessary charge for services rendered to the subscriber, and, consequently places a heavy burden upon the commercial community?
  Mr. BUXTON: I carefully considered the memorial of the Association of Chambers of Commerce referred to in the question and sent a full reply on the 19th ultimo. I am forwarding a copy of the reply to the hon. Member.
  Mr. RENWICK: Has the Government no power to compel the National Telephone Company to keep its service up-to-date?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have no such power, but the condition of the plant when the question of purchase arises is a material one with regard to the amount to be paid for it.
  Mr. P. CURRAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Telephone Company is now starving the system in various parts of the country? Is he prepared to let this go on until 1911?
  Mr. BUXTON: Surely that is not the fact? If the company are doing so it will be very much to their detriment when the question of purchase arises. I am in negotiation with the company on the question of an earlier purchase.
  Mr. CURRAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the convenience of the community who use the National Telephone Company's service?
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes, of course, and I said the other day it would be to the advantage of telephone users if the two or three years' interval could be bridged over by an earlier purchase. But it is not quite so easy a matter as appears on the face of it.

  Post Office Engineers (Second Class).
  Mr. RIDSDALEasked the Postmaster-General whether, in the examination for second-class engineers in the Post Office, candidates are, after nomination by the university authorities, scrutinised for eligibility before being permitted to compete in the examination; what purpose the nomination serves if there is this subsequent personal scrutiny; and whether he will consider the desirability of allowing all candidates duly nominated by university authorities to compete?
  Mr. BUXTON: Candidates nominated by university authorities are scrutinised for eligibility by a Board of selection before admission to the competition for engineering appointments in the Post Office. The object of the scrutiny is to bring to bear on the selection of candidates a more exact knowledge of the nature of the work, and the qualifications necessary for performing it successfully, than can be possessed outside the Post Office. It is within the knowledge of all candidates that such a scrutiny will take place.

  Telephone Exchange Service.
  Mr. CARLILEasked the Postmaster-General whether he could see his way to publish a Return showing the number of complaints made in the London area by telephone users as to the difficulty in obtaining communication with the exchange, as to the difficulty in obtaining the number asked for, as to the difficulty of obtaining quick communication with the telegraph office, and as to the number of complaints which have been investigated and what occasioned them; and what action has been taken to render the service more efficient?
  Mr. BUXTON: I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with any available information he desires as to the working of the Post Office London telephone service or to give him facilities for personal investigation at the exchanges. The number of complaints is small in relation to the volume of traffic; but they are all
  1850
  carefully examined, and any defects in the service thus brought to light are made good. The subject could not be satisfactorily dealt with in a printed statistical Return.

  Athanasian Creed.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Lower House of Convocation to omit the existing rubric from the Quicunque Vult of the Athanasian Creed; and whether, before such resolution becomes effective, an opportunity will be afforded to Parliament to consider and ratify the same?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Ratification by Parliament would be required before effect could be given to the proposal referred to by the hon. Member.

  P.O. Telephone (Removal Regulations).
  Mr. CARLILEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the officials of the Post Office, in the case of a removal, or a substitution, or alteration to the telephone, insist upon subscribers signing a paper, yet refuse to state what the cost may be for such removal, alteration, or substitution; and whether this is done with his sanction?
  Mr. BUXTON: Subscribers to the Post Office Telephone Service are required to sign an undertaking to pay the cost of removing their telephones. The simple cases of removal, which include about 70 per cent, of the whole, are covered by standard charges, which are always quoted to the subscribers when they are asked to sign the undertakings. In other cases, where estimates of the cost of the work have to be obtained, the information is always given if required by the subscribers.
  Mr. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the officials give the information when desired, where the standard rate of charges is concerned?
  Mr. BUXTON: The standard charges are always quoted to subscribers. It is only in special cases they are not, but if a subscriber asks for them the information is always given where possible.
  Mr. CARLILE: My information is that it is not so.
  Mr. BUXTON: If the hon. Member will give me a case I will have inquiry made.

  London Telephone Exchanges.
  Mr. CARLILEasked the Postmaster-General whether he will print for the use of subscribers and users of the telephone a list of the exchanges in London and the exchanges in the vicinity of London, showing the areas which each exchange covers?
  Mr. BUXTON: A list of the kind which the hon. Member desires is already printed at page iv. of the Post Office edition of the current London Telephone Directory.

  One and All Assurance Association.
  Mr. THORNTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent proceedings in the Court of Chancery in the matter of the One and All Assurance Association, in the course of which it was stated that 200,000 persons had subscribed a total sum of £58,000; that the benefits paid out amounted to £17,030 only, that the association had suspended payment of benefits, and that on the appointment of a receiver by the court no assets but furniture and printed matter were found; whether he was aware of the fact that the association was not registered as a friendly society, and that similar organisations also not so registered had subsequently been established, and were inviting contributions from the operative classes; and whether he will propose the incorporation in the Assurance Companies Bill of such machinery as will effectually regulate organisations of this class, or will take such other steps as may be best calculated to protect the industrial population from unsound schemes of insurance?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): My attention has been called to the case of the One and All Assurance Association, and to the proceedings in the Court of Chancery. I am advised that the provisions of the Assurance Companies Bill as drafted will deal effectually with associations of this kind, but if any doubt is felt on this point I will readily consider any representations which my hon. Friend may make to the Board of Trade on the subject. I should add, however, that there is very little chance of this Bill passing into law this Session unless there is a general wish on the part of the House to facilitate its progress.

  Railway Amalgamation (Departmental Committee).
  Mr. HIGHAMasked whether the Departmental Committee recently appointed by
  1852
  him to consider matters relating to railway agreements and amalgamation will sit in public; how often they propose to sit; and whether they have arranged for a full shorthand note of the proceedings at each sitting to be taken and to be placed on sale immediately thereafter.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that the Committee propose to meet about twice a week, but not in public. I have no doubt that they will follow the usual practice of having a full shorthand note taken of evidence, and I will ask them to inform my hon. Friend of any decision at which they may arrive with regard to the publication of the minutes of evidence.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDY: Is there anybody on this Committee who in any way represents Irish railway employés?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on the question.

  Mercantile Marine (Colour Test Examinations).
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Trattles, of Stockton, who passed for first mate in colour tests, as well as for other qualifications, in 1906, and who received the examiner's authority for the delivery of a first mate's certificate, but who afterwards received a letter stating that his examination had been cancelled as he had failed to pass a special colour examination in 1905; whether he is aware that since such time he had been at sea as second mate, giving entire satisfaction to the owners and also the captain of the vessel; that the Board of Trade is now demanding the return of Mr. Trattles' second mate's ticket; and, if so, whether he will give the matter full consideration before adopting any such measures?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has been called to the case of Mr. Trattles and the facts are as stated. The examiners' authority is "subject to the approval of the Chief Examiner in London and of the Board of Trade." In the interests of safety at sea that approval was withheld. I have reason to believe that the owners and the master of the ship on which Mr. Trattles has since sailed have expressed their Satisfaction with his services. In view of his failure to pass a special examination in colour vision on 28th May last the Board of Trade have decided that they I cannot take the responsibility of allowing

  1853
  him to hold a second mate's certificate, and have, therefore, requested him to surrender it. This decision has been arrived at after the most careful consideration and on the best advice obtainable.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: How was it this man did not receive his certificate?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: A very careful examination is made. The examination has to be ratified by the superior authority from time to time, and it happens that, on the second trial by that superior authority, they took the view that the first examination did not have satisfactory results, and that they could not accept the responsibility of giving a certificate which might lead to loss of life.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: May I take it as a fact that candidates are subject to a second examination with regard to vision before they receive a certificate?
  Mr. CHURCHILL:In any instance where the necessity for a second examination exists in the opinion of the authorities a special examination is held, and this is one of those cases.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: How did it come about that this second examination took place, inasmuch as this man had given entire satisfaction to the ship's captain and the owners under whom he served?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think the regular procedure was departed from in any way.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: How came it about that the demand for the second examination was insisted upon, and on what authority was it made?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The process of colour examination is a very extensive and regular process, carried on on a large scale, and I am not aware of any special demand for a second examination, but I will inquire how it was. I have reason to believe that a perfectly regular course has been followed.

  Colonial Representatives and All-Red. Route.
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if advantage will be taken of the presence in this country of representatives of the Colonies concerned to discuss the question of the All-Red Route, or is that project to be considered to have been definitely abandoned by the Government?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I hardly think that the matter referred to comes within the scope of the Conference about to be held with representatives of the Self-Governing Dominions which is solely concerned with questions of defence, but perhaps some opportunity for informal discussion may occur.
  Mr. FELL: Arising out of that apparently satisfactory reply, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, what is the real cause which has caused this immense delay?

  Public Elementary School (Eye).
  Mr. NICHOLLSasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the public elementary school at Eye, in the county of the Soke of Peterborough, was closed on Thursday and Friday, 24th and 25th June, without the consent of the managers or of the local education authority; whether seven days' notice of this closure was given to His Majesty's inspector, as directed by Article 56 of the Code of Regulations for Elementary Schools; and, if not, whether he will, as provided by the article, make a substantial deduction from the annual grant, in order that the scholars and parents may be protected from similar treatment in the future?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. C. P. Trevelyan): Inquiry is being made, the result of which will be communicated to the hon. Member.

  Evening Continuation Schools (Consultative Committee).
  Colonel WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Education if he has now received the Report of the consultative Committee on evening continuation schools; and, if so, whether, in view of the public interest taken in the question, he will publish it forthwith?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The Report of the Committee has just been presented to the Board. The first volume of the Report will be published shortly.

  Small Holdings (Newborough).
  Mr. NICHOLLSasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is able to give the House further information of the progress, if any, made to supply the 30 applicants at New-

  1855
  borough with small holdings; whether the Soke of Peterborough County Council still refuse to ratify the recommendations of the small holdings committee to provide land for the applicants; and whether he can say what steps the Board of Agriculture intend to take to supply such applicants?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): The county council propose to hold a further inquiry forthwith to consider the applications received. This step should, of course, have been taken long ago, and the delay which has arisen is much to be regretted. But it is an essential preliminary to the provision of land, and until the demand has really been ascertained it would be premature to say what action should be taken to satisfy it.
  Mr. P. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the demand has not been ascertained before?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The county council has been dilatory; we much regret it. It is because they were dilatory.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it not the duty of the Commissioners to ascertain the demand, through the county council or otherwise?
  Mr. NICHOLLS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these men have been interviewed by the county council committee, and that they were accepted and recommended?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension—not by the county council. The county council have ordered an inquiry themselves.

  Forestry (Ireland).
  Mr. FLYNNasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will say whether any steps have yet been taken by the Department to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Forestry in Ireland; if he is aware that paragraph 3 of Part I. of that Report states that an exceptional opportunity, which cannot recur, for acquiring land suitable for forestry purposes in Ireland now presents itself in connection with the Land Purchase Acts; and whether he has taken any action towards acquiring the proceeds of the Irish quit and Crown rents, which the Committee declared would be sufficient to finance a national system of forestry if reinforced by a moderate Treasury grant?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): The Department are fully alive to the extreme urgency of the question of preventing the wasteful destruction which, under existing circumstances, is now going on in regard to Irish woodlands, and of thus saving for the country what should be a valuable national asset. The Department have already acquired certain large woods which would otherwise have been cut down. As a result of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Irish Forestry, which was duly submitted by the Department to the Government, the Treasury have provided in the Parliamentary Vote for the current year a sum of £6,000 to enable the Department to purchase by means of annuities under the Land Purchase Acts, suitable areas of woodlands and lands adapted for forestry, comprised in estates in Ireland which are being sold under those Acts. The Department are at present in negotiation with the Estates Commissioners with a view to the purchase of portions of certain estates. All such purchases will be carried out through the Estates Commissioners only. The Department are not in a position to make any statement in regard to the quit and Crown rents, as the general question of reafforestation is still under the consideration of the Government.
  Mr. FLYNN: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any knowledge of whether the Vice-President has yet approached the Treasury for the purpose of getting hold of this peculiarly Irish fund for an Irish purpose?
  Mr. CHERRY: I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend has approached the Treasury many times on this matter.

  Coalfields (Ireland).
  Mr. FLYNNasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, in reference to the geological survey of Ireland, referred to in the last Report of the Department, any survey has been made recently of possible coalfields in Munster; is the Department yet provided with a diamond or other suitable borer; and whether the Department will consider the propriety of conducting surveys and boring operations in such districts as Dromagh, near Banteer, county Cork, and the district lying north-west of the River Blackwater, and extending to the confines of Kerry, at Kingwilliams-town, where coal and culm have been raised in considerable quantities in former years?
  Mr. CHERRY: A survey of the coalfields referred to was made some years ago, and the Department are advised that a resurvey is not necessary. The Department do not possess a diamond drill, and do not propose to conduct boring operations for minerals. The Department's economic geologist is familiar with the district mentioned in the last part of the question, and will be prepared to afford any information in his power to intending prospectors.

  Death in Poplar Workhouse (Diana Green).
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is yet in a position to report as to the nature of the findings of the Poplar Board of Guardians as to the death of Diana Green in the workhouse, and in regard to whose death the coroner's jury declared it had been occasioned by shock due to fractured ribs and other injuries?
  Mr. COCHRANEalso asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has now received a report of the inquiry regarding the circumstances attending the death of Diana Green, who was found dead under a bed in Poplar Workhouse, with four ribs and one arm broken, on 18th of June; and whether he can communicate the results of that inquiry?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have received from the guardians a copy of the report made to them by the visiting committee after their investigation of the case referred to in the questions. The committee appear to have taken all the evidence available, but unfortunately the medical officer of the workhouse is seriously ill, and hence they were unable to examine him. They report that they have given very careful consideration to the depositions at the inquest, the report of the master of the workhouse, and the statements of the officers and inmates examined by them, but that they have been unable to elicit any material facts in addition to those contained in the depositions and the master's report. They are of opinion that, until the medical officer is in a condition to be further examined, it will not be possible to come to any definite conclusion as to the cause of the injuries to the deceased. I have requested to be in-formed when the medical officer has suffi-
  1858
  ciently recovered to give evidence, and have promised, in compliance with a request to that effect, that the Local Government Board's senior medical inspector for Poor Law purposes shall assist at any further investigation then held.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly give us the report when the medical officer makes it?
  Mr. BURNS: When the medical officer has attended this investigation and made a report, that will be made public.

  Spirit Tax (Medicinal Use).
  Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state what would approximately be the loss on the Spirit Tax if a return were allowed of the additional duty on spirits which are largely employed in the preparation of drugs and on brandy prescribed for the use of patients to public hospitals, infirmaries, and dispensaries established and mainly supported by voluntary contributions for the relief of the poor and indigent; and if he has any reason to suppose that the officers of those institutions could not be relied upon to make an accurate return of the spirits so used?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend has no data which would enable him to give the information required by my hon Friend. Except in the case of drugs prepared on the premises, he does not see how the officers of the institutions in question would be able to make an accurate return of the amount or strength of the spirits used.

  Ungotten Mineral Tax (Clay).
  Mr. RENWICKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that clay excavated during the construction of docks and other works is subject to a royalty when used for the purpose of making bricks or cement; whether un-gotten clay will be subject to the Ungotten Mineral Tax; and, if so, in what way will the quantity of such ungotten clay be arrived at?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I may refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend on the 16th ult. to the hon. Members for the Holborn Division and for Darlington.

  FINANCE BILL.

    LAND VALUATION.
    Mr. C. J. O'DONNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the double valuation of land under the Finance Bill to ascertain the fee simple value and the site value is intended to supply an elaborate and highly accurate record of every element of value in the land separately, and having in view the want of authority in an unprofessional and interested valuation made by an owner, he will consider a valuation by Government officials; whether he can state what would be the probable cost of such a valuation of the 32,000,000 acres of tillage and pasture land in Great Britain, and of the buildings, timber, fruit trees, fences, drains, etc., in, on, and under its surface; and whether he will explain how such a complicated valuation could be arrived at at a cost, on the average, of less than 20s. per three acres?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the information for which he asks, but I can assure him that these points have received the careful consideration of the Government.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: Before the scheme of valuation was incorporated in the Finance Bill, was any estimate made as to the cost of that?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The question was put to me by the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone. My hon. Friend will find my reply to it the day before yesterday.

    UNGOTTEN MINERAL TAX.
    Mr. DAVID DAVIESasked if building or road stone is to be regarded as mineral, and subject to the ungotten mineral or any other tax?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I must refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

    LAND VALUE DUTY.
    Mr. HAROLD COXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether persons who make a business of buying and selling land are at present charged for Income Tax under Schedule D at 9d. in the pound on the net result of these transactions, which is treated as earned income; and whether, under the Finance Bill of 1909, the same persons will be charged a tax of 4s. in the pound on those of their transactions which show a profit, on the
    1860
    assumption that those are unearned increment; and, if so, whether he will present to the House some typical cases showing how much income will be left to such persons?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, if the total income of the persons referred to does not exceed £2,000 per annum. As regards the second part of the question, liability to Increment Value Duty on land in any particular case will depend on the circumstances of that case, and has no analogy with the taxation of earned income derived from the business of dealing in land. I cannot undertake to construct "typical cases," but I may remind my hon. Friend that four-fifths of all increment value will still remain in the owners' hands.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether a lease of any separate part of a building will in any case constitute an interest in land; and, if so, whether Increment Duty will be payable upon the determination and renewal of such lease?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is not my right hon. Friend's intention that Increment Duty should be charged on the occasion of the determination and renewal of the lease of a flat, or separate offices, etc.
    Mr. LANE - FOX (for Sir Henry Kimber)asked whether, as it is not intended to treat offices, flats, and chambers on the upper floors of a building as an interest in the land, and that no distinction will be drawn between offices, etc., on the ground floor, and the other floors when let separately, it is to be assumed that the ground floor also is not to be treated as an interest in the land?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: How would the Government propose to deal with the case of a Scotch tenement of which the upper floors were freehold?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that on the Paper.

    SITE VALUATION (COST).
    Mr. C J. O'DONNELLasked whether Mr. J. Grant Lawson, Secretary to the Local Government Board, in April, 1905. made an estimate to the effect that a valuation separating the value of the site from the value of the buildings on it would cost

    1861
    for Great Britain at least 18 millions sterling; and whether this estimate included agricultural land?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I gather that my hon. Friend refers to the speech made by Sir J. Grant Lawson on the Second Reading of the Land Values (Assessment and Eating) Bill of 1905? I have no means of saying what his estimate included or on what it was based.

    SPIRIT DUTIES (REVENUE).
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his estimate of an increase in revenue of £1,600,000 from the new Spirit Duties for the current year is corroborated by the trade returns for the month of June?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Nothing has come to the notice of my right hon. Friend which would induce him to modify his estimate of the revenue to be derived from the additional duty on spirits ending 31st March, 1910.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked what has been the sale of spirits during the month of June; and if the figures confirm the estimate that the licensed victuallers are making a profit at the rate of £4,000,000 a year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have no means of furnishing the hon. Member with the information asked for in the latter part of the question. The amount of duty received on spirits paying duty in the month of June is given in my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Inverness on the 7th instant.

  Bank Note Issue (Ireland).
  Mr. FLYNNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Banking Return for the average of the four weeks ending 14th November, 1908. in addition to disclosing the apparent excesses in the note issue of some banks in Ireland, also discloses the fact that the actual amount of notes issued by the Bank of Ireland was £734,278 less than its power of issue, which is £3,738,428, and by the Provincial Bank £119,278 less than its authorised circulation of £927,667; and will he say whether steps will be taken to remedy this inequality in the present system of bank-note issue in Ireland?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The effect of the certificate under section 8 of the Banking (Ireland) Act, 1845, is to determine the
  1862
  amount by which the issue of any bank may, under the provisions of that section, exceed the amount of gold and silver coin held by such bank. Such excess was, on the average of the four weeks ended 14th November, 1908, as shown by the Return referred to in the question in the case of the Bank of Ireland, £2,472,156, and in the case of the Provincial Bank £665,130. These figures are less than the maximum amount permitted by the certificates by £1,266,272 and"£262,537 respectively. The power to issue notes in excess of the amount of gold and silver coin held was given to those and other banks in 1845 by way of recognising and stereotyping a preexisting privilege, and the fact that any particular bank or banks do not avail themselves to the full of the privileges accorded to them is no ground for enlarging the privileged issues of other banks. My right hon. Friend cannot, therefore, admit that any inequality arises under the present system.
  Mr. FLYNN: Could not the short issue of the Bank of Ireland and the Provincial Bank be allocated amongst other joint-stock banks by a mere Order in Council?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It would require legislation, I am advised.
  Mr. FLYNNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that in respect to the total authorised circulation of bank-notes in Ireland, which stands at £6,354,494, a disproportionately large power of issue is given to the Bank of Ireland; is he aware that if power were conferred on all the Irish banks to issue in accordance with their present capacities their united circulation would not exceed this figure, and there would be no need to alter the total authorised issue but merely to redistribute it amongst all the existing banks according to their ascertained powers of issue; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps by legislation or otherwise to enable all Irish banks to issue bank-notes?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The figure quoted represents not the total authorised circulation of bank-notes in Ireland, but the aggregate amount by which such circulation is permitted by the Banking (Ireland) Act to exceed the aggregate amount of gold and silver coin held by the banks of issue. The share of the Bank of Ireland is determined by the terms of section 8 of that Act, and has relation solely to the rights enjoyed by that bank before the passing of the Act. The aggregate average

  1863
  circulation of the six banks of issue for the four weeks ended 14th November, 1908, was £7,487,569, or £1,133,075 more than the aggregate issue authorised by certificate. There would be grave objections to the indiscriminate grant of note-issuing powers to all banks as suggested in the latter part of the question.
  Mr. FLYNN: Could not the redistribution among the banks be carried out by Order in Council without legislation?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should like notice of the question.
  NEW MEMBER SWORN.—The Right Hon. Herbert Louis Samuel, for the county of Yorkshire (Cleveland Division), after appointment as Vice-President of the Council.

PARLIAMENTARY SEATS (PEERS OF SCOTLAND).
Mr. MacNEILLasked leave to introduce a Bill to enable Peers of Scotland, not being Lords of Parliament, to be elected and returned to sit in the House of Commons.
The Bill has for its object to make gentlemen who are Peers of Scotland, without hereditary seats in the House of Lords, eligible for election and for sitting in the House of Commons. This is not an academic matter. If the law as it at present exists remains it will expose to a very grievous disability and deprivation a gentlemen whom we all greatly esteem. There are 86 gentlemen who hold Scotch peerages. Of these 50 are peers either of Great Britain or of the United Kingdom, and have seats, irrespective of their Scotch peerages, in the House of Lords. Of the 36 who remain 16 are Scotch representative peers, and the remaining 20 are not able to be Members of this House or to represent any constituency, nor have they seats in the House of Peers. They might, no doubt, be elected as representative peers of Scotland. Gentlemen who wish that position, and who are Conservatives, have, of course, a very excellent chance of that, but a gentleman of Radical principles has no chance whatever, inasmuch as it is done on party lines. I wish to give Scotch hereditary peers without seats in the House of Lords an opportunity of sitting in the House of Commons, and of voting there exactly as Irish peers, depriving them during the same
1864
time, of course, of their right to elect Scotch representative peers, and of the ordinary status of the peerage. The Under-Secretary for India is heir-apparent to a Scotch peerage. If he obtained it to-morrow, not having a hereditary seat in the House of Lords, he is absolutely excluded from politics, he ceases to be a Member of this House, he cannot be a Member of the House of Lords, and his career is at an end. He would be in fact blocked out of this House by an accident. I like the hon. Gentleman personally, and I would ask that justice should be done. It would be really very absurd if he were prevented from entering this House for the reason I have stated. The peerage of which he is the heir is an old one, having been created in 1613, and because an ancestor was made a peer more than 200 years ago the moment he becomes possessed of this title, which is in reality nothing but a sound, he is obliged to walk straight out of the House of Commons. I think that is an anomaly which should be corrected, and I hope to get the leave of the House to bring in this Bill. It is backed by Members of all shades of opinion, who desire to do an act of justice not only to one whom we would not willingly lose, but who at the same time wish to clear away a very extraordinary Constitutional anomaly.
Question. "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to enable Peers of Scotland, not being Lords of Parliament, to be elected and returned to sit in the House of Commons," put and agreed to.
Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time. [To be read a second time, 22nd July.]

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[Eleventh Bay.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

FINANCE BILL.

  PART I.—DUTIES ON LAND VALUES.
  Increment Value Duty.
  Clauses 1 and 2 (as amended in Committee) now read as follows:—

  PART I.—DUTIES ON LAND VALUES.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Duty on Increment Value.)
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, there shall be charged, levied, and paid on the increment value of any land a duty, called Increment Value Duty, at the rate of one pound for every complete five pounds of that value accruing

    1865
    after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, and the duty or a proportionate part thereof shall become due—

    (a) on the occasion of any transfer on sale of the land or any interest in the land, in pursuance of any contract made after the commencement of this Act, or the grant, in pursuance of any contract made after the commencement of this Act, of any lease (not being a lease for a term of years not exceeding 14 years) of the land; and

    (b) on the occasion of the death of any person dying after the commencement of this Act, where the land or any interest in the land is comprised in the property passing on the death of the deceased within the meaning of sections 1 and 2 sub-section (1) (a), (b), and (c), and sub-section 3, of The Finance Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment: Provided that in the case of a disposition made by any person purporting to act as an immediate gift inter vivos, whether by way of transfer, delivery, declaration of trust, or otherwise, marriage shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be valuable consideration; and

    (c) where the land or any interest in the land is held by any body corporate or by any body unincorporate, as defined by section 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, on such periodical occasions as are provided in this Act;

    and on each of those occasions the duty, or proportionate part of the duty, so far as it has not been paid on any previous occasion, shall be collected in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Definition of Increment Value.)
    (1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act the increment value of any land shall be deemed to be the amount (if any) by which the site value of the land, on the occasion on which Increment Value Duty becomes due, exceeds the original site value of the land.
    (2) The site value of the land on the occasion on which Increment Value Duty becomes due shall be taken to be—

    (a) where the occasion is a transfer on sale of the fee simple of the land, the value of the consideration for the transfer; and

    (b) where the occasion is the grant of any lease of the land, or the transfer
    1866
    on sale of any interest in the land, the value of the fee simple of the land, calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration for the grant of the lease or the transfer of the interest; and

    (c) where the occasion is the death of any person and the fee simple of the land is property passing on that death, the principal value of the land as ascertained for the purposes of Part I. of the Finance Act, 1894, and where any interest in the land is property passing on that death the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of the principal value of the interest as so ascertained; and

    (d) where the occasion is a periodical occasion on which the duty is due in respect of land held by a body corporate or unincorporate, the value of the fee simple of the land as ascertained for the purposes of the assessment of duty under this Act;

    subject to such deduction (if any) as the Commissioners allow in each case in respect of any part of the value which is proved to be attributable to buildings, structures, or other things of which the land is deemed to be divested under this Act for the purpose of ascertaining its site value, or to any matter in respect of which a deduction may be allowed under this Act in estimating that site value, or to the expenditure of money on any redemption of Land Tax or of any rent-charge as defined in this Act effected after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, or to goodwill, or to any other matter which is personal to the owner, occupier, or other person interested for the time being in land, and, in the case of agricultural land the value of which is due solely to its capacity for agricultural purposes, also in respect of any part of that value which is proved to the Commissioners to be attributable to works of a permanent character, executed by or on behalf or at the expense of any person interested in the land, or to the good husbandry of any person in occupation of or interested in the land.
    (3) The Commissioners shall record all allowances and deductions made under this section.
    (4) Where, on any occasion on which Increment Value Duty is due in respect of any land, it becomes necessary, for the purpose of ascertaining the original site value of the land on which the duty is to be assessed, to apportion any original site

    1867
    value as first adopted for the purposes of this Part of this Act, that value shall be apportioned between that part of the land on which duty is to be assessed and the remaining part of the land in such proportions as the Commissioners determine. On the application at any time of any person entitled to the fee simple of, or to an interest in any land, the Commissioners shall apportion or reapportion the original site value of the land amongst such parts of the land as may be specified in the application in such proportions as they think just, and shall give a certificate of any apportionment or reapportionment so made. The value attributed on any such apportionment or reapportionment to each part of the land shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be treated as the original site value of that part of the land.
    (5) Where the owner of the fee simple of any land, or any person entitled to an interest in the land, proves to the Commissioners that he, or any of his predecessors in title, has acquired for a consideration, being money or money's worth, the fee simple of or interest in the land within twenty years before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, and that the total value of the fee simple of the land, as calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration then given, exceeds the total value of the land as first adopted for the purposes of this Part of this Act, after deducting any part of that value which is attributable to works of a permanent character executed since the purchase or acquisition, or where the mortgagee of any land proves that he or any of his predecessors in title has advanced upon mortgage on the land an amount which exceeds that total value, such sum shall be substituted for the purposes of Increment Value Duty for the original site value of the land as the Commissioners determine, having regard to the total value as so calculated of the fee simple or the amount advanced on mortgage as the case requires, was at the time the site value of the land.
    Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. G. D. FABER: I feel that so many topics of great importance having been discussed during the last few days——
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: On a point of order, I would like to ask you whether the clause is in order in view of the ruling which you were good enough to give last night? I wish to ask whether the clause
    1868
    does not involve a new public charge? This is the first of the clauses which deal with valuation under this Bill. It provides for a valuation of the increment value, and also for apportionment, and so on. It is provided by Clause 17 of the Bill that the valuation is to be carried out by the Commissioners if they are not satisfied with the returns made by the land-owners. The effect of that is, I submit, that in certain events the Commissioners will have to carry out the duty thrown upon them by this clause, and it will have to be carried out at the public expense, in accordance with the principle which you were good enough to lay down last night. In deciding the question whether the Amendment I moved last night was in order you said:—
    "The point raised by the Noble Lord, as I understand it, is that the Commissioners might have to pay out of their own pocket. That is the point on which I ask the Government to give me information. If it can be said that it is possible that the Commissioners may have to pay, I shall have to allow the Noble Lord to move the Amendment. On the face of it, this is a public charge for which the Commissioners cannot be said to be personally liable. If that is so the Amendment would be out of order."
    I submit that on the principle of that ruling the Commissioners will have to carry out as part of their duties a duty which will fall on public funds, and that is not covered by the Resolution which was passed by the Committee. I have a copy of the Resolution here, but I need not read it. It is clear that it does not refer to valuation in any respect. I submit that since this clause really does add to the charge on the taxpayers a fresh Resolution is necessary before the Committee can be asked to adopt the clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite know what the Noble Lord means by his reference to Clause 17. The Question now before the Committee is, "That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill," and we have nothing to do with Clause 17 at present, because we have not yet arrived at that clause. So far as I can see, the new duties thrown upon the Commissioners are not in the nature of what the Noble Lord calls creating a public charge. The Amendment which the Noble Lord moved last night, and upon which I had some difficulty in deciding whether it was in order, raised the question of throwing on the Commissioners in certain circumstances a fresh charge. When it was altered and made clear that they would have to pay out of their own pockets, I allowed the Amendment. That is a different matter from instructing the

    1869
    Commissioners to perform certain duties. But apart from that the question should have been raised at the beginning of the clause, and not now. There has been nothing put into the clause which involves a fresh charge.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: I should like to have the indulgence of the Committee to make a few observations on the salient points that seem to me to emerge from the discussions we have had on this clause. The first remark I have to make is upon the extraordinary course that has been taken by this clause in regard to the courts of law. The courts of law are not in the picture, or at least only to a small extent. I believe this is the first time that such an evil precedent has occurred in the history of Bills of this kind, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who belongs to the legal profession, should have initiated such a dangerous precedent. You are, if I may so say, closing the doors of the temple of justice—a temple which has been more the palladium of the liberties of this country than even the House of Commons itself. You are substituting for the courts of law an autocracy. It is not only an autocracy which you have under this clause, but it is the autocracy of a bureaucracy, and, what is worse, the autocracy of a bureaucracy of the new democracy. I cannot venture to hope that the protests of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University will have much effect on the hardened hearts of the Ministers on the front bench opposite. Perhaps those of the hon. and learned Members for Reading and for Cambridge, sitting behind the Government, may have. The Government have said that they intend to introduce Amendments, but we are always told of the changes that are coming, and we are always put off to the Greek kalends. We shall see. But at any rate, we are entitled to say that this clause has been thought over for months and months, and represents the considered judgment of the Cabinet, and that considered judgment is that in the performance of duties under this clause the courts of law are to have no authority. The Commissioners are to have carte, blanche. They will call the tune, and the millions of land-owners of this country—I believe there are millions—will have to dance to the Commissioners' tune; and if they do not dance it will be worse for them. What is the tune the
    1870
    Commissioners are going to play? Is it the tune to which they have been accustomed? No; it is a new tune altogether. They have never been accustomed to work of this kind; neither have the valuers nor the other experts they will be able to call in. It is a new machine. Hitherto valuers have been accustomed to value land and buildings as a going concern, the land with everything upon it which gives it its value, the fertility of the soil, the buildings, and everything under the earth and above it. They have been accustomed to consider that, and they have no difficulty in arriving at a judgment in the matter. But under this Bill they have to deal not with a going concern at all, but with a mere hypothesis; something that does not exist, an abstraction; something they have got to imagine in their minds. You are putting on them an absolutely impossible task.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition observed with great force a few weeks ago that valuers, of course, say they can value anything. They will value your immortal soul if you give them a chance. It is not a fair task. I remember the story of the blind man who was turned into the dark room to look for the black hat that was not there. The duties which the valuers will have to perform under this clause will be trifling compared with the duty that was cast on the blind man. They had got to deal with what does not exist. I think much more complication was introduced into the matter yesterday in the discussion which we had on the question of the apportionment site value. The original site value, according to the theory I understand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is to be your datum, your starting point, your rock of ages, through the years and the centuries. Posterity will always have to cast its eye back to what I suppose will be known in remote times as the "Lloyd-George Valuation." He will be immortalised, but I am afraid his immortality will be purchased at the expense of millions of the people of the country. In your apportionment of original site value you forget that the original conformation does not in this changing world in fact remain the same. If the original piece of land were always there, in the same shape, and you could always refer back to it, then it would be complicated enough. But it does not remain the same. Like the pieces of glass in the kaleidoscope, it is always changing its conformation, until after a time it will pass the wit of man

    1871
    to discover the original against which the comparison for all time has got to be made. I do not know on which there would be the more difficulty—urban land or agricultural land. I sat down the other day to try to work out what I should have to do if this Bill became law. Sanity almost left me by the time I had done with the urban land. When I was trying to discover the original site value of a farm I sighed for the sanity of Colney Hatch.
    Why is not agricultural land excluded? We were told under Clause 1 that it was going to be excluded. We were told under Clause 2 that it was excluded. I would venture to say that every Member of the Committee who has listened to the Debate on this clause, whatever view he may take about the Bill, must come to the conclusion that agricultural land is not in effect excluded. If it was intended to be excluded, why did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). The right hon. Gentleman has been pressed over and over again by Members upon his own side to exclude agricultural land, but he has not done it. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General tried to maintain the hopeless contention that Clause 2 and Clause 14 combined will have the effect of excluding agricultural land. They will have no effect of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman was a little bit unjust towards one of his ardent supporters last evening, the hon. Baronet, the Member for Louth, who was in despair at the effect that this clause would have upon the many hundreds of his constituents who are small holders. The right hon. Gentleman was a little waspish to the Member for Louth because he showed that small holders will be put to all this trouble. The hon. Member for Louth was only putting the case exactly in the way this Bill will fall out if it becomes law. The small holders will have to apportion their plots, however small they may be, because the Attorney-General warned the Committee yesterday that if the apportionment is not made it may be unfortunate for the persons concerned. As regards valuation, the Attorney-General, while we were discussing Clause 1, said that it was so simple that a man of the most bucolic intelligence could make the valuation. We have gone far away from that. The Attorney-General himself said, in a phrase which has often been repeated, and will again often be repeated throughout the country before we have got to the
    1872
    end of this matter, that valuation is to be elaborate, costly and expensive.
    It will have to be made probably by millions of people. In 1876 there were estimated to be more than a million owners of land in this country. There would be probably many more now, and, in addition, you are now going to treat as owners all those who have leases for more than 50 years' duration. That will add enormously to the number of people who will have to make valuations. You have not done then, because the valuation has got to be made not only of the separate properties of the owners, but of the separate holdings that belong to the separate properties of the owners. It is calculated now that you might get as high as 10 millions of valuations. Each one of them is going to cost not a little money, but very likely a great deal. In these elaborate and extensive calculations the Attorney-General referred yesterday to the expert advice and the machinery at the beck and call of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know that. We know that the whole expert forces are behind the Government, and will be behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer if this Bill becomes law. What does it matter to the Government what it costs? They have the national purse to draw upon. That is not so with the millions of people, rich and poor, great and small, who will have to make these elaborate calculations. It is said it will cost twelve millions of money. I should not be in the least surprised. I know nobody can sit down and work out with any degree of accuracy at all what it will cost, but it might easily cost twenty millions. You say yourselves you do not intend agricultural land to come within the purview of the Bill, and that it is not to come within the meshes of your net. But you are going to put this enormous expense in the matter of valuation upon all the agricultural land in this country, and upon your own allegation, at any rate, you do not intend to include them in the burdens of the Bill.
    There is no common-sense in the matter whatever; it is not fair, it is not reasonable. Here we are, not knowing which way to turn for money. This £20,000,000 which valuation may cost owners alone would provide eight "Dreadnoughts." Twenty millions for valuation, and it is going to bring you in only £250,000, but ultimately I do not know what. There lies the danger. When once you establish the machinery under Clause 2 it brings you in £250,000

    1873
    to-day, but by a turn of the screw it is going to bring you in two, three, four, and perhaps many more millions of money hereafter. I do once again appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at any rate to make his course so far clear as to remove the agricultural land of this country from the purview of this Bill. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have had a fellow-feeling for agriculturists, instead of giving them what he called "butcher's treatment." The right hon. Gentleman, I know, used the words in a different connection, but he said, "After all, agriculture is going to get butcher's treatment."
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Captain Pretyman) asked me to treat the market gardener as I would treat the butcher, and I said the market gardener was being treated exactly the same.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: In that sense, I do not think agriculture has got butcher's treatment. What the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford meant was that the land of the market gardener was his stock-in-trade, as the shop of the butcher was his stock-in-trade. You are going to take increment value from the market gardener in the course of his business, but you are not going to take it from the butcher in the course of his business. The right hon. Gentleman then remarked that the land had got butcher's treatment. From the point of view that I take I am afraid that agricultural land has got butcher's treatment. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is so unkind to agriculture, because in one of his genial moments he confided to the Committee that he was once a bit of a market gardener himself. I should have thought he would have had some feeling for his fellow sufferers, and that it would have been the most ardent desire of his heart to exclude the market gardener, at any rate, from this unfair and in some cases ruinous clause. The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten his old friends. Before I conclude, I would say a word about the Prime Minister's windfall theory, because upon that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it appears to me, have parted company. On the windfall theory the Prime Minister followed the man, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer follows the land, and does not follow the man. The windfall theory has gone, to which the
    1874
    Prime Minister looked, in desperation, to illuminate the darkness of his cause, but it turned out to be only a will-o'-the-wisp, which has landed him almost up to his neck in the bog. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has thrown over the Prime Minister. I think that is rather unkind. The right hon. Gentleman the other day bore testimony to the loyalty of the Prime Minister, and I think he should have returned the compliment by showing more loyalty to him.
    But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got to think of his Bill, and under Clause 2 he threw over the windfall theory, which, therefore, is gone. The theory of the Chancellor of the Exchequer brings with it the extraordinary injustice of disregarding decrement. A man has a field of half a dozen acres worth £1,000. Half of it is sold for gas works. This is an illustration which has already been given by an hon. Member. Half of the whole is sold for gas works, and what was originally worth £500 becomes worth £l,000, and the Increment Duty of a fifth of £500 is £100. But the very process of increasing the value of one-half of the field destroys the value of the other, as no one would wish to live in the neighbourhood of a gas works; yet the Government only look at the half on which there is a profit, and disregard that upon which there is a loss. Surely that must be absurd. You cannot put on spectacles and look merely at a particular part; in such a transaction you must look, at any rate to a certain extent, to the whole matter. We have been told a great deal about Germany. There they do look at the entirety. In the case of Breslau they do not look simply at the increment but at the decrement as well. There is a limit of three years, during which, if there are transactions in respect to a particular plot of land, the owner is allowed to set off any decrement as regards a part of it against the increment in regard to another part. Surely that is only common-sense. See what immense difficulties arise, and what immense injustice is done under the system proposed by this Bill, where you are dealing with buildings. Building development, like almost every other transaction, has its gains and its losses, and you have to look not only at the gains, but at the losses. The front part of a particular piece of building land may go at a very large profit to the builder; and you take that increment value; but the back part may lie idle for years, and it may result in a grievous loss, yet you pay no regard to that.

    1875
    We really have had no answer, at least I have not heard any, to our allegation that, whatever else this may be, it is not just. The Attorney-General said it was not practicable to allow for decrement. I said at the time that it was the business of the Government to make it practicable; it is their legislation. We cannot leave it in this way, that this Bill should emerge from this House with such a crushing injustice as will and must arise, if you are going to deal merely with the increment in a transaction, and have no regard at all to the decrement. I want to make a quotation from Adam Smith. The right hon. Gentleman rather made game a little while ago of Adam Smith. He said he was too dull for the Member for Dulwich.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I said too "slow."
    Mr. G. D. FABER: I thought, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman meant to be alliterative, and said that he was "too dull" for the Member for Dulwich; apparently he said he was "too slow" for the hon. Gentleman. However, Adam Smith, in respect of the quotation I am now going to make, is not too slow for me. He appeals entirely to such argumentative capacity as I may possess, and such ideas as I entertain in reference to fair and proper taxation. Adam Smith, in his first canon of taxation, says:—
    "The certainty of. what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a matter of so great importance that a very considerable degree of inequality, it appears, I believe, from the experience of all nations, is not nearly so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty,"
    This clause introduces not only no degree of certainty, but it introduces as great an amount of uncertainty as it is possible for any man to conceive. This clause traverses the dictum of Adam Smith from beginning to end, and I venture, therefore, to ask that this clause be deleted from the Bill, and I move that be done.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I have risen for the purpose of making an earnest appeal to the Government not to allow the Division to take place on this clause without clearing up some of the obscurities in which the Committee stands at this moment. There has been a very long and a very detailed discussion of this clause, and the right hon. Gentleman certainly has not spared himself in his desire to elucidate every doubtful point, and to assist
    1876
    the Committee in coming to a conclusion, and yet, with reference to what I regard as probably the most important point of all in the clause, the Committee finds itself at this moment in a state of absolute uncertainty and insecurity. My colleagues and I who sit on these benches are in favour of the principle of this tax. We have supported it. We have supported the Government in the Lobby whenever what we regarded as destructive Amendments were moved, and which, in our judgment, were directed against the principle of the tax of which we approve. We stated from the very commencement that our support of this clause was conditional upon two matters. The first was that the yield of this tax should go, not to the Imperial Exchequer, but to the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman has not gone the full way that we desired, but no doubt we will have other opportunities of pressing our views. But he has made a concession, and no doubt, from his point of view, a large concession. He has promised that one-half of this tax shall be put into a pool and devoted to purposes for which the local authorities are responsible. Therefore, so far as that is concerned, I have not at this stage to make any complaint.
    Our second point was with regard to agricultural land, that it should be excluded and exempted from this particular tax. The right hon. Gentleman spoke on this matter repeatedly, and, as far as I could understand, and as far as I understand at this moment, judging by these public declarations, there is no difference of intention between him and those like myself who have asked that land should be excluded. But the unfortunate position in which we stand is this, that the words of the clause, as they are now being put from the Chair, do not provide for this, and that as they are being put they undoubtedly make agricultural land liable to these taxes. When we began to discuss this matter the right hon. Gentleman told us that when we came to sub-section (2) of Clause 2 that then words would be put forward which would satisfy our anxiety and our uncertainties on this matter. When we reached that part of the clause he made the suggestion that instead of the deduction of improvements, buildings, and so forth, there should be a fixed percentage deducted. I was not here that night unfortunately, but I read most carefully every word of the Debate, and it was perfectly evident that that suggestion of his did not meet with approval, as far as I know, in

    1877
    any quarter of the House. It did not meet with approval above the Gangway or from my colleagues on these benches, or, as far as I can understand, from those supporters of the right hon. Gentlemen on the other side who, as far as I can judge, have shared our anxiety on this question of agricultural land. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman quite naturally withdrew that suggestion, and he withdrew it, I must be allowed to say, as a result of reading the Debate most carefully, on the understanding that the whole matter would be further reconsidered, and that words to carry out the intention which he professed would be forthcoming.
    Yesterday I asked the right hon. Gentleman at Question time why those words had not been put on the Paper in the interval between Wednesday and Monday. He gave me an answer from which I gathered that he had no intention of proposing words on this clause at all, that he was reconsidering the matter, but that it was quite indefinite when his consideration of it would come to the point, when he would be in a position to put the words on the Paper. I say that that leaves the Committee in a state of absolute obscurity and uncertainty on one of the most important issues in this clause. After that answer of the right hon. Gentleman yesterday my colleagues and I felt so uncertain and so perplexed and so embarrassed that we took no part in any of the Divisions last night. We certainly could not possibly vote in favour of this clause, much as I am in favour, as I have said, of the principle of the Increment Tax, if we are left in a position of uncertainty. I have risen only for the purpose of urging the right hon. Gentleman most respectfully to put an end to this uncertainty. I am not, I hope he will not imagine, imputing to him in the smallest degree any desire to break his pledge on this Bill or his pledged word on this subject. Nothing is further from my mind. I am quite sure he is speaking absolutely sincerely and that his intention is the same as that avowed by myself. After all, the declaration of the intention of a Minister is not sufficient when you are dealing with the actual words of the clause of a Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman wants us to take his declaration and act upon it as if it were words in the Bill, then I respectfully say he should put on the Paper the Amendment he is going to move and let us consider its terms and see whether it carries out the promise that he gave.
    1878
    I had hoped, even this morning when I received my Parliamentary Papers, that I might have found the words of some proposed Amendment on the Paper, but they are not there. I do now ask the right hon. Gentleman to put an end to this uncertainty and to tell us exactly what he is going to do and when and how he is going to do it. I do not know whether he has had time to consider the words to carry out these promises, but I think it is unfair to the House of Commons, and that it is unfair to those who take a keen interest on both sides of the House on this point, to let this clause go to a Division until we have some certain and definite declaration as to what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do. Therefore I would ask that words should be put on the Paper as soon as possible to let us see how the right hon. Gentleman is going to translate his intention into the words of an Act of Parliament. We will not go into the other point discussed last night—that is, the question of the exemption of small holdings. The declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, made last night was, I understood, quite satisfactory, but there again I do say we want something more than a declaration of intention. I sympathise with some hon. Members, who said last night it is all very well to promise that you will excuse small holdings, but what do you mean when you say small holdings? That is what I want to know. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman on this point also would put his intentions into words, and let us see those words and consider them, and not go on expecting the Committee to pass a clause of this kind when the most serious points are wrapt in obscurity. I am anxious to support this clause, because, as I have said, I am in favour of the principle of the tax, but I certainly cannot do that if I am left in a state of uncertainty when the Division is called.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for York (Mr. G. D. Faber) in his general survey of all the Amendments that have been moved on this particular clause, and I hope he will not think that I am treating him with the slightest disrespect when I say that it would be quite impossible for me to re-enter into all these discussions. At the same time I am not complaining of his having summarised the whole of the case against the clause. I would rather confine myself to two or three practical considerations which have been submitted

    1879
    to the Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), because those are the points which I think the Committee as a whole will be especially interested in. I promised the hon. and gallant Member for Essex (Mr. Pretyman) that I would endeavour before this clause passes through the House to make some statement with regard to the position of the small holder and of agricultural land. With regard to agricultural land, I think there is agreement amongst all sections of the House as to the desirability of excluding it from the operation of all these taxes. That I think is accepted as a principle by all Members of the House with the exception of a section, and I do not know what I would call them. I think, on the whole, the House has accepted the principle, and that it was purely a question of the way of carrying it out, or to draw the line. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Walter Long) pointed out in a speech yesterday, and very forcibly, it is very difficult to draw the line between purely agricultural land, and land which has got a special value owing to its proximity to towns. That has already been done, it is true, in the Finance Act of 1894, in a provision for which I believe the Leader of the Opposition is responsible. In the year 1894 it was a question of dividing the land of the country roughly into agricultural land, and land which had some special value. The right hon. Gentleman secured for agricultural land the limitation of the value to an amount not exceeding 25 years' purchase, leaving the other land at its market value.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the operation of the Act is this: that where an estate consists of a certain area, and where a part has a building value the whole estate is valued, and then the valuer, in addition to that value, puts the value which attaches to the building part of the estate. There is not, however, any separation of the two classes of land, and it is not defined which part is building land.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As a matter of practice the hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite wrong, though I believe we are agreed, and that that does not upset the whole proposition which I have urged, that there is a difference between the valuation in the case of building land and other land, and that it is treated as having a special value. These are the words for which I
    1880
    am assured the right hon. Gentleman is responsible:—
    "Provided that in the case of any agricultural property where no part of the principal value is due to the expectation of increased income from such property"—
    these latter words are the definition there of building land—
    "the principal value shall not exceed twenty-five times the annual value."
    There is the distinction drawn between land which has this special value and land of a purely agricultural character. In practice that has been taken to mean that the building value is to be valued at its market value. What happens in practice is that whenever an estate is submitted to the Commissioners there is a map of the estate submitted, and the land which has got a special value is coloured, say, red, and the other is coloured, say, green or yellow; then a special value is placed upon the parts so marked out. What I want is something which will be analogous to that procedure that has worked well. Agricultural landowners have not urged any complaint as to it, and I do not think it can be said any really agricultural land has ever been charged the building price; I never heard that once alleged against the working of the Act of 1894. That is what we really want to discover, but that is not covered by the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman). It did not accomplish that purpose. I objected to it, and I suggested an alternative which was objected to on several grounds. One ground, which I recognised probably to be fatal, was that you have got to deal with a large community, and that that it is too complicated. I think it was open probably to the objection of the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford that it was obscure. It would require a good deal of explanation, and at any rate it was not quite clear that it provided an adequate safeguard to agricultural land against the taxes either from Increment or from Undeveloped Land Duty. I have stated that the intention of the Government was not to include purely agricultural land in any of these taxes, and it is entirely a question of the method of carrying out that intention. Several Members have criticised the method adopted to attain that object; they criticised also the alternative which I suggested, and which, on the whole, was not accepted in any quarter of the House as quite meeting the case. As the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) says, it is not enough to merely have a declaration of the Minister; because, after all, an Act of Parliament is

    1881
    interpreted not by what is said by the Minister, but by the words contained in the Act. I think also it is perfectly fair to say that there is a great deal of anxiety on the part of agriculturists as to whether they are included, and the sooner that anxiety is allayed the better. I have been devoting such time as I could to seeing if I could not suggest another formula which would make it absolutely clear that purely agricultural land in the sense of the Finance Act of 1894—the sort of land which is exempted there, and gets special privileges under that Act—should also get the privileges under this Act. That is really what it amounts to. I think it can be done on practically the same lines, namely, by dividing the land of the country into land which is purely agricultural, and to exempt that altogether from all these taxes——
    Mr. IVOR GUEST: And valuation?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will come to that by and by.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Hear, hear.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I never had the slightest hope of satisfying the hon. Member for York (Mr. George Faber); that would be too much to expect. All I have said on behalf of the Government is that we will exempt all this land from these taxes. What will be the way to do it? I think the way is to divide the land of the country roughly into land which is agricultural and land which has a special value of the kind I have indicated, either for industrial or for building purposes. I am taking the analogy of the Act of 1894, which has worked very well for a good many years, and I think on the whole it might be adopted. I will put down words —I do not wish to be tied to the exact words—which will have to be moved as a new clause; they could not be included in the present clause. The words I suggest at present are: "Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that land has for other purposes no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes."
    Mr. IVOR GUEST: Will that apply to undeveloped land?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is no intention of charging purely agricultural land in respect of the Undeveloped Land Tax.
    Mr. HAROLD COX: Does it include sporting land?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It includes purely agricultural land. May I call attention to the Finance Act of 1894? They are substantially the same words which have worked so well there, and have effectively protected agricultural land. I do not think anyone can point to a single case where agricultural land has not been protected by these words in the Act of 1894—"Provided that in the case of any agricultural property where no part of the principal value is due to the expectation of an increased income from such property. …" The words I suggest are even stronger, and will completely exonerate agricultural land from any fear of having to participate in any of these taxes. Of course, the moment agricultural land passes from one category to the other, from agricultural land to building land, the tax will apply. I have never heard anyone contend that, if you are to have an Increment Tax, that should not be the case. In a country like ours you may have land which to-day is purely agricultural and in five or ten years may be exceedingly valuable as building land; and in cases of that kind, when it passes from one category to the other, it will be liable to this tax. I propose to put these words on the Paper tonight, but I would deprecate at the present stage a long discussion of them. I have stated the intention of the Government, and if the words require strengthening we can discuss the matter when we come to them. I may say that this proposal will undoubtedly enormously smooth the difficulties of agricultural land with regard to valuation. All that agricultural land will have to do will be exactly what it does in the case of Death Duties —that is, to supply particulars. It will not be liable to any tax; it would only be liable in the case of a town springing up in the neighbourhood, and the land suddenly becoming very valuable as building land. Therefore it will be necessary to have a complete register of agricultural land.
    Then with regard to small holdings, their case has been pressed upon me from all quarters of the House; but when I indicated my intention to meet it there was a disposition rather to withdraw from the invitation which had been given to me. It was regarded as unfair. The case of the small holder had been pressed upon me by the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) in almost every speech he delivered. He said that it was a hard case, especially in the matter of valuation, and that there was no money in it—which is rather true.

    1883
    The hon. Member for York (Mr. Faber) talked about a million people who would be put to this expense, and said that it would cost about eight "Dreadnoughts." That is a picturesque and very effective way of putting it, since we are thinking in "Dreadnoughts." I agree that there is a good deal of expense and very little money in it, and that it would cause a good deal of bother to the small holder. In that case I think it will probably be advisable to follow the example of the Colonies, where small holders have been exempted, very largely on the grounds of the expense and trouble of collection, and also on the ground that it is desirable rather to encourage than discourage these small holders. Therefore, the Government propose to put down another Amendment, which will exempt from all these taxes the small holder in every case where the total value of the holding is under £500, and where the holder is the occupying owner. That is the case in the Colonies. In addition to that, it will probably be necessary, where there is a house, to have another test than capital value, and to convert that capital value into terms of annual value, so that the occupying owner may know from his rateable value or his assessment for Inhabited House Duty exactly where he is, without having to find out whether his house is worth £500 or £550. That will save a good deal of expense and trouble. The appeal which has been made, notably from the benches opposite, to exempt these poor men from all this trouble and tribulation, which would bring no revenue to the Exchequer, has softened what the hon. Member for York called my hard heart, and I shall, therefore, propose this Amendment.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it would be necessary to convert the capital value into terms of annual value. Does that mean terms of the rateable value as it now exists or some other value?
    Sir BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: Does that mean the small holders under the county council?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Those are not freeholders. This proposal refers to freeholders and to leaseholders who are occupying owners. The case the hon. Member puts is a different one altogether. With respect to the Noble Lord's question, I think what the Government have in their mind is to adopt rather the definition in
    1884
    the Housing of the Working Classes Act taken in terms of the Inhabited House Duty, basing the rateable value on a rental of £26, £16, etc., according to the size of the town. After all, £40 in London may be just equal, and no more, to perhaps £15 and £20 in a rural district. I have been appealed to to make it perfectly clear as to what the attitude of the Government was on these two points. I thought it was perfectly right before we got away from this question that the Committee, the hon. Members, and the country generally, ought to be left in no doubt as to the intentions of the Government. We have made it absolutely clear what our intentions are, but the hon. and learned Member is perfectly right that a matter of this kind should not depend upon any declaration of any Minister. The Committee, therefore, is entitled at the earliest possible moment to have this declaration translated into the terms of the Amendment.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has completely altered the whole bearing and meaning of the clause. We are asked to assent to alterations made at the final stage of the discussion of the clause. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any more exemptions to tell us of?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Really, that is not quite accurate. I did state perfectly clearly that we are prepared to exempt small holders with regard to agricultural land. I said the other night that I was not wedded to the form in which the Amendment should be put before the House. We are prepared to introduce words that will carry out the purposes of the Government.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not want to make any severe comment upon the procedure of the right hon. Gentleman, but what he did while we were discussing the clause was to give us a sort of general assurance on certain new lines of policy, though he was not prepared to give us the intentions of the Government in precise language. He has now done it more or less in precise language, but at a rather late stage. We should have been glad to have had these views before us when we were discussing the clause itself.
    I desire to say only a very few words upon the two promises which the right hon. Gentleman has made. He has been asked to exempt agricultural land, and he has emphatically expressed his desire to

    1885
    do so. I do not know really how that is consistent with Clause 2, line 13, in which the words occur: "the value of which is due solely to its capacity for agricultural purposes." In the second place, let us examine what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do to carry out the request of the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford, and the appeal which has been made to him from other parts of the House. He has based himself upon the precedent of the Act of 1894. I do not think the analogy holds; nor do I think the wording corresponds. The right hon. Gentleman has made a simple bare exception which refers to land having no higher value than its value for purely agricultural purposes. I do not believe there is a single holding, for instance, in Ireland—or Scotland, or England, for that matter—that has not some additional value for some purpose or another. It may be insignificant, but it would be difficult to prove there was no increment due. There may be a residential value not at all due to neighbouring property. A man may desire to buy a farm because it has an agreeable situation; there may be sporting points about it. You cannot say it is purely agricultural when there is a house upon it. You have two farms absolutely equal so far as soil, neighbourhood, and markets are concerned. Take it that they are equally well equipped. The one is in a sporting country, the other is not. In one there is a certain additional value due to the neighbourhood of the hunting country, and, say, there is a certain amount of game upon the farm itself. One has a good residence; the other has not, although, of course, there must be a residence sufficiently good in order that the man should be able to live in it to be able to carry out his business of husbandry. In the one case the farm has something which is not due to purely agricultural considerations. The land is agricultural land, which has a higher price owing to considerations not purely agricultural. I do not wish to misinterpret the right hon. Gentleman, but I certainly understood the whole purport of his argument to be this: that he would exempt from his Bill land of which you could say with absolute certainty and to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, "this is land only valuable because it raises so much in the way of crops." Very well, if that view prevails, I say that he deliberately brings within the mischief of his Bill land that in any such fashion does raise crops. At any rate, I put the case in all good faith, and perhaps this is not
    1886
    the time to deal with it in detail. The right hon. Gentleman sees the difficulty I have, and I am sure he will endeavour to meet it.
    I come now to another class. There must be in Ireland—I mention Ireland because the Debate has arisen out of the speech of the Member for Waterford—a great many holdings which are going to be used for years to come for agricultural purposes. The holdings have been bought by the tenants as mere agricultural land. They are not very far from towns, from Dublin, Belfast and other places. Although towns in Ireland do not grow as fast as towns in England, unquestionably there must be many of these holdings that have varied in their capital value, and have acquired something additional to their capital value on account of their proximity to the towns. How is the right hon. Gentleman going to deal with them? Does he mean to include or exclude them from his Bill? These are not the cases of market gardens, which are just on the edge of increment. I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman will ever deal satisfactorily with this question until he has found some means of excluding from the mischief of his Bill cases like these. It is not a question of holding up nor of keeping land out of the market.
    There is another point which I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman in relation to market gardens. The proximity of a market garden to a market has nothing whatever to do with building land: it has to do with the fact that the products of that land find a very easy access to the buyers. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to exclude that market garden land or not?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If its agricultural value is above its building value, although that agricultural value is due to its nearness to a town, it would still be exempt.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am very glad to hear that reason. I doubted what the policy of the Government was. My hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman) moved an Amendment precisely in that sense dealing with Clause 2, and the Government refused to take it. I do not know, as far as I am concerned, until I see the words on the paper, that I can say anything that will be of much assistance to the Committee in dealing with that part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. There was another part which interested me as much, and that was the part in which he said he was

    1887
    going to exclude small holdings, of which the capital value was under £500. The interest of that statement is that it entirely destroys the whole theoretical process on which the Government have chosen to erect this exceptional taxation. Nobody doubts it is an exceptional form of taxation. The Government have accepted the theory of unearned increment, and that unearned increment is a proper subject for taxation. They profess this in many respects in the same way as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and hon. Members below the Gangway. Under this theory it is, of course, quite impossible to exclude small holdings. If your theory is that unearned increment is sufficiently prominent, to which the owner of the land under the existing law has no moral right whatever, if it is a subject of taxation that may be raised to any extent, then I say you have no more right to exclude the man whose holding is under £500 than the man whose holding is over £500.
    Of course, if this tax is impending, and not put on any particular kind of property but on a particular degree of wealth, that is another matter, and upon that I am not going to quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman until I see what his method is in taxing higher wealth, until I see his proposal in its entirety. It is perfectly consistent with the original principles of the Government. It is part of their general principles with which I find myself in the least dissent that the rich must pay their full share of any of the burdens which are thrown upon the country. We agree upon that; but is this intended to be a method of exempting the poor and taxing the rich? Is that the object? If that is the object of it, let us consider it from that point of view. I am quite ready to consider it from that point of view. It is thoroughly indefensible. A man with a large holding is not necessarily a rich man. He may be an absolute beggar. He may have mortgaged that holding up to the extreme limit, and even beyond it. He may not have a shilling. [An HON. MEMBER: "He may have squandered it."] I am not going to discuss the relative morals of different sections of the community. May I put this to the hon. Member who interrupts me? A man may mortgage a property for purposes which he anticipates would benefit himself, and will certainly benefit the community. He may borrow money for what he conceives and hopes to be productive purposes, but he may fail.
    1888
    He may invest in business, and he may fail. Let us take the case of a man who has failed, or let us take the case of a man who inherits acres which are mortgaged. Is it not a gross absurdity that a heavy tax should be placed upon those who, for anything you know, may be extremely poor? And these are not isolated cases. The magnitude of a man's holding is absolutely no guide whatever to the degree of his wealth.
    A millionaire may have a small holding, less than £500, and be exempt from taxation altogether in respect of that holding. Another man next door may have a holding which is over £500, but which is mortgaged up to the extreme limits, yet the millionaire is taxed not in proportion to his wealth, but to what he pays for the land. In other words, your justification of your tax has a bearing on the kind of land a man has and the amount he has paid for it. Then you must justify it, if you can, upon your theory of unearned increment and the action of society I am not going into that argument again. I only suppose, for the sake of argument, it is a sound justification, as it is the only justification ever put forward by the Government, and if this is your justification you cannot exempt small holdings. If, on the other hand, you suddenly reverse your policy, and say, "We will exempt certain land because it is owned by poor people, and include other land because it is possessed by rich people, and make the magnitude of wealth the measure," I say your Bill is an absurdity. The size of a holding has no relation to the size or magnitude of your tax. The small owner may be a millionaire, the other man, the larger owner, may be little better than a pauper, yet you tax them upon principles which are neither intellectual upon original ground nor justifiable on the grounds on which they are going to be justified, in your Sur-tax and increasing Death Duties. It is quite clear the Government have found unexpectantly to themselves that there are a great many more owners of small plots of land than they had any idea or conception of. They have begun to realise that to throw upon these people the cost of valuation in the first and the cost of paying the taxation in the second place would arouse an amount of unpopularity which even the most popular of Governments could hardly be expected to bear. They have discovered, moreover, that the Budget as a whole has so many enemies in the constituencies that it is

    1889
    their business to make friends where they can. They have tried one election upon the original principles of the Budget. They have not found them very satisfactory. They have other bye-elections going on, and they propose to try the Budget on wholly new principles. I do not know whether that is good electioneering or not, but it is certainly excessively bad finance. It is certainly one of the most amazingly unprincipled things that I think a Government has ever done, to bring forward a tax on the ground that unearned increment was a proper subject of taxation; then to discover that a good many people have unearned increment; and then, in order to conciliate them, to throw your taxes, not upon the rich, but upon those who happen to own larger plots of land than you think the majority of the existing freeholders in this country happen to possess. When the right hon. Gentleman brings forward his new clauses we shall be able to discuss them in detail. In the meantime, I venture to point out to the Committee, with all respect, that the whole principle underlying Clause 1 and Clause 2 of the Bill has been abandoned by the Government, and they have not substituted for them any other proposal which have behind them, so far as I can discover, any principle at all, unless you call it a principle, at the moment when it is extremely desirable to attract as many votes as you can, to throw all the burden of the taxation upon the smaller number of people who may be expected not to have so many votes. That is the only principle I can see behind them. They no longer use words about unearned increment, or the action of society to which land owes its whole value. This very point was impressed upon Mr. Henry George over and over again, and he, although I do not agree with his principle, held with rigid consistency that if you exempt the small owners, or the owners of small portions of land, there was not a single principle left by which you could adopt his peculiar methods to the larger holders. Mr. Henry George realised that. The Government had failed to realise it, and I think the gross inconsistency as well as injustice in which they will be involved will add largely to the ever-growing difficulties' which surround their path in attempting to pass this measure.
    Sir J. DICKSON-POYNDER: Before making a few observations upon the clause I should like to say a word with regard to the statement made by the Chan-
    1890
    cellor of the Exchequer. In his desire to meet the appeal made to him from all quarters of the House, the right hon. Gentleman has come down with two alternative proposals to those proposals in the Bill. There has been a general appeal to exclude agricultural land, and it is the fixed determination of the House of Commons that agricultural land, as such, shall be excluded from the purview of the Increment Tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that land which is higher in value than its value for agricultural purposes shall be taxed as such. I venture to believe that on closer investigation this will be found to be, I am afraid, one of those hurried proposals which are brought upon the Government in this Bill under the weight and burden of exemption and taxation. I do not believe myself that you can discriminate any agricultural land as long as it is being employed for that purpose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that no agricultural land will come under the increment taxation. I should like to ask him what will be the condition of agricultural land not merely round London and the large provincial towns, but near every single small town throughout the length and breadth of the country. There is not an acre of land round these towns, or even villages, that have not got a value over and above what is, strictly speaking, their agricultural value. Go to any part of the country and you will find if you value land let, perhaps, at £l or £l 10s. or £2 an acre, if sold it will easily bring in something between £300 and £400. That land would not for many years be developed for building purposes, but it has a value over and above its agricultural value due to its prospective building value. This tax is going to affect such land in all the small towns and villages as well as in the large towns throughout the country. This brings me back to my original argument that you cannot include with any justice the Increment Duty on ordinary leases. You can only include it at special times and occasions, and those special occasions are when the land materialises and is being converted to a lease for building purposes. I do not believe that this proposal will bear the weight of discussion in this House, because it must mean that a great deal of agricultural land will come within the tax. We have heard a good deal about small owners, and the Government finds itself in this respect in a some-

    1891
    what ridiculous and anomalous position. The small owner of land is going to be excluded when the land is shown to be under the value of £500.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The site value.
    Sir JOHN DICKSON-POYNDER: Yes, the site value.
    Sir F. BANBURY: No, it is the total value.
    Sir J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I think it must be the total value, but perhaps some Member of the Government will explain which it is. I will take the case of a small holder whose land is valued at £600, which at 4 per cent. produces £24 a year. You can go through the whole list of owners, and you will find an immense number of people will be hit by this tax. As long as you charge this Increment Tax upon the ordinary lease you have to go into these exemptions, which merely reduces the whole matter to a maze of confusion, and when close investigation has been made great injustice will be shown to many individuals in the country. With regard to the clause itself, I fully admit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done his very best to meet the suggestions which have been made in all parts of the House, and he has been generous in the concessions which he has made in the course of the Debates during the past week. The clause which we are going to divide upon does not embody anything like the number of undertakings which have been made in the course of the discussion, and it is a great pity that those undertakings have not been embodied in the draft of the Bill. The concessions which have been made have almost reduced the Increment Tax to the vanishing point.
    What have we got left? We have erected alongside this tax a cumbersome and extremely expensive machinery which will not produce revenue, but simply a full catalogue of barren statistics. These Debates have made us almost forget what we are here to discuss and vote for. We are here to vote revenues for the State to meet a very great deficit to the tune of many millions. This tax when brought into operation, far from increasing the revenues of the State, will, by the erection of this costly machinery, create a state of affairs under which I shall not be at all surprised if the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the future has to come down to this House and impose further taxation
    1892
    to meet the expenditure involved by this scheme. Why do we find ourselves in this unsatisfactory position? The reason is because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it his determination to establish a new system of valuation in this Bill, and in order to achieve this the right hon. Gentleman is obliged to erect this universal system of taxation for all those different classes and categories upon whom this Increment Duty will be imposed. I say this with every desire to urge upon the Government before it is too late the necessity of recasting this scheme into something of a practical nature.
    I am confident that in dealing with land taxation you can only impose the Increment Duty on two occasions. The first occasion is when the land passes by sale from one owner to another. When it can easily be shown that there is something over and above the actual agricultural value or the capitalised revenue which the owner has enjoyed. Upon the occasion of the sale the difference can easily be taken, and such a tax could be imposed by existing machinery. The second occasion is the time when agricultural land bordering on a town is let upon lease for building purposes. The matter is then a perfectly simple one, because land which was formerly let for agricultural purposes at £2 per acre will probably be producing £30 to £40 per acre for building purposes, and that is a reasonable time for charging an increment tax. That can be done by machinery which exists at the present time. I have tried by Amendments to recast this Bill in that direction, and if I had been successful a reliable revenue would have been procured for the State with a minimum of friction and a minimum expense of collection. Unfortunately, I was not successful, and there still remains in this measure this unfortunate Increment Tax which is being imposed upon general leaseholders, and also at the time of death, which, of course, involves a State valuation.
    Is this proposal of a State valuation satisfactory? I believe when the local authorities in the country realise what this scheme means they will take the greatest possible objection to it. It is proposed that four Commissioners shall be appointed, and they are to be dictators in London who will have to appoint the valuers. Now, what does it mean to value a great county or a great town? One single valuer cannot do it, and he will have to provide himself with a large staff of clerks and accessories, and this new

    1893
    machinery is going to be established in our counties and towns at a time when there has been in existence for centuries a complete system of assessment and valuation throughout the country. The existing system is going to be ignored, and the new one is going to be placed alongside it. I know it would be impossible to include in the Budget Bill a large scheme of reformed assessment and valuation, but I appeal to the Government to withdraw all those proposals which necessitate the setting up of a new system of valuation, and content themselves for revenue purposes by raising their tax upon increment at sale, upon conversion, reversion, on the expiration of leases, all of which can be done by the existing machinery of the Inland Revenue. The whole system of valuation in the country is an overdue reform which must take place with local and Imperial taxation working in harmony. I should like to see the whole of this scheme withdrawn from the Budget Bill, and next year the Government could come down with a well-considered measure for the reform of our valuation system. I am in no way opposed to a valuation upon a capital basis throughout the country, because then you would avoid all this heavy tax upon undeveloped land. I urge the Government to reconsider the situation, and in doing so I am speaking for a very large body of hon. Gentlemen who sit upon the Ministerial side. Many of us look with the deepest apprehension upon this Bill as it lumbers on day by day in the difficult morass in which we find ourselves in the early hours of the morning after a long Debate. This is all due to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has insisted upon introducing a scheme of valuation in this Bill and has broadened his Increment Duty in order to bring in a lot of categories of land quite unsuited to the purpose. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will withdraw those unsuitable categories, and confine himself to those occasions when land materialises in its increment, he can easily collect a large sum for the revenues of the State.
    Mr. J. J. CLANCY: I am desired by the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford (Mr. John Redmond) to express what the Irish party have to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this clause. From the very commencement, the Irish party have insisted that agricultural land should be excluded from the operation of this tax, especially in Ireland, because
    1894
    there is going on in that country a revolution of a most beneficial character, which we think might be stopped and prevented by any burden of this kind being put upon agriculture. We are very glad to learn from the repeated statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was the intention of the Government to exclude agricultural land from the scope of these taxes. When we looked at the clause in the Bill, I confess we were not quite so reassured as we were when listening to his speeches, and, consequently, at an early stage in the discussion, I expressed the opinion that the proposals in the Bill cut athwart the revolution taking place in Ireland under the Land Purchase Acts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion repeated for the second or third time that it was the intention of the Government to exclude agricultural land, and that the fears I had expressed were entirely unfounded. Further discussion ensued, and on Wednesday night last, I must confess, the rejection of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) was rather disconcerting. I thought the rejection of that Amendment meant that, after all, and notwithstanding everything the Government had said to the contrary, agricultural values were going to be taxed under this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, made another statement which gave hope that he meant what he had said, and that what he said would be carried out. He said the whole question was open, and he would further consider what methods ought to be adopted for carrying out an agreement which, it was evident, had been come to between the various sections of the House. He has produced to-day the particular solution at which he has arrived, and I am instructed, on behalf of my colleagues, that they consider the new clause which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has read out this evening is one which will meet our case. It is even more drastic than has been noticed by either of the right hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken. I would like to call attention to the wording of the clause. "Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land providing the land has for other purposes no higher value than the value for agricultural purposes." That means there may be increment value, and yet it would not be taxed. The enactment would be, not that there must be increment, but that the

    1895
    increment must be larger for building purposes than for agricultural purposes. This is of extreme importance from the point of view of the Irish people.
    If I am putting the correct interpretation upon it, it means simply that no agricultural land in Ireland will be taxed unless it is building land. There may be an increment in the value of the land, but that increment must be greater for building purposes than it is for agricultural purposes before there can be any duty assessed. If that be so, I am not alarmed by the remarkable figures given by the hon. Baronet who ha3 just sat down (Sir J. Dickson-Poynder). He imagined the case of a piece of land worth £l per annum per acre, and he assumed that the capital value of it would be £300. That may be the case in England, but I do not know any such case throughout nine-tenths of Ireland. It is an absurd set of figures, and it shows that hon. Members in this House have not that knowledge of Ireland and of Irish conditions which is desirable in anybody speaking upon a measure affecting Ireland. I have myself drawn attention to the fact that it is a familiar practice in fixing the value of land to take into account what is called proximity value. In many cases the value of agricultural land has added to it 50, 60 and 70 per cent. in proportion to its proximity to a town. Those of us who are acquainted with the matter of fixing rents in Ireland and agricultural value know from actual experience that many of these assessments have resulted in crushing burdens being put upon the tenants, and I have no doubt that to pass any enactment which would tax proximity values would double the burdens in the long run on Irish tenants; and, if it involved that, it would be our duty to vote against the clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, has in the plainest manner stated that it is not intended by these words to tax proximity value. It comes, therefore, to this, that only building land will be taxed, and, for my part, I have no hesitation in saying that for the 24 years I have been in this House I have been in favour of the taxation of such building land, the only difference I and my colleagues intended being that it should go in aid of the local rates. We are now going to get half of it in aid of the local rates, but it is inconceivable that I should be asked to prevent Lord Pembroke, Lord Carysfort, Lord Longford and Lord De Vesci, who have reduced
    1896
    conditions in Ireland to what they are at present, and have made Unionists and Nationalists alike indignant that they should not have long since been stopped from these predatory operations, and from pocketing the proceeds of their neighbour's enterprise, from being taxed.
    We shall certainly vote for this clause, it being clearly understood, as I understand, that proximity value is not being taxed, that agricultural value to any extent is not being taxed, and that the only thing which is being taxed is building value. I have no hesitation whatever in saying I should vote most gladly and heartily for that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the question of exempting small holdings. I thought the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Balfour) the most amazing deliverance I have listened to for a long time. The demand for the exemption of small holdings came from above the Gangway on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman is understood to lead the party above the Gangway on this side of the house. I do not know whether he does or not. He made an ingenuous speech, the substantial effect of which is that it is impossible to devise a scheme to exempt small holdings at all. His reason for thinking you could not exempt them was that you could not separate the small holders from the large ones. He was able, as he always is, to give very effective illustrations of his assertions. There is no doubt, whatever language you take, you will find cases on one side which ought to be on the other, but you must try and lay down some rule. Wherever you draw the line, you will find some hard cases. It seems to me an extraordinary thing to ask on what principle this could be justified in face of the fact that you do it in assessing the Income Tax. Every man who has not an income of £160 a year is exempted absolutely from the Income Tax. It is too late in the day to argue whether you can have an exemption or not or whether you can have a dividing line. It is done, and the only question is whether or not another limit ought to be enacted. I am not prepared to say at the present moment whether the limit selected is too low. I should like to consider the question. The matter has only been mentioned in the course of this Debate, and, of course, it is a very difficult matter, involving not merely questions of law, but also questions of facts and figures. We ought to have an oppor-

    1897
    tunity of considering whether or not another limit ought to be chosen. We want to see whether the words of the clause meet our case, and it is for English Members on both sides of the House to see whether they meet their case. But with the principle of exempting small holdings we are entirely in favour, and if this scheme be carried out we consider that our case will be substantially met, because, if I understand the two proposals which have been made, the exemption of small holders will free nine-tenths of all holders of agricultural land in Ireland from all land taxation; and, as for the remainder, they will be protected, in my opinion. Only building land is to be taxed. Agricultural values will not be taxed at all, and amongst these agricultural values is proximity to a market or town. Under these circumstances we intend to vote for the clause. It remains to be seen whether or not, if this clause is inserted, some alteration will have to be made in the wording. I have not had time to examine it, and there may be some inconsistency between the words of the new clause and the provisions of Clause 2 which we are now considering. I have no doubt, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make it plain that nothing shall be put into this Clause 2 which will take away the effect of the new clause of which he has given notice to-day.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The speech to which we have just listened is an excellent example of the kind of confusion into which this House has been thrown by the conundrum put before it this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman practically abandons all the principles which he has hitherto advocated providing that the part of the country he represents is freed from this burden. Let me say a word or two in reference to his observations as to the exemption of small land-owners. He said that we on this side had no right to criticise the proposals of the Government in that respect, because we had asked for the exemption of small land-owners. I do not think that that is quite an accurate statement of what has occurred. What has been constantly said on these benches is that it will be a very great hardship on the small land-owner to have to pay this tax. But I think we have all recognised that, if the principle is good for anything, it must apply equally to small and big land-owners, and that the principle of valuation cannot be split up according to the number of acres a man may happen
    1898
    to own. In reference to this clause the hon. Member was strikingly inconsistent. He was very grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having granted the demand that agricultural land should be excluded from this tax, although its value was a proximity value, and not due to social value. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that in dealing with agricultural land, and agricultural land only, you are not to have regard to social value, or to the value created by the community, and as long as it is used for the purposes of agriculture that principle does not apply. The hon. Member expressly thanked the right hon. Gentleman for disregarding what he called proximity value. That was because those whom he represents are more interested in agricultural land with a proximity value than in urban land with a similar value.
    Mr. CLANCY: I dealt with agricultural value. The value which these gentlemen have appropriated to themselves is building land value near to the towns.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is there any distinction between a market garden which owes its prosperity and the value of the land to its neighbourhood to large markets like London or Dublin, and land which owes its value—its building value—to the same reasons. These are instances of "proximity value." I think that is an excellent phrase. In my opinion, there is no distinction at all. There is a distinction between the purposes to which the land is applied, but there is no distinction between the causes which bring about the value of the land. Much has been said about the importance of excluding agricultural land. Of course, I think that all land should be excluded from this Bill. I am glad that small holders are excluded. I only wish that large landholders were also exempt. But the provisions of the clause announced by the Government today are absolutely inconsistent with any kind of principle which can possibly be defended. There is another point which arises in reference to the proposed agricultural land clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this clause will free the agricultural landowners from the worries of valuation. I cannot imagine why he said that. If you take the case of a field deep in the country, miles away from any habitation, then it may well be that it does not much matter what value you put upon the land, because for many years to come it is likely to be used for

    1899
    agriculture only. But there are enormous tracts in this country which will certainly come into use for other than agricultural purposes before very long, and in all these cases you must have the whole apparatus for valuation ready to put into operation. From time to time whenever a change of ownership takes place, or when any occasion arises for a fresh valuation you will have a much more difficult and elaborate valuation to make. First, you will have to value the land for agricultural purposes; then you will have to certify or conceive what other purposes it can possibly be put to, and if you can find a purpose to which it can be put other than agriculture, which is more valuable for employing the land, then this exemption will come in. You will, in fact, have a much more elaborate valuation in a large number of cases than before, and there certainly will be no simplification. That brings me to the great point which has already been made several times, I am afraid, and that is, the enormous difficulty of the valuations which are provided for by this Bill. There are not only the different kinds of land to be dealt with, but there are different kinds of ownership, all involving considerable difficulty. There is the freeholder, the building owner, and the tenant. They will all have different interests, and will require to be heard before the valuer. They will all have different objects in view, and they will complicate the valuation in many ways. There are other enormous difficulties; there is the one which will arise from the use of the words "permanent works." No one knows what constitutes a permanent work. From one point of view nothing is permanent; from another point of view anything which lasts over 30 years may be considered permanent. How the unhappy valuer is going to distinguish between them, I confess I do not know. Then there is provision with regard to the work executed on behalf of the owner or of any person interested in the land. No one knows what that means. Take the case of gas pipes laid by the gas company, or water pipes put down by the water company. Is that expense executed on behalf of the owner? Is it not rather on behalf of the company? Undoubtedly one would expect it to be included among the deductions. But I will not labour this point.
    I wish to press upon the Committee that all this gigantic elaboration of valuation means expense. We have a right to complain that the Government have absolutely
    1900
    declined to give us the slightest assistance in arriving at an estimate of what that expense will be. I cannot understand why. The Government must have formed some estimate; it is quite incredible that even a Radical Government would come down to this House and propose a gigantic scheme to be put in force without having formed some idea of what it is going to cost. Why do they not communicate it to the House? It can only be because they are afraid if they do give the figures they will terrify their own supporters. It may be that they are advised that the cost of the valuation is going to be a very serious item. Still, I think we should have some estimate from the Government. There have been estimates advanced on the part of the opponents, but they have been very vague, ranging between 10 millions and 40 millions sterling. I will take the lowest estimate—10 millions. The Government are going to put a charge of 10 millions upon a certain class of tax-payers in this country; that is what it means. What are they going to get out of it? The original estimate of the Government was that, in this year, it would produce £50,000. Half of that they have given away to the local authorities; that leaves them £25,000. They now announce that they are not going to bring in the small land-owner, and that they are not going to apply it to agricultural land or to small increments. In passing, I should like to say we ought to have some statement as to what is the exact effect of the Amendment in regard to that. It is impossible for a private Member to make any estimate at all of the diminutions these exemptions mean. We have asked for an estimate, but it has been refused. The Government do refuse these things, because they know that they can trample on their own majority as much as they like, and, naturally, they are not very much afraid of the minority. Still, they have refused to give us an estimate. I should be very much surprised if, when all these diminutions are worked out, this tax will bring in to the Exchequer more than £10,000. This is the proposition submitted to this House of Commons which is considering the finances of the year. In order to get that £10,000, we are asked to enact a clause which will involve a scheme of valuation that will cost, at the lowest estimate put before us, 10 millions sterling.
    I ask any hon. Member to consider whether that is a reasonable, business proposition. Then, we are told by the Prime

    1901
    Minister, in his speeches throughout the country, "Oh, it is no use talking to us about the unfairness of this or that hard case. We have got to get the money. We have got to build 'Dreadnoughts' and to give old age pensions, and we want all the money we can get, and we are going to spend ten million pounds in order to get ten thousand." That is the defence which the Government makes as far as the revenue is concerned. With regard to other defences that are made to these proposals, they are rather kaleidoscopic. There is the windfall theory, but undoubtedly this tax is not going to be levied upon it, nor is it going to be levied on great acquisitions of wealth, but on all sorts of things beyond that. I am not going to repeat the argument about the dealer in land. The argument is very clear, and it is that you should, having got men engaged in a particular commercial transaction, tax them 20 per cent, on their incomes, while you are going to tax everybody else less than 5 per cent. We have put that point over and over again to the Government, but have not got a single syllable of reply to it. There is not a single sentence of an answer which the Government or any Member of the Government has made to that case, which has been pressed upon them by the hon. Member for Preston and by other hon. Members on this side of the House. The only answer that has been given has been made by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). His reply is coherent, though I think it myself is in the highest degree inconclusive, and it is that it is so wicked to be the owner of land or a dealer in land that you are entitled to take as much as you like from the pockets of a gentleman who is in that position. He is, it is said, a kind of enemy of the human race, and is entitled to no consideration whatever. That, however, again, is not part of the announcement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, therefore, no kind of reply has really been offered.
    There is another gross injustice which has never been dealt with at all by the Government. They say that they propose to tax increment, and they propose to levy this Valuation Duty—because it really is a Valuation Duty if you impose this gigantic expenditure upon all those who have to make the valuation. The Government impose this burden, moreover, not only on the people who are going to pay the tax, but on an
    1902
    immense number of people who are not going to pay the tax, including the owners of agricultural land, who were expressly freed this afternoon. How can that be justice? How is it possible in a Finance Bill to justify the creation of a system of valuation evidently not for the purpose of taxing but merely for some ulterior purpose, which is not disclosed? And, be it remembered, all this arises upon the finance of a year, when by the admission of all we have got to raise every penny we can. We have a deficit of 16 millions, and we have to get money for that, and the Government propose, in addition to that 16 millions, to impose for no purpose of revenue what would be an additional tax of 10 millions, which will bring in to the Exchequer £10,000, and they propose for another tax a payment of £100,000. I call that positively ludicrous finance, and one is forced to ask why is this done? Is it finance at all? Is this really a Finance Bill—I am talking of the land clauses—is this really a Finance Bill at all, or is it merely a Valuation Bill in disguise? I confess I have some difficulty in answering that question, but there is a passage in a recent speech of the Prime Minister which makes me think it may be a Valuation Bill in disguise, even in the intention of the Government. The Prime Minister made a speech about a week ago, in which he was dealing with some random talk or rash phrases, about the action of the House of Lords, and said:—
    "All this random talk betrays, to my mind, an uneasy consciousness and an uncomfortable apprehension: an uneasy consciousness that this class of land is at the present moment very much undervalued, and an uncomfortable apprehension that if it ever comes to be valued for these taxes at its true market value that valuation may possibly be taken advantage of for some other purpose."
    Is that really the foundation of the Government policy? Is it the object of the Government and the party opposite to use the Finance Bill in order to pass a Valuation Bill which may be used for some other purpose? At the same gathering, I think it was the National Liberal Federation, there was a speech made by the hon. Member for North Carnarvon (Mr. William Jones), who said:—
    "There was only one way of carrying into effect the popular cause, and that was the establishment beyond dispute of the supremacy of the House of Commons. For that purpose the veto must go. As an emissary of the Budget League he urged them to focus their energies on the Budget, which was a two-power lever to raise democratic finance and undermine the influence of the Lords."
    I wish very respectfully to ask whether that is the policy of the Government? I think both the expressions of the Prime

    1903
    Minister and of the hon. Member are a little obscure, but I think I understand what the hon. Member for Carnarvon, at any rate, means by the phrases which he used. He means this: We will pass a Valuation Bill in our Finance Bill. We will then send it to the House of Lords. If the House of Lords rejects it, we shall go to the country and say, This is a great invasion of the liberties of the House of Commons, and a great aggression on the part of the hereditary Chamber; but if, on the other hand, the House of Lords passes it, it will be a valuable precedent, and can be applied to a great number of other purposes. That is what I understand the hon. Member for North Carnarvon to mean, but is that what the Government mean?
    Is this part of the Government campaign against the House of Lords or not? Is it a Finance Bill or is it a political manœuvre? Do they desire to use this Bill to enforce a conflict on a constitutional question? I very earnestly ask, not the Government this time but hon. Members opposite—the hon. Members of a moderate turn of mind, and, I believe, there are very many of them—whether that is the kind of policy of adventure into which they desire to go? Let me press upon them this consideration. What would be the results of the policy? It means, I will not say a constitutional revolution, because that may be an exaggeration, but it does mean a very grave constitutional change, whatever the result. If you succeed in goading the House of Lords into throwing out the Budget Bill—if you succeed in that policy, and you fail in the constituencies, you will have at any rate started a precedent, which may be of large importance, of enormous importance, in the future relations of the two Houses, and not to the great advantage of this House. ["Question."] It is eminently, I venture to submit, germane to the question of the clause, as this is the first time that we have had an opportunity of discussing the kernel of valuation. If, on the other hand, the House of Lords submits, and you beat them, then it means a material difference in the position of the House of Lords, and it means a great constitutional change, whichever way you take it. I do think it is time that every Member of this House should realise what they are being led up to by a Government, or by certain Ministers, who are absolutely regardless of con-
    1904
    stitutional considerations. The question is, whether you are going to try to utilise a Bill for raising the revenue of the country for this year, in order to force a constitutional conflict upon the country, which, I fervently believe, they have not the least desire to enter into.
    Mr. E. J. SOARES: I do not propose to follow the Noble Lord into the very interesting constitutional question which he has just raised, because, after all, we are not dealing with the whole Bill, as we are only dealing; with Clause 2, but we shall be quite prepared to deal with these constitutional questions when they arise. In the meantime, the hon. Member can rest assured that we are not afraid either of the constituencies or of the House of Lords. I must honestly say that I am astounded at the attitude which hon. Gentlemen opposite have adopted this afternoon. Two very important concessions have been made by the Chancellor. He has excluded agricultural land and has excluded small holdings. Day after day, night after night, the exclusion of agricultural land has been pleaded for, from those benches opposite, by almost every right hon. and hon. Gentleman who has spoken on the other side of the House, and yet, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets up this afternoon and proves conclusively that he intends to keep the pledges which he has given before, there is not a word of thanks from hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Then again, in regard to small holdings, we have heard the woes and sorrows of the small holder pleaded from that side of the House. They have been full of sympathy with the small holder, until he is excluded from the Bill. When he is excluded we are told at once by the Leader of the Opposition that it is altogether against the scheme of our Bill, but it is not against it, because the scheme of this measure is the taxation of wealth and luxury, and therefore the exclusion of the small holder is quite in consonance with the scheme of this Bill.
    Mr. BALFOUR: As the hon. Gentleman refers to me, may I point out that the omission of the small holder has nothing to do with the difference between wealth and poverty.
    Mr. SOARES: I must say I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that contention. In my humble opinion, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has kept the pledges which he and other Members of

    1905
    the Government have made with regard to the exclusion of agricultural land, and I am quite satisfied with the clause, which the right hon. Gentleman has promised to put on the Paper in the course of a few days. The Leader of the Opposition gave some criticisms of that clause—and I do not wonder, because at first sight I admit the clause needs a certain amount of consideration—and he alluded to the case of a farm having a certain amount of residential value. We all know that there are many such farms where there is beautiful scenery and in other ways there are many farms which have a residential value. The clause says:—"Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while the land has for other purposes no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes." From that it follows that if it is of more value as a farm than it is as a residence it will not have to pay any Increment Duty at all. The same remark applies also to the criticism which the Leader of the Opposition gave in respect to sporting rights. After the statement which the Chancellor of (the Exchequer has made this afternoon no one can deny that this is a great boon to the agricultural community. Agriculture is absolutely excluded from all these taxes. There can be no shadow of a doubt about that, and we get the Agricultural Development Grant, we get half the money derived from these taxes in reduction of the rates, and we get the improvement of the roads. These are great benefits indeed to agriculture, and the agricultural community recognise it. They believed that the Government were going to keep their pledges with regard to agricultural land. The Government have fulfilled their pledges, and they have received no thanks from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but the agricultural community have never doubted them. The best test of that is what is the opinion of people who are purchasing farms to-day. I have an account of the estate market taken from the "Standard" of last Saturday week. They say:—
    "The succession of good sales under the hammer at the Mart during the past week or two has imported an air of cheerfulness to the precincts of Tokenhouse Yard to which that afflicted region has long been a stranger. It would appear as if investors, disregarding the perils with-which property is threatened are taking full advantage of current prices, assisted thereto by the present ease in money rates. In the country there is much more activity in the property market, while in the offices a deal of private treaty sales are taking place. It must. not be overlooked, however, that the season is at its height, and fixtures unusually numerous. To an extent, therefore, the good business now taking place must be viewed in conjunction with these circumstances and judged accordingly. Taken altogether the
    1906
    transactions in real estate just now are decidedly favourable, and to the investor are of a profitable character."
    Let us see what some of these investments are which to the investor are of a profitable character. There were some Essex farms put up. The first lot, 148 acres, known as Carter's Farm, with good house and the usual buildings, realised £1,900. The rent is £60 5s., that is over 30 years' purchase, and good business for the investor according to the "Standard." The second lot consisted of a freehold occupation farm with the usual premises, area 103 acres, let at £40, and realised £l,450, that is 36 years' purchase, and good business for the investor according to the "Standard."
    Sir F. BANBURY: Because the land is charged at a low rent.
    Mr. SOARES: Landlords generally get the highest rent they can. There is another farm of nearly 207 acres with a fairly good house, let at £100 and sold for £3,250, besides £120 for timber, that is 32½ years' purchase. When you consider these facts you must come to the conclusion that the people who are investing in agricultural land look upon this Budget as good business. Now that the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been put in clear and explicit terms, and will appear in the Bill, I believe agricultural Members, on whichever side they sit, ought to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: The hon. Member represents an agricultural constituency and he has repeated what he told us a few days ago that this was good business for agriculturists, and that the agriculturists thought so, especially in his constituency, but he omitted, in giving the opinion of the agriculturists, to read a resolution which was passed a few days ago in his own constituency by a large gathering of farmers, and which I believe was sent to him. It read as follows:—
    "That this public meeting of the men of Braunton, tenant farmers and others interested in the land, held in the largest agricultural parish in the North-West Division of Devonshire, hereby repudiate the statement made by Mr. Soares that we have expressed warm enthusiasm for the Budget Resolutions."
    Mr. SOARES: That was an out-of-door meeting addressed by a peripatetic Tariff Reformer, one of those gentlemen you pay so much a night to, and the chair was taken by a paid agent. So far as I am aware there was not a single tenant farmer present. To call that an agricultural meeting is absurd.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Of course, I must accept the meeting as the resolution described it. It is for the hon. Member to communicate with his constituents to discover whether his account or that of the meeting itself is the more accurate. I have no doubt he will be able to settle that with his constituents, and there will be another way in which he will have to settle with the tenant farmers of Devonshire, perhaps before very long. My experience of the feeling of the agricultural interest is very much more in accordance with the terms of the resolution than that expressed by the hon. Member himself. The agricultural interest has been very much alarmed by these proposals, and I cannot help traversing, in all kindness, the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has never intended to tax agricultural land. How can he reconcile that with the last part of the clause as introduced where it distinctly states that in the case of agricultural land, the value of which is solely due to its value for agricultural purposes, certain exemptions shall be made, thereby implying that a tax is to be imposed upon them. You cannot get away from it. The exemptions could not amount to total exemptions, and in some cases would be no exemption at all.
    I proposed an Amendment which stated definitely that where land was used for agricultural purposes it should be exempt. The right hon. Gentleman refused to accept the Amendment on the ground that there was a kind of agricultural value which he called "accommodation value," or which was due to its proximity to a town, which he most strongly held ought to be taxed. He has now absolutely abandoned that position. He said he objected to my words because they would include that particular kind of land in the exemption. The words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own proposal are exactly similar in that respect, and he has admitted it. The only ground for the refusal of that exemption has been definitely abandoned. It would have been a little more candid if the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted what everyone knows to be the fact, that his views have undergone considerable modification as the result of the discussions in this House, but he obviously intended to include all land within the purview of the Increment Value Duty, and as these discussions proceeded, and as a consensus of opinion has been displayed on both sides of the House that agricultural land cannot, and should not be included, he has gradually brought himself,
    1908
    rather late in the day, and after a great deal of time has been wasted, to the conclusion that agricultural land must be exempted. He has refused the words which would have done it in. accordance with the principles of the Bill, and he has now introduced other words which are going to create new difficulties, which again will have to be met. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the owners of all agricultural land are to send in a valuation, just as they were to do before, and it will have to be a valuation for site value as well as for capital value, therefore, they will have I presume the original site value fixed which will be a very low site value indeed, and if at some future time that land obtains a building value the comparison will be with the very low original site value which now has to be fixed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why very low?"] Because I am speaking of poor agricultural land. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted only a few minutes ago that this site value of agricultural land would in many cases be almost nothing. Is not that very low? My proposal was that where there was agricultural value the land should be exempt to that extent only. That would not have altered the general principle of the Bill at all. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes now is that agricultural land, although to be untaxed, is to have its site value fixed as from 30th April last. He has also admitted that that site value is in many cases a negligible quantity. Therefore you are going to start with a site value of very little indeed. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that that was a good ground for abandoning it, because in many cases the buildings were worth nearly as much as the land.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I never said the site value of land was a negligible quantity. There is a great difference between that and saying that the site value on some land was not equal to the value of the building.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I should have thought it was a stronger statement, because he said that the value of the land in many cases was not equal to the value of the buildings, and that the value is to be arrived at by taking the buildings from the land. The difference between us is this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it is less than nothing, and I say that it is a negligible quantity. The Committee may take their choice between the two.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not mean what he says, or at least he cannot have reflected upon it. His statement is that you deduct the value of the buildings from the land. You deduct the value of the buildings from the total value, and that is a very different thing.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The total value of the unit is less than its original capital value. Certainly the buildings have cost in innumerable cases an amount exceeding the present capital value of the land. That is known to every agriculturist, and, therefore, in that case the site value will either be nothing or a negligible quantity. That means that under this proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer we shall have a site value fixed which will be in many cases—and those cases include the poorest land—a negligible quantity, and that is to be the point of departure as original site value for the calculation of future value. We contend that that is an unfair point of departure. I do not argue this point now beyond pointing out that it is a matter for amendment at a future stage, or before the clause finds its way on to the Statute Book. It will have to be dealt with. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced the words which he said he did not wish to be pinned to, stated that he would be prepared to strengthen them, and it is from that point of view that I put this forward. They will require to be strengthened in order to make the matter perfectly clear. We cannot too often remember that expressions of intention on the part of the Government in this House are of no value whatever to the subject afterwards when the words in an Act come to be interpreted by the courts which have to give effect to them. It is necessary that the referee, or the Commissioners, or, as we hope eventually, the court will have to interpret these words. Even now there is an appeal to the court on points of law when the referee decides to state a case, and, therefore, I think there is an ambiguity which has been obvious in this discussion. There was a difference of opinion between the Leader of the Opposition and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and the hon. Member who spoke below the Gangway, as to the exact meaning of the words as to land being of no higher value than for agricultural purposes. I think these words will have to be made clear, because there are two interpretations which can be put upon them. Which of the meanings is to be attached to the words is not clear. I think it is obvious
    1910
    that the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant that there should be a value independent of the agricultural value before the tax is leviable. The words would not include sporting, of course. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer means that they would include increment arising from iudustrial or business purposes. Then we come to the question of the exemption of the small holder. A question was asked while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was out of the House, and none of his colleagues were able to reply to it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now tell us whether the £500 limit of value is total value or site value.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Total value.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Then the £500 limit is the value of the composite subject of land and buildings, the owner occupying. That reduces the concession to a very much smaller proportion. So far as both these exemptions are concerned, I am personally very glad to see that the agricultural interests and the small holder are exempted. Everyone on this side of the House has genuinely appealed for their exemption, because we thought and felt that both of those interests were going to be most hardly hit and seriously affected by this clause of the Bill. I am very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that the exemption of both these classes is due to the appeals made from this side of the House. That is an admission of which the country will take note. But because you have succeeded in pulling two people out of the fire that is no reason why you should not try to pull other people out as well. We object to the whole of this principle, and we have been for three weeks or more on Clause 2 pointing out its absurdities and its defects. I cannot help thinking that when the commander of a ship begins to jettison the cargo it will not be very long before he abandons the ship altogether. What I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer is: What is now left to justify our continuing to spend laborious days and nights in discussing these proposals of which an immense proportion have already been thrown overboard on the first two clauses? We hear constant rumours and suggestions that more is going to be thrown overboard at a later stage. If there is one thing that justifies the time which the Committee have given to the Debates from our side, though it does not justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is the fact that, as a, result of these

    1911
    discussions and the disclosure of the weak points we have shown in this measure, these exemptions and concessions have been made. I think it would have been far better for everybody in and out of this House if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had considered all these difficulties before he introduced the Bill. What we feel now is that it is absurd that the whole agricultural industry and that the whole of the small holders and everybody in the country should be forced to send in valuation after valuation at their own expense, when probably, with these exemptions included in the Bill, three out of four of the persons will be subject to no tax whatever. What justification is there for including a proposal like this in the Finance Bill at all? What has it to do with finance? The Finance Bill is for the year, and the taxes to be raised for the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is certainly entitled, in considering a particular tax, to look at its effect in future years as well as in this year, but he is not entitled to include in the Finance Bill of this year a proposal to inflict a valuation upon an enormous number of persons who are not to be subject to any new tax whatever in this year. We ought to get some information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether his object is to tax them at all in the future. That seems to me to be rather an important point. If he is not going to tax them at all there can be no possible excuse, either now or in the future, for putting them to the expense and trouble of this valuation. If he is going to tax them in the future, what is the value of those concessions given to-day, when it only means that the Government are going to let them off for the present, but that they will be taxed next year, or the year after, perhaps, in a form more onerous and troublesome than the proposals made in the Bill. We are glad to see these concessions, so far as they go, because they will remove anxiety and fear from the minds of Chose particular people, but so far from justifying the tax itself it does exactly the opposite. What has been done so far strengthens the case of those not exempted. It will strengthen the Opposition in continuing to oppose the taxes as they have done ever since the Committee stage of the Bill commenced.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): The Debate having ranged over rather a
    1912
    wide field, including the possible action of the House of Lords and the Tariff Reform meetings in the country, I may be forgiven if I confine my remarks specifically to one or two points strictly relevant to the clause, and the announcement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We all welcome much of the tone of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Mr. Pretyman) as to the particular concessions. I think he is wrong when he speaks of these being the jettisoning of the cargo, as I hope to show. I think the Leader of the Opposition was wrong—though no doubt these are the points which are made across the floor of the House—in associating any of those so-called concessions with electioneering movements in the House or the country. I am dealing with facts which the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) is not familiar with as to the way in which these so-called concessions have been discussed during the past few weeks, and even months. There has never been any doubt at all from any declaration made either by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister from the day the Bill was introduced that purely agricultural increment was going to be exempted from this Increment Tax. It was announced on the first clause on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin). It was announced again and again in the discussions on the second clause. Various alternatives were suggested. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he thought agricultural increment was exempted by the last part of the first section of the second clause of the Bill, but he said that if it was shown that it was not fully exempted he would be willing to listen to any other suggestion for it3 exemption.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I never referred to that.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Then I do not need to amplify the point. The Leader of the Opposition is in agreement with us on that point. One or two suggestions were made to make clear to the Committee the exact meaning of the new clause. The original suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer exempted increment value in agricultural land for all practical purposes in the immediate future. The new clause he has now suggested exempts agricultural increment at all times, unless this House desires to make a modification. Any increase that may be due to good farming, any increase of agricultural value that may be due to agricultural discovery; or new methods which are going to be of ad-

    1913
    vantage to agricultural land, any increase—as was put very fully before the Committee in the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford—which may be caused by land hunger, by people competing for agricultural holdings—all that is henceforth exempted from the tax altogether. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) gave us a challenge when he sat down. He asked is our object to tax this in the future, and, if not, what is the use of valuation? Our object is not to tax this at all, as far as the Government is concerned; but our object is to impose an Increment Tax if and whenever any portion of the land of this country has an increased value for other purposes than its purely agricultural value. It is quite impossible to tell where that might happen. It might happen in any part of the country at any time. Flourishing towns have now grown up with an enormous building value which a few years ago were merely open country. There are hundreds of examples. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has mentioned again and again the opening of a mine in the neighbourhood, where immediately you get a great building value created in what is a purely agricultural country, and therefore it is necessary to have a normal standard of site value even if that normal standard in many cases may not be used for many years or may never be used at all.
    The other point to which I wish to refer is the question of revenue. The Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil), in his usual eloquent fashion, made a considerable point that owing to the various concessions we were making and to the small amount suggested in our first year there would be little revenue raised by this tax; and I think he implied not only little revenue this year, but that the Committee were being asked "to scorn delights and live laborious days," and even nights, in order to produce a tax which would never yield an appreciable revenue at all. That is not the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who stated that we were definitely imposing a very substantial burden not of valuation, but of payment upon men who might perhaps be poor men and not of necessity rich men. But the idea that in imposing any tax we have to consider merely the amount of tax which will be raised this year is an idea altogether alien to the politics of this country. I could mention two examples which have been used again and again in public debates. The first is the Succes-
    1914
    sion Duties, which were passed by Mr. Gladstone in 1853, when no revenue was raised for the year at all; and the second is the Finance Bill in 1894, when Sir William Harcourt definitely stated that only three-quarters of a million would be raised during the year; and Lord Goschen made exactly the same argument which has been used by the Noble Lord: "What on earth is the use of making all this bother and disturbance and loss of quiet for raising just a few hundreds of national revenue?" Yet those duties are now raising something like £20,000,000. Any hon. Gentleman who will just turn his mind back to the past week, and bear in mind every kind of exemption which we have given or which is likely to be given, and consider what will be the revenue to-day if the tax had been imposed 20 or 10 or even five years ago, will not say we are demanding too much from this Committee in asking them to sit day and night in order that this tax may be imposed. Just outside my Constituency there is now a population of 500,000 in what were green fields less than 10 years ago, in which building value has not only doubled but has gone up 10 or 12 times the value that it used to be. And in many parts of England that process is going on month after month, and in this way there would be some appreciable revenue from this tax even this year.
    And now a word in reference to the small freeholder. I have a perfect right to say that from the very beginning of the compilation of this Budget the position of the small freeholder, especially in the town where he is the owner of his own house and the land on which it is and nothing more, has been under the full consideration of the Government. They have not only recognised, but legislation has recognised, that he is in a different position under those circumstances from the general owner outside. It is recognised in the Inhabited House Duty, where he is given a definite exemption. It is recognised in the scheme which the Chancellor has suggested might be taken as a scheme to be applied to this exemption, the scheme in the Housing of the Working Classes Act. There is £40,000 in the case of London, £26,000 in the case of the big towns, and £16,000 in the case of the smaller towns, in the diminishing scale, in order to cut off property in the occupation of working people, and therefore demanding special privileges on account of the fact that you are dealing with a specially poor population, from property which is

    1915
    not in such possession. It has been urged that our proposals disturb the symmetry of our system of Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly correct in that. Every concession we have given disturbs the symmetry of the Income Tax. You cannot give a concession to a special class or to special hardships in dealing with a general principle without disturbing in some respects that symmetry. That we freely acknowledge. But that is not any reason for not giving the concession. The exemption of incomes under £150 a year disturbs the symmetry of the tax, and no one in practical politics will suggest that that exemption should be altered, except the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Harold Cox). We believe that these two boons which have been given will not only remove considerable apprehension which have been felt by people of small possessions which we desire to remove in connection with this tax, but will also be a real benefit to those people when the time comes when these taxes are applied. It has been said that they are devised as an electioneering movement. I do not think I need argue that. It is also said it is a question that must be dealt with on its merits. It is on the merits that we are offering both the Amendments, and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will justify them when the House comes to deal with this Amendment.
    Mr. HAROLD COX: The hon. Member who has just sat down said that these concessions disturbed the symmetry of the Increment Tax. They not only disturb the symmetry of the tax but they deprive it of the whole moral basis which has been put forward to the country. We have been told it is justifiable to tax unearned increment because it is something the owner gets apart from his own exertions. Does not that apply to agricultural land? If the price of corn goes up the price of corn land goes up. Is that due to the action of the land-owner? He has not earned this increased price of corn. On the contrary, he gets this increment, I might almost say, out of the stomachs of his fellow citizens. He is taxing them. He is allowed to get this large increment out of something which the country feels more than anything else—an increase in the price of its most important article of food. Yet we are told he is to be exempt. Now take the contrary case. A man owns a piece of agricultural land which was poor agricultural land. He turns it into build-
    1916
    ing land at his own expense by making roads and sewers, and immediately he is to be taxed on the revenue that arises. I know what the Prime Minister said the other day at the Holborn Restaurant, that nobody was to be taxed except on something which was produced by the energy of the community, and not by his own enterprise, activity, or expenditure. But there are no words in the Bill to safeguard a landowner who will do this. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a man who has gone to the whole expense of laying out a building estate being charged on the whole of what he himself has created. We had the case the other day of a man who has made the land valuable in front and has added to the value of the back land, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to give him any concession.
    That is the first point which knocks over the moral basis of the tax. The second case is more remarkable. An owner occupying land worth less than £500 is to be exempt. That means that if a man is so rich that he can afford to give himself a small house on his small holding and give himself a residence there he will be exempt from tax, but if he is not rich enough for that, if he is obliged to let his land, then he must pay the tax. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken took the case of the Income Tax, and said that no tax is charged on incomes lower than £l60 a year. I personally think that it ought to go lower. But why do we make that exemption? We make it because we argue that people with less than a certain income ought not to pay any tax at all, and we leave that margin for the necessities of life. If we go beyond £160 we carefully graduate the tax, so that a man with £170 pays very little, and a man with £180 pays a little more, and so on. But in this tax there is nothing of the kind. If a man owns a piece of land which rises from £400 to £500 he will pay nothing; but suppose the land rises from £500 to £600, then he pays £20. Is that fair, that a man who has a piece of land worth £600 should pay while the man who has a piece of land worth £500 pays nothing at all? Is that a reasonable system of graduation? and then again in reference to my point about a moral basis: if there is something unfair to the community in a man getting an increment of land value, that unfairness exists on land below £500, as well as on land above £500. If it is a crime to make a profit on his land which is worth less

    1917
    than £500, it is equally a crime to make his profit on land which is worth more than £500. The Chancellor of the Exchequer never attempted to touch the question of the expense of valuation. He is committing this country to a vast expenditure, of which no estimate has been given. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the contrast between his action in this matter and the action of his colleague the President of the Board of Trade in reference to the Labour Exchanges Bill, in giving a careful estimate of what the proposals were going to cost not only this year but in future years. Why do we not get a similar estimate from the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It is surely within his capacity to give us, at any rate, a vague estimate of what it is going to cost. But I would like to ask him some questions. Has he himself any conception of the site value of the House which he himself occupies? Can he get up in this House and tell us within £100 what that site is worth? How is he going to work to ascertain, and how is the nation going to work to ascertain? It is evident that it is not only the cost of this valuation to the individual landowner, there is also the cost to the nation itself to check the valuation of the landowner. It must be checked. You cannot say to the landowner, "Value the land as you like, and we will accept your valuation." That is our of the question. If you did that many landowners, anticipating a rise, would forestall that rise, and when it came there would be no tax to pay. You must have a State valuation as well as a private valuation. I want to know what it is to cost. I have made inquiries of many valuers, and of people who employ valuers, which is perhaps more important. They tell me that to value the site of a moderately large house costs about ten guineas, and in the country less, perhaps a couple of guineas or a guinea. In the case of a street the valuers would take the average, and they would do the work for very much less. But putting it as low as you can, I would like to know what is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate as to the cost of valuing a site. If he takes it upon the basis of the whole country, the cost of valuation will be 10s. apiece. I am assured that is the very lowest it could possibly be put at. Ten shillings for every site, taking the large and the small together, would be 10s. apiece. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that there are 10,000,000 houses in this country, which makes £5,000,000 to begin with?
    1918
    Then to come to agricultural land. You have to value not only the farm as a whole, but separate fields and separate portions of fields, because the portion of a field which is next the high road will be more valuable than the portion of land at the back. There must be separate valuations, and to make these valuations there must be clerks employed, there must be a record of the valuations, and when all that is done the cost will not be £5,000,000, but £25,000,000 or £30,000,000. And what are we going to get out of this-tax? The Noble Lord opposite said we were going to get £10,000 this year. I think it is more likely to be 10,000 pence.
    But that is not all. In future years you will get more, conceivably, if the land always rises in value. But why make that assumption? Does land always rise in value? I am informed that at the present time in the City of London and in parts of the West End, and also in a number of provincial towns, land is going down in value. The only land which is rising in value, as far as I can understand, is agricultural land, which is exempt. Therefore, I think in future you will get very little out of this tax, and I am certain you will never get enough out of it to pay the interest on your preliminary valuation. Meanwhile we must keep correcting the valuations. You will have a gigantic staff, a great deal of patronage, and an enormous number of salaries to pay in order to get what will never pay the cost of collection and of valuation. Then I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a little more definite than he has been about the right of appeal. The other day I believe the right hon. Gentleman made some quasi concession on this point. To me that point seems fatal. We are adopting, I will not say an absolutely new principle, but we are going back on all the best traditions of this country, and the Inland Revenue Commissioners themselves will be the final judges of the taxes they will collect. I said we were going back. I believe there was an earlier precedent. In the reign of Henry VII., our earliest Tudor sovereign, who I think also came from the Principality, an Act was passed which provided that two Commissioners, named Empson and Dudley, should be allowed to collect what taxes they liked from the King's subjects. I will admit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a little improvement on that. He has provided that there shall be official referees, and if you do not like Empson, try Dudley.

    1919
    What is to happen to the man who makes a profession or business of buying and selling land? At present he is taxed under Schedule D. If his income is less than £2,000 a year he pays 9d. in the £l on his earned income, his earned income being defined to be the aggregate of his transactions, taking the profits and losses together. Under this new tax his transactions which alone show a profit are picked out to be taxed as unearned increment, and he is to pay 4s. in the £. I can imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying, "We have been wrong in the past, and we propose to amend the Income Tax and to sweep away this system by which the builder pays Income Tax on earned income and then is taxed on unearned increment." To have these two systems going on concurrently seems to be absolutely indefensible. Take the case of a builder who in three years has nothing but profits, his transactions all turning out well. These profits are all treated as earned income, but under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bill the whole are subject to be taxed as unearned increment. The same thing under two separate Acts is to be defined as earned income in the one case, and in the other as unearned increment. There is no possible logical defence for that. I may point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will discover that there is very little political defence for it, because he will find that builders and builders' labourers have; votes, and do not want their business to be taxed above the business of other' people. That seems to me generally to apply to the objections brought against; this tax. Hon. Members on this side have been rather apt to taunt their opponents with reluctance to pay their share of taxation. I cannot speak for hon. Gentlemen opposite, but, speaking for myself, I am perfectly willing to pay my share of taxation, and I think that most of my fellow Englishmen are willing to do the same. Englishmen are willing to pay their taxes, but what they do object to is injustice.; They object to this tax first of all because a particular class of persons is picked out to be taxed, and, secondly, and still more, because private people are compelled to pay large sums to land valuers, auctioneers, and so on for no fiscal purpose; whatever. The clause which we are now considering imposes a grave burden upon-a number of people which does not bring: revenue into the coffers of the State; in
    1920
    fact, I am quite at a loss to know for what purpose it is imposed. There is no objection in any part of this House to a fair Valuation Bill. I believe a Valuation Bill was introduced in the last Parliament by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin. I do not know any part of the House in which there is any objection to a fair Valuation Bill.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: You said it would cost £10,000,000.
    Mr. HAROLD COX: Valuation is done in the ordinary way at the present time at the expense of the local authorities. The reason why it will cost £10,000,000 is because you are starting an entirely separate valuation—valuing things, not as they are, but as they are not. You say now that you are going to exempt the small holders; you say you are going to exempt agricultural land, and yet these very people whom you are going to exempt will have to pay, and pay heavily, out of their pockets in order that you may get your valuation. Is that fair? What wrong have these men done that their money should thus be taken from them for no purpose whatever?
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It has been the proud boast of the Liberal party for the last 60 or 70 years that they have on every possible opportunity done something to improve and cheapen the transfer of' land. Here we have in the hands of the present Government a measure which, judging by its methods, will inevitably have the effect of very much hampering the transfer of land in future and making it very much more expensive. My contention is that the boasts of the Liberal party of having cheapened and facilitated the transfer of land is now, at all events for the first time, being set at naught by the present Government. A very curious feature in connection with this Bill, as far as we have got, is that there is not a single word in it to tell us who is to pay the tax. We have had various indications in portions of the Bill as to what certain people may be allowed, but I challenge the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill to show me any reference in the first two clauses as to what individual person is liable to pay the tax. The position of the mortgagee in reference to land is one which ought certainly to be taken into very careful consideration when we are discussing the imposition of the new tax. Words have been inserted in the clause referring

    1921
    to the mortgagee. They are in the reprint of the clause. What is the meaning of that clause? The meaning is that there may be circumstances under which a mortgagee will be, or may be, required to come forward and prove something for the purpose of getting a deduction under Clause 2. I wish to point out the radical distinction there is between the Death Duty and the Increment Duty from the point of view not only of the man who has to pay the duty, but also from the point of view of the mortgagee. When an individual who owns property dies, and the Death Duty has to be paid, that duty is only calculated and only demanded to be paid upon the amount which the deceased really owned. That is to say, if there is a mortgage, the amount is deducted in assessing the value of the land. The exact opposite is the case with respect to Increment Duty which has got to be paid irrespective of any incumbrance. Those are the provisions of this Bill. Last night I mentioned a case on this subject, and let me give an illustration of what it is I want answered. I venture to think that the thousands upon thousands of investors in the United Kingdom who have got some money on mortgage will be wanting an answer to this question from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I refer to all the trustees of banks, all the private persons, all the great trade societies, all the insurance companies, all those great companies such as the Liver and Victoria, where working men have contributed their pence and their shillings, and where those societies have got the greater portions of their moneys invested in mortgages. The point is this with respect to mortgages. Supposing a man has bought a property a few years ago, say, at £15,000, and that he dies this year, and that the property is valued at, say, £20,000. There you have an increment of £5,000 and a sum of £l,000 to pay. The man when he died left, we will say, £600 of debts and £500 of furniture. Deeds of the property were deposited at the bank on an equitable mortgage, and he owed more than £20,000 to that bank. There is the £1,000 to pay of duty, and I ask the question, and I want a reply, and I believe all the mortgagees in the country will want a reply, and it is, Who are going to pay that £1,000 of duty? It is perfectly clear that it is charged on the property, and that it has got to be paid by somebody. The mortgagees have done no wrong, and they have had no increment, the estate of the
    1922
    man cannot pay the £1,000, and is the bank, as the mortgagee, to be liable to pay that £l,000? I think we ought to have an answer to that question.
    Trustees in this country have advanced enormous sums of money upon mortgage, and what is their position? Suppose their mortgagor goes away and sells the equity, that would probably not amount to much, and he may receive only a few pounds for it, but the Increment Duty has got to be charged on the full value. The man cannot pay it, the mortgagor has probably not sufficient money to pay it, and then must the mortgagee pay it? If this position cannot be faced straight, and if we cannot get some intelligible reply from the Government the immediate effect will be to cause the greatest possible amount of uneasiness in the minds of all those who to-day have got money invested on mortgages on land in various parts of the country. And, carrying it a step further, it will have the effect of depriving land of that most important quality which it has got to-day, namely, the facility for going and borrowing very cheap money at low rates of interest, the greatest facility which land, above all things, has got today. It will have the effect as well of preventing numerous people from finding, as they have in the past, reasonable and safe investments. I need not enlarge on the further consequences, except to say that if you bring about this state of affairs, and if you intend to divorce capital from land and from the development of land, the ultimate effect will be, and we shall probably see it, if this Bill is passed, at no distant date, all those building trades, joiners, plasterers, bricklayers, all those people who are engaged in those trades will inevitably suffer, and the amount of unemployment and distress that will be indirectly caused by this ill-considered measure will be difficult of calculation. I am moved to get up, not in any way to controvert or to go into the various propositions which have been laid before you to-day, but because no other speaker, so far, has paid any attention to the point of which I have spoken, and has not given it that prominence which it ought reasonably to have.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place and claimed to move "That the question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 103.

    Division No. 275.]

    AYES.

    [7.35 P.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Agnew, George William

    Gill, A. H.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Alden, Percy

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Morrell, Philip

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

    Morse, L. L.

    Armitage, R.

    Glover, Thomas

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

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Myer, Horatio

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Napier, T. B.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Nicholls, George

    Atherley-Jones L.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Griffiths, Ellis J.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Hall, Frederick

    O'Grady, J.

    Barker, Sir John

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

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

    Barnes, G. N.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Hart Davies, T.

    Pointer, J.

    Beale, W. P.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Bell, Richard

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

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

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

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Helme, Norval Watson

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

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

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

    Radford, G. H.

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Boulton, A. C. F.

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

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Brace, William

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Brigg, John

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Hodge, John

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Robinson, S.

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

    Hooper, A. G.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Hudson, Walter

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Cameron, Robert

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Scarisbrick. Sir T. T. L.

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Chance, Frederick William

    Jenkins, J.

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Sears, J. E.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Seddon, J.

    Clough, William

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Seely, Colonel

    Clynes, J. R.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Snowdon, P.

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

    Lambert, George

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lamont, Norman

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Cox, Harold

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Steadman, W. C.

    Cross, Alexander

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Summerbell, T.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Mackarness, Frederic C

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Maclean, Donald

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Tomkinson, James

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    M'Laren, Sir C B. (Leicester)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Elibank, Master of

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

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Esstemont, George Birnie

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Verney, F. W.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Walsh, Stephen

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Walton, Joseph

    Ferens, T. R.

    Marnham, F. J.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Massie, J.

    Wardle, George J.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Waring, Walter

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    1924

    1925

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Winfrey, R.

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

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

    White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Whitehead, Rowland

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

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Haddock, George B.

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Renton, Leslie

    Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Renwick, George

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

    Bull, Sir William James

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Cave, George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylehone, E.)

    Lambton, Hon Frederick William

    Stanier, Beville

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Clyde, J. Avon

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

    Starkey, John R.

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Morpeth, Viscount

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

    Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Winterton, Earl

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Fell, Arthur

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Forster, Henry William

    Oddy, John James

    Gardner, Ernest

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    A. Acland-Hood and Viscount

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Percy, Earl

    Valentia.

    Gretton, John

    Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 302; Noes, 114

    Division No. 276.]

    AYES.

    [7.45 p.m.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Brace, William

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Brigg, John

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Agnew, George William

    Brecklehurst, W. B.

    Cross, Alexander

    Alden, Percy

    Brooke, Stopford

    Cullinan, J.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Armitage, R.

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

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Astbury, John Meir

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Delany, William

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon Sydney Charles

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Barker, Sir John

    Cameron, Robert

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Barran Rowland Hirst

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Elibank, Master of

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Cleland J. W.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Beale, W. P.

    Clough, William

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Bell, Richard

    Clynes, J. R.

    Everett, R. Lacey

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

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Ferens, T. R.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

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

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Boulton, A. C. F.

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

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Lundon, T.

    Robinson, S.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Gill, A. H.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Glover, Thomas

    Maclean, Donald

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. B.

    M'Kean, John

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

    Hall, Frederick

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sears, J. E.

    Halpin, J.

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

    Seddon, J.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Seely, Colonel

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Hardy, George A. (Suflolk)

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Sheehy, David

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

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

    Massie, J.

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Harrington, Timothy

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Snowden, P.

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim N.)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Harvey, A, G. C. (Rochdale)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Mooney, J. J.

    Steadman, W. C.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Morrell, Philip

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Morse, L. L.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

    Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)

    Summerbell, T.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

    Sutherland, J. E.

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

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Myer, Horatio

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Napier, T. B.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Nicholls, George

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Hodge, John

    Nolan, Joseph

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hogan, Michael

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Tomkinson, James

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Nuttall, Harry

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hooper, A. G.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Verney, F. W.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Dowd, John

    Walton, Joseph

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Grady, J.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Waring, Walter

    Idris, T. H. W.

    O'Malley, William

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Jenkins, J.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmon (Swansea)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Joyce, Michael

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Pointer, J.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Lambert, George

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Lamont, Norman

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

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

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Radford, G. H.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

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

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

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

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

    Reddy, M.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Winfrey, R.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Bull, Sir William James

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Ashley, W. W.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Cave, George

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

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Chance, Frederick William

    1928

    1929

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hunt, Rowland

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

    Cox, Harold

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

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

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Doughty, Sir George

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

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Stanier, Beville

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Starkey, John R.

    Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Fell, Arthur

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Gretton, John

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

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

    Oddy, John James

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Haddock, George B.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Percy, Earl

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Acland-Hood and Viscount

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Renton, Leslie

    Valentia.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Renwick, George

    CLAUSE 3.—General Provisions as to Collection of Increment Value Duty.
    (1) On each occasion on which Increment Value Duty is collected on the increment value of any land, such an amount of duty shall be deemed to be due as the Commissioners determine, having regard to the amount of duty paid on previous occasions.
    (2) Where Increment Value Duty is collected on the occasion of the transfer or passing on death of the fee simply in possession of any land, or on any periodical occasion in the case of land held in fee simple in possession by a body corporate or unincorporate, the whole amount of the duty which is determined to be due shall be collected.
    (3) When Increment Value Duty is collected on the occasion of the grant of a lease, or on the transfer or passing on death of any interest in land, or on any periodical occasion in the case of an interest in land held by a body corporate or unincorporate, such proportionate part of the amount of the duty which is due shall be collected as may be determined by the Commissioners to be payable in respect of the interest in land created, transferred, passing on death, or held, in accordance with rules made by them for the purpose.
    (4) Increment Value Duty shall be a Stamp Duty collected and recovered in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West
    1930
    Edinburgh (Mr. Clyde) is similar to an Amendment already negatived.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is it not in order to move the omission of section (1)? The point I should urge is that the ground is already covered.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be in order to move its omission on the ground that the section is unnecessary. As I understand it, to take out section (1) would make nonsense of the clause; but if the hon. Member wishes seriously to urge that it is not required that will be in order.
    Mr. JAMES HOPEmoved to leave out section (1).
    It seems to me that these words come in rather strangely in view of what has been done on Clauses 1 and 2. For instance, Clause 1 says,"…there shall be charged, levied, and paid on the increment value of any land a duty, called Increment Value Duty…"; it proceeds to say when the duty shall become due, and then says, "and on each of those occasions the duty, or proportionate part of the duty, due, so far as it has not been paid on any previous occasion, shall be collected in accordance with the provisions of this Act." Then Clause 2 defines increment value in explanation of Clause 1. Reading the last lines of Clause 1 and the exegesis of increment value in Clause 2, one would think the matter had been sufficiently defined; but when you come to Clause 3, it states, "On each occasion on which Increment Value

    1931
    Duty is collected on the increment value of any land, such an amount of duty shall be deemed to be due as the Commissioners determine, having regard to the amount of duty paid on previous occasions." Those last words occur also at the end of Clause 1, and would appear to cover the point. Now, after we have laboriously gone through Clauses 1 and 2, section (1) of Clause 3 would seem to give the Commissioners an overriding authority to alter and perhaps reverse what the Legislature has already decided by Clauses 1 and 2 shall be done. I suppose that these words are not mere surplusage; they must have been put in for some definite reason, but it is not apparent on the face of it what that reason is, and in order to get an explanation I beg to move the omission of the section.
    The CHAIRMAN: I really do not quite understand the proposal of the hon. Member. If he wishes to amend the section he should move to amend it.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I wish to move to reject it as unnecessary, and, pending an explanation from the Government, I beg to do so.
    Sir W. ROBSON: It does seem quite clear that the hon. Member's Amendment would reduce this clause to nonsense. By the observations which have just been made he shows that he does not understand——
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: That is exactly my point. I want to understand.
    Sir W. ROBSON: Clause 1 says that Increment Value Duty shall become due on certain occasions. Clause 2 defines Increment Value Duty. Clause 3, which is a clause that the hon. Member says is surplusage, says that the Commissioners are to fix that value. That is not provided for in Clause 1 nor Clause 2. It is only provided for in this sub-section to Clause 3. Unless that direction be given somewhere in the Bill—and this is the place to give it —you cannot get anyone to fix your Increment Value Duty. This is an essential subsection, and, being essential, it is out of order for its deletion to be moved.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: On that point of order, may I call attention to the fact that the first clause says "there shall be charged, levied, and paid."
    Viscount HELMSLEY: For the general guidance of the Committee, may I in-
    1932
    quire whether we are to understand that an Amendment is in or out of order according to the sense in which it is argued?
    The CHAIRMAN: If I were always to rule on what I understand to be the strict meaning of the words, I should vlery often have to rule Amendments out of order that I allow to be argued in a certain way. In my opinion this is convenient to the Committee. It is absolutely indispensable in regard to matters of this kind that there should be some discretion left in the hands of the Chairman. I certainly cannot lend myself to allow discussions on these subsections simply to ask what they mean. It is a habit which I think is very detrimental to our work. I therefore cannot take this Amendment.
    The CHAIRMANruled out of order the Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Members for Brighton (Mr. Rids-dale) and Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox).
    Mr. PRETYMAN: On a point of order, the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed in principle to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton. It was withdrawn on that understanding.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw it, on the ground- that it was trenching upon later ground, and that it would be quite impossible to raise the same issue again if the Committee decided it. He wished to withdraw it, but hon. Members on the opposite side of the House refused to give him leave and divided upon it.
    The CHAIRMAN: I find that in Clause 8—that is the reversion part of the Bill—there is a retrospective statement dealing with the effect of increment value, and the Reversion Duty being paid. That being the case, it was quite evident that an Amendment on the lines of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash can be moved when we come to the Reversion and Un developed Duty, and so on. In Clause 8 there are provisions for dealing with the interaction of the Increment Value and Reversion Duties. When we come to the Undeveloped Land Duty part of the Bill, then we can have Amendments dealing with the interaction of the Undeveloped Land Duty and Increment Value Duty. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton raises the same point as the Attorney-General, and is in order.
    Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON moved to leave out the words "having regard to" ["having regard to the amount of duty paid on previous occasions"], and to insert "after giving credit for." This is a verbal change. The words as they now stand are somewhat vague. They are not explicit or categorical enough.
    Question put, "That the words 'after giving credit' stand part of the clause."
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I should like to point out that the words already in the clause are better words than those proposed, because, if you give credit for the whole amount of the duties that have been already paid, it is quite obvious you will get into a serious difficulty at once. There may have been duties paid upon all kinds of occasions, and on altogether different pieces of land. I have given some study to these particular words, and I thought they were uncommonly well chosen.
    Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Member rather anticipates difficulties that are not likely strictly to arise out of these words. If any question arises on the question of apportionment of the amounts, I think it can be raised by subsequent Amendment. I intended to deal with it myself when I came to it.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: You did not say so.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I propose to insert words dealing with this very question of apportionment. I think when we come to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason) that will be the proper place for some such words to be inserted.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman is all very well as far as it goes, but I am perfectly certain of this, that if you put in further words here about apportionment, having already passed a set of words with regard to apportionment, and discuss the merits of these words on the basis of a manuscript Amendment, which we have not seen, but which is going to be proposed three or four lines further down, it is leading us to a very difficult position, out of which I can scarcely see my way. With considerable trouble I took this section, and tried to make some reasonable provision in the English language for words which adequately met the different kinds of apportionment, which it would be required to
    1934
    have some regard to. I gave it up as a bad job. But the Attorney-General has advantages of draftmanship and advice, and, I have no doubt, a great deal more leisure than I have got. He has designed the set of words which he has told us he is going to move at the end of section (4). I can only follow with very great difficulty. I appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman to leave the words alone that are in this section, and to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the Attorney-General tell us why, in view of the concluding words of Clause 1, these new words are necessary at all? Those concluding words are: "On each of these occasions the duty, or proportionate part of the duty due, so far as it has not been paid on any previous occasion, shall be collected in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
    And it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being private business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  METHWOLD AND FELTWELL DRAINAGE BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Motion agreed to.
  Mr. R. WINFREY Mr. R. WINFREY moved, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to substitute for the General Drainage Tax provided for in Clause 23, and the additional tax in Clause 24 of the Bill, a scheme of taxation graduated according to the value of the land to be taxed such as the Committee may think fair."
  This Bill is being promoted by certain gentlemen who have recently acquired considerable acreage of land within this drainage district or within the borders of the district, and these gentlemen have successfully obtained seats upon the board which consists of 14 members. The new board decided, by the casting vote of the chairman, to promote this Bill. Seven voted for the promotion of the Bill and seven against. The Bill is very hotly opposed

  1935
  by the other half of the board, who represent some 50 or 60 of the smaller owners and occupiers, chiefly of the poorer land within this drainage area. Being my Constituents, they appeal to me, and it has been my duty to go very carefully indeed into all the circumstances and facts of the case.
  The powers under which this area is now drained have been in operation since 1881, and if the system is not a perfect one the majority, counting heads and not acres, infinitely prefer the present system to the new proposals as they stand in this Bill. The main proposal to which my Instruction is directed is the proposed method of taxation. At present the drainage rate is raised in this area by assessment according to Poor Law valuation. The land is assessed for Poor Law purposes, and the drainage rate is levied in exactly the same way, so that the better land pays a higher rate than the poorer. This Bill proposes to alter that entirely, and to create an acreage tax, which is to be equal per acre over the whole of the area.
  The Bill takes power to raise a maximum ordinary drainage rate of 7s. per acre, and it further takes power, under certain conditions, to raise an extra tax also of Vs. per acre, making 14s. in all. Now this land in this area varies very widely in quality. Some of it, not a large proportion of it, lets at something like 20s. to 30s. per acre, and a great deal of it lets at 5s. per acre. It will be seen that the owners of this poorer land feel that, in the first instance at any rate, if they are to have an acreage tax, there must be some graduation. It is asserted by the promoters of this Bill, who, I say, have recently made purchases in this district, that the land is of equal value if properly drained. To disprove that contention, I may say there is another area of drainage competing with this area, and there they have an equal acreage tax, and yet there is no evidence that the land is of equal value. On the contrary, just recently 400 acres of that land has been let at a very small rent, and not sufficient to pay the tax. It is asserted, of course, that there has been a considerable fall in prices in this land. That is true, but what is true of this land is also true of the land in the neighbouring district. There has been practically an equal fall in the value of land. Under the present scheme of rating the house and building, etc., are not rated for drainage purposes. So far as these improvements
  1936
  are concerned there is no tax at present upon them. It is asserted, and I think rightly, by the objectors to this Bill that the land divides itself into three classes. I have here a report of the meeting held at which no less than 48 of the small owners and occupiers were present, and from that meeting they petitioned me to move this Instruction, and it was unanimously resolved that three classes of land should be created within the area—(a) best land, some 900 to a thousand acres, with the tax not exceeding 10s., (b) 900 or a thousand, a tax not exceeding 7s., and (c), poor land, 2,700 acres, considerably more than half, a tax not exceeding 3s. My Instruction, it will be seen, authorises the Committee to deal with this problem in this way, or in some such way, but it does not limit the Committee to the scale of graduation although I make that suggestion. There is nothing in my Instruction that limits the form of graduation.
  If, as the promoters assert, the land will be gradually improved, then it is quite competent for the Committee to provide that at the end of a given term of years-say five years—the drainage board shall have power to reassess land according to the improved value, that is to say, some of the B land may be moved up into the A category and some of the C land moved up into the B category. But to give this drainage board power now to increase the acreage tax until it might amount to 14s. would make it impossible for the small owners and occupiers, who have no spare capital and whose borrowing powers of course are very limited. What would happen if this Instruction were not carried, and the Bill passed in its present form? According to Clause 29 the promoters take power to sell them out if at the end of 12 months the drainage tax is not paid. If at the end of 12 months the 14s. tax is not paid—and I submit it is impossible for men rated as low as 5s. an acre to pay that tax—the land can be sold away from them. I have had some negotiations with the promoters of the Bill, and they have given way to a certain extent upon that clause; and now if the drainage Commissioners do not get their tax, they are to have power to let the land and take the rent towards the paying of the drainage. At the end of three years' time, if the land is still unredeemed, it can be sold. With regard to representation, as the Bill stands, every owner of over 50 acres is to have a seat upon the board, and every owner of 150

  1937
  acres is to have one representative on the board for every 100 acres he possesses over and above 50 acres. I have worked that out, and it means that the four owners who are the chief promoters of this Bill would obtain 23 seats upon the board.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in discussing that principle at this stage.
  Mr. WINFREY: I was only going to say that the reason why I did not oppose the second reading was that I had arranged this matter, and the promoters gave way. I am now pointing out how far they have given way. These four owners get 23 seats, 16 other owners will get 16 seats, and, as the Bill stands, 80 small owners are left out entirely. They are going to be taxed, but they will not get any representation. I have got a concession, which induced me not to move my Motion for the rejection of the second reading, under which these small owners get nine seats on the board. They are not, however, content with that representation, and they prefer it should remain as at present, a board of 14 members, each man having one vote for every £50 assessment. That shows the spirit in which this Bill was conceived, and I think it justified me in making this attempt to do something to safeguard the interests of the small owners and occupiers. The expense of promoting this Bill, which I understand is considerable, falls upon the whole of the drainage district. Those who want the Bill and those who do not want it have to pay alike for the promotion of this measure, while the small owners who do not like it have in addition to find the necessary costs to get themselves heard before a Committee. Under these circumstances I feel bound to ask the House to safeguard their existence up to this point. There are many hon. Members in this House who know me well enough to recognise that I have always tried to encourage and promote the interests of the small owners and occupiers of land, and I ask them on this occasion to give me their support in carrying this Instruction.
  Mr. GEORGE NICHOLLS: I rise to second this Motion, and I desire to emphasise what has been stated by the Mover. The question of representation has been settled, and the purchase clause has also been settled. The issue at stake is entirely centred on the question of graduation, and the House will recognise that that is no new principle. Other
  1938
  drainage Bills have that principle embodied in them, and, as has already been mentioned by the previous speaker, the land in this particular area varies in quality. You find some of it let for over 30s. an acre, some probably for 15s. an acre, and some as low as 5s. an acre The whole of this area lies in what you may call a basin. The outside land is the most valuable, and it is a better quality, because the water from it drains to a lower level, and it does not seem fair that the same average rate should be put on the low part of the land as is put upon the best quality of land. The Committee ought to have the power asked for, and the Instruction ought to go from this House urging them to put in this scheme of graduation so that the smaller men should not be squeezed out. Evidently the land that is only worth 5s. an acre cannot bear in the first case 7s., and probably later on a 14s. tax. It is only reasonable that these men at least should be heard, and I think we are indebted to the hon. Gentleman opposite for calling the attention of the House to this matter. I am as anxious that the land should be drained as those who are promoting this Bill. The people living in the area are also anxious, but it is only fair that the smaller men who-will be hit very hard should have the protection that is embodied in this Instruction. I beg to second this Motion.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Emmott): I must apologise for intervening at this particular moment, but as a matter of fact I have been otherwise occupied, as the House knows, and a certain amount of time for leisure must be allowed even to the Chairman of Ways and Means. I take the liberty of rising now in order to say the very few words I have to say about this matter. The hon. Member who has just seconded this Instruction said he wanted the Committee to have power to deal with this matter. I must point out to the House that the Committee already has that power. The reason I oppose his Instruction is that it ties the hands of the Committee too much. A suggestion has been made that there should be put in the Instruction an Amendment to the effect "That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to consider, and, if they think fit, to substitute for the General Drainage Tax," etc. As far as I am concerned, if such an Amendment were put in I should not materially object to the Instruction, but personally I do not think

  1939
  that any instruction is needed. The Committee has power to deal with the whole question, and further, it is eminently a point which the Committee can decide infinitely better than the House as a whole. The Committee can readily ascertain the value of the first class, the second class and the third class land about which we have heard, and they can decide for themselves on the evidence presented to them whether any substantial injustice will be done to the poor land owing to an equal rate being levied as opposed to a rate divided according to rateable value; and having heard all the evidence they can, they will be able to come to a decision which I am perfectly certain would be much wiser than the House is able to arrive at to-night upon the ex parte statement of the mover of this Instruction. I say this without any reflection upon the hon. Member (Mr. Winfrey), who is acting on behalf of a body in his own Constituency. We all know the great interest he has always taken in matters connected with small holdings, and the House always listens with the utmost respect to anything which he has to urge on behalf of any body of small holders. Having heard what he has to say, and having myself, as it happens, had the advantage of two previous interviews with the hon. Member who moved this Instruction and with the promoters of the Bill, I have come to the conclusion that this is a matter which cannot be decided except after the perusal of maps and the hearing of evidence. It is because I am satisfied this is a Committee point which is likely to be more satisfactorily decided by a Committee which has heard evidence that I ask the House not to accept this Instruction—at any rate, in its present form.
  Mr. E. B. BARNARD: I was going to oppose the Instruction, but after the speech of the Chairman of Ways and Means I hardly think it is necessary for me to take up the time of the House. The Bill does not propose or seek to do anything unusual. Through accidental circumstances they find themselves obliged to come to Parliament to ask for certain powers, and that which they are asking for is simply to be able, as far as I understand it, to apply what is more or less the universal method in dealing with these matters. I am perfectly certain it is essentially a matter of business detail for the Committee to discuss rather than for the House to go into. It is not more than six
  1940
  weeks ago that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Burns), with very good reason, refused to accept an Instruction I was asking to put forward on the Derwent Valley Water Bill. My Instruction dealt with a point of principle, and there may be some ground for moving an Instruction when a point of principle is involved, but here it is a matter of business dealing solely, and is surely a subject to be discussed by a Committee. It is not like a Bill which has not been considered by anybody. It comes here having the full sanction and approval of a House of Lords Committee, which has passed it and presents it here in its present state. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that, so far as his Department is concerned, they prefer that the Bill should go to a Committee unclogged, so that they can decide what they think most suitable.
  Mr. CLOUGH Mr. CLOUGH moved, after the word "Committee" ["that it be an Instruction to the Committee"] to insert the words "to consider and, if deemed advisable, to." That reduces the Instruction from its present mandatory form, and will ensure that in the Committee upstairs my hon. Friend's Instruction will receive every consideration. This Amendment will be acceptable to the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I beg leave to propose it.
  Mr. HALLEY STEWARTseconded the Amendment.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I do not think this Instruction is necessary. There is no doubt whatever from the preamble of the Bill that the House of Commons Committee will be in a position to insert any taxing arrangement they think fit. I think they should be left to use their own discretion in the matter after they have heard the evidence of those interested; the hon. Member who moved the Instruction (Mr. Winfrey) stated that the Bill had been promoted by those who had recently bought land in the district. It is, of course, being promoted by the Drainage Board. He stated that that board were apparently of two minds on the subject. The matter was before those concerned at the election last September; it was the one question on which the election was decided, and I think, therefore, the House can safely rely on the opinion of those directly interested as thus expressed. The real question at issue is whether this land varies in quality or not? The hon. Member said it varies, and he gave figures to show the difference

  1941
  between the best and the worst land. I cannot check those figures in any way, but it is just possible some land is more valuable than the rest, because some of it is now being used by turf diggers, who have skinned the land and have taken away the whole of the surface, the land now being under water. Obviously, that land cannot have the same value as land used for agricultural purposes. It has had a large amount of its capital value already realised. These turf diggers have had their cake, and I think it is only reasonable in the future, when they are to have a further opportunity of either cutting turf or of cultivating their land that they should in some measure contribute to the cost.
  The hon. Member stated that in the neighbouring fen of Feltwell No. 2. 400 acres were recently let at a price no higher than in the fen under discussion. I am informed 400 acres were not recently let, but only 60 acres, and that the price realised was 10s. an acre, whereas the average in the fen we are considering at the present time is only 5s. There are no precedents, I am informed, for a system of taxation of this kind in the fen. The hon. Member who seconded the Instruction stated that there were precedents, but I think he will find they apply to those districts where floods are being prevented by embankments and other means, and not to those where drainage is being carried out to make agriculture possible. There is no doubt there are precedents for certain forms of graduation—I should prefer to call them differentiation. Under that system the lowland which gets the greatest benefit pays higher than the skirtland and the highland. That is perfectly reasonable, and there might be something to be said for it, but it is clearly a Committee point. There is certainly no precedent for the proposal the hon. Member has put forward. This land steadily decreased in value from 1755 to 1881. Owing to a mistake the board got a Provisional Order, under which they were not able, as they believed they would, to levy an equal acreage tax, and since then the land has steadily gone down. It has been quite impossible for poor farmers to improve their land, because they knew if they did they would have to pay on a heavier assessment for the purpose of drainage. For these reasons I think, in the interests of husbandry, an equal acreage tax is by far the best system. There is another point. The hon. Member's proposal will lead to a great deal of litigation and cost. There is to be a valuation not according to
  1942
  the benefits received, but simply of the value of the land. It is not to be considered whether it derives any benefit from the drainage, and if it should be more valuable because it is on higher ground, although it derives but little or no benefit from the drainage, it is to be taxed higher. This is a matter which must be discussed in the Committee. It is impossible for us here to get at the real root of the matter I do hope the Committee will be left with an unfettered judgment in dealing with it.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): I heartily associate myself with the speech delivered by the Chairman of Ways and Means. If this were an ordinary dispute which the House of Commons could settle on the lines on which I trust it may be settled, the Debate might have ended very properly with the speech of the Chairman of Ways and Means. But this is a matter which will have to be settled, not altogether by the House of Commons, not by the Committee upstairs, but subsequently, after this Bill has passed, by the various interests concerned in this drainage Board. We have had evidence showing that these are sharp divisions, not only on the point of principle, but in regard to the question whether the tax shall be levied by graduation, differentiation, or in any other way. I would suggest that the Instruction be accepted with the Amendment which has been moved. That will not fetter the hands of the Committee, which will have power to take evidence, and will have before it all the maps and details I believe, when they do come to consider it, they will decide that the Instruction is unnecessary. The object of this Bill is to reclaim four thousand acres of fen lands in variable occupations, large and small. Everyone is agreed that the object of the Bill is excellent, in the interests of agriculture and in the interests of the district, for the employment of more labour, and for the betterment of the whole locality. To carry the Bill into effect £8,000 will have to be borrowed, and it stands to reason that cultivators, large or small, who derive directly or indirectly any advantage by this expenditure should pay their proportionate contribution towards the cost of reclaiming the land and improving their holdings, be they large or small. But the various interests concerned are sharply divided. We are told that on a board of 14 Members seven were for one proposal and seven were for another, the Chairman having to give

  1943
  a casting vote. That indicates a sharp division. It indicates inharmonious relationship, it indicates an unnatural feeling which will have to be got rid of if these 4,000 acres are to be satisfactorily reclaimed from fen, water, and wilderness for the benefit of all concerned. I believe the promoters of the Bill are prepared to accept the Instruction, plus the Amendment, and, that being so, it seems to me this is one of those reasonable compromises which will tend to adjust the differences between the various interests and will make for peace among all concerned. It will also tend to economy; it will enable the Bill to be passed through its various stages with greater rapidity. I hope the suggestion I have thrown out will meet with the unanimous approval of this House.
  Mr. JOHN MOONEY: May I ask whether the Instruction, as amended, would be in order. Is it not an Instruction to the Committee to do something which is already provided for in the preamble of the Bill, namely, to consider "the more effectual draining of certain lands"? The mandatory instruction having been opposed by the ex-Chairman of Ways and Means, may I ask whether this Amendment now suggested does not simply restore to the Committee the powers it already possesses?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The rule with regard to Instructions on matter of private Bills differs somewhat from the rule with regard to Instructions on public Bills. There is a good deal more latitude in the former case than in the latter. The effect of passing the Instruction with the Amendment would be to leave the Committee in exactly the same position as now. They have power at the present moment to deal with this matter, and the only difference which can be urged would be that the attention of the Committee would be specifically directed to this point, whereas if there were no such Instruction it is possible that the Committee would not particularly have their attention directed to it. I cannot say it is out of order.
  Mr. MOONEY: May I point out that certain matters contained in the petition against this Bill are contained also in this Amended Resolution before the House. I wish to ask whether it is usual for the House to pass an Instruction which really embodies the prayer of a petition already laid before the House. Is it not rather
  1944
  prejudicing the position of the promoters of the Bill to pass an Instruction which is really in the terms of the petition presented by the opponents?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Supposing the petitioners do not appear on the petition, then this Question would not be raised, whereas if this Instruction is carried it will specifically call the attention of the Committee to the matter.
  Mr. J. F. P. RAWLINSON: May I venture to respectfully protest against the attitude taken up by the President of the Local Government Board on this Amendment, constituting, as it may do, a precedent for future private Bills. Are not Instructions from this House to be regarded seriously? It is true there is a much wider latitude in regard to private Bills than in the case of public Bills, and such a course, I have no doubt, as is now proposed, would be out of order on a public Bill. But is it not turning our Instructions into a farce to simply direct a Committee that they shall consider, if they think fit, that which they already have full power to consider? We ought to guard most jealously the powers of these tribunals which sit upstairs to deal with private business of this kind, and, so long as these Committees do-exist, we should think twice before we offer them what amounts almost to an insult by giving them an instruction of this kind—not a mandatory Instruction, but one simply asking them to pay attention to a matter which has already been threshed out before a Committee of the House of Lords, and which is likely to be threshed out again by counsel before themselves. Is it not rather intended to in some way indirectly influence their opinion? The House is not strong enough, and is frightened to take the line of giving a mandatory Instruction, and we are, therefore, placed in the position of saying to the Committee, "Please to do your duty. This matter has already been brought before the attention of the House of Lords, and you are to do your duty now, and pay attention to it when it comes before you." It appears to me, under those circumstances, that the Amendment, in its present form, is really unnecessary, and turns the Instruction into a ridiculous farce. This is purely a Committee point, and nobody can doubt that there is a very keen conflict of evidence as to the value of the land to be taxed. One hon. Member says that all the lands are of the same value,

  1945
  while another said that they were of different value, and if the Committee come to the conclusion that the latter contention is wrong, and that all this land is of equal value, then they will probably pass the Bill in its present form, which indicates that an equal sum shall be paid, and that is by no means an unusual form of raising rates where drainage schemes are concerned. This being so, I say it is altogether a matter for the Committee upstairs, and if we agree to this Instruction in an amended form the effect will be to form a precedent which is open to abuse.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: As those who are responsible for the Instruction have evidently satisfied themselves in their own minds that it is desirable to accept the modification of it, although I, for my own part, differ from them, I will defer to their better judgment and give them my support. I always feel that the House of Commons has a right to pass a definite Instruction of this character, because there may be cases occasionally, as in this instance, where the interests of a number of small holders are likely to be jeopardised. If the House of Commons sends a definite Instruction to the Committee it is better, hut certainly the mere fact of this consideration having been given by the House to the Question will have the effect of drawing the attention of the Committee to it, and it may be that the interests of the people concerned will receive full consideration as the result of the discussion which has taken place this evening. That these men have, in some cases, cause for apprehension I think has been made perfectly clear. As has been stated, the present board is thoroughly divided on this question, several members of it having voted for the promotion of the Bill and several against it, and the matter being determined by the casting vote of the chairman. I believe if we cared to analyse the votes in favour of the Bill we should find that the small holders have even greater cause for apprehension than is represented to this House, because I believe five of the seven who voted for it are closely related, or, indeed, are largely members of one family, and they are all representative of the large holders of the locality, and therefore we can quite understand the frame of mind which has induced some small holders to take action in order to protect their interests. I hope when the Bill emerges from the Committee that it will there have been proved that the contention of the small holders that the
  1946
  assessment ought to be placed upon value as at present and not upon acreage is the correct one, because if the Bill is passed in accordance with the present proposal it will have the effect of driving a great many small holders out of occupation, and means that the land will lapse into an unsatisfactory condition. That the small holders have great cause for apprehension was explained by the hon. Member who moved the Instruction, because the Bill gives powers to enable the Commissioners, if a small holder is twelve months in arrear with the rate, or tax, to sell him up entirely. We understand that the promoters of the Bill have agreed to modify this to the effect that the land shall be let by the Commissioners for three years, and then give the holder the opportunity of paying, but for my own part that does not remove my objection to that provision of the Bill, and I hope this Debate will have the effect of drawing the attention of the Committee to these objectionable points, and it may be that some more satisfactory solution will be found. I heartily associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the President of the Local Government Board in regard to the Bill. We all desire to see the land improved in value, but that it will not prejudice the rights of the small holders. I should have been prepared to support the original Instruction, but as the promoters accept the modification I am quite ready to agree to their wishes and throw in my lot with them.
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  Instruction, as amended, agreed to

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[Eleventh Day].
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

FINANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 3.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment [Sir W. Robson],o leave out the words having regard to," and to insert the words after giving credit for."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: When we were interrupted [at a quarter-past eight o'clock] I was putting a question to the Attorney-General as to the need of the words either as they stood in the Bill or as he proposes to amend them. At the end of the first clause these words are found: "And on each of those occasions the duty, or proportionate part of the

  1947
  duty, due, so far as it has not been paid on any previous occasion, shall be collected in accordance with the provisions of this Act." Then when we come to the present Amendment on the first sub-section of Clause 3: "On each occasion on which Increment Value Duty is collected on the increment value of any land, such an amount of duty shall be deemed to be due as the Commissioners determine, having regard to the amount of duty paid on previous occasions." I should have thought on the face of it that the words at the end of Clause 1 covered this point, and that neither the words of the Bill nor the Amendment were necessary.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The words in Clause 1 deal simply with the levying of the duty. The words of section 1 of Clause 3 deal with the duty of the Commissioners in fixing the amount of the duty, and it is necessary in this case, precisely as it was in Clause 1, to have regard to the amount of duty paid on the previous occasion. This is not repeating what was in Clause 1, but giving the same direction in relation to a different matter.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think there is a good deal to be said for the Attorney-General's words, and, from the point of view of those who have spoken from this side of the House, "giving credit for" is a more distinct direction than "having regard to," which may mean anything; but at the same time it again raises the same difficulty of the extraordinary results which will follow to people who own exactly the same kind of property, because what this enacts now clearly and distinctly, when these words are inserted, is that whenever Increment Value Duty becomes due any amounts previously paid on the same property will be deducted and credit will be given for them. Then Increment Value Duty is not always paid by the same person or by the same interest. Where you have a building lease granted on the property, and the two interests run concurrently, one waxing and the other waning you will have a tenant liable to pay the Increment Value Duty on a part of the interest, and then eventually that part of the interest on which the tenant has paid will pass to the owner, and the owner will then have to pay the balance of the duty. Therefore, the owner in fee simple of property of that description will, when the lease falls in, find that the Increment Value Duty which he has to pay not only depends upon whether
  1948
  there has been an increase in the value of the property during the currency of the lease, but will depend even more largely upon whether the leasehold interest of the property has happened to pass from hand to hand once or more than once during the currency of the lease, circumstances over which he can have no possible control, because an ordinary condition of such a lease is that the consent of the owner has to be obtained to any transfer, but that such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. That being so the lease can be transferred from hand to hand without any action on the part of the landlord. He cannot prevent it. Yet these transfers are going in some cases to entirely absolve him, and in those cases where there has not been a transfer the whole duty will fall to be paid on the termination of the lease. That will involve very great inequality in the levying of the duty upon persons who are exactly similarly circumstanced as regards their relation to their own property and to the State. By the action of a third party, who is in no way concerned as between the State and the owner of the land, the amount of duty payable is going to be very largely affected, and I think we ought to have some further information and some statement from the Attorney-General as to what line the Government propose to take about it.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think the difficulty is not really germane to this Amendment. I quite appreciate the point which was put that conceivably it may arise, and I have already dealt with the point. I have stated that what the hon. Gentleman calls an inequality will arise in the circumstances to which he refers, but I do not regard it as an inequality in the sense of its being an inequity. It seems to me a natural and not an unreasonable consequence, that where a lessee transfers his interest several times he pays whatever Increment Duty arises in respect of his interest. We have decided that that Increment Duty shall be credited against the Increment Duty which may arise in respect of any interest in the land, that is to say, it shall go to frank the fee simple to that extent. I thought this was a proper and rather a generous thing to do, that we would not take the duty in respect to the same increment on both interests, and we adopted what we thought the more merciful and certainly the more generous alternative. But I do not think that gives rise to any inequity, because after all a reversioner when

  1949
  he comes into the increment does not take charge of the unearned amount which another reversioner would enjoy owing to the frequent changes of transfer on the part of the leaseholder. That is an inequality, but not in the sense of its being a hardship. It simply means that one leaseholder has mad3 many changes of interest, and on each change has paid quite justly and properly upon his increment. That has gone on for years, to the benefit not only of the leaseholder but of all other interests, and therefore he is exceptionally fortunate in the matter. There is no injustice to the reversioner. I need scarcely tell the Committee, what I have always been anxious to explain, that there is not the same exact incidence in all these cases, because in some cases, according to the circumstances, the reversioner is able to escape the full burden of the increment. A question arises which I do not think is germane to this Amendment at all. It is to be raised afterwards by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mason), and I think when that Amendment is reached will be the proper time to deal with certain observations as to how the division is to be made.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. J. F. MASON: I desire to move the insertion at the end of section (1) of the words "and where apportionment of site value is necessary after Increment Duty has already been paid on any land as a whole, then the increment upon which duty has been already paid shall be apportioned in the same manner, but not necessarily in the same proportions, as the original site value." he point raised in this Amendment is one which I think it is certainly necessary to bring forward, because it follows upon something which is practically admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which I think has received some consideration. I am not at all sure whether the deduction is adequately met by the words which have been inserted. I think I can best explain the meaning of the Amendment on the Paper by taking an imaginary case. In that way it will be easily demonstrated that the apportionment of the increment is not provided for in any part of the Bill. Suppose the owner of four acres of land of which the original site value has been declared to be £2,000; he leaves that land in exactly the same condition, and a few years later dies. Owing to various causes that land has increased in value, and on his death is declared to have an increment value
  1950
  beyond the £2,000 or £1,000, so that it is worth at the date of his death £3,000. Increment Duty will be paid on £1,000, that is to say, £200 will be paid. His successor holds the land for some time, and after that develops it. He begins by selling one acre, presumably the most favourable acre, for £l,000. It is clear, therefore, that the £l,000 again shows an increment on that one acre, and the duty has again to be paid on the sale—that is to say, duty is paid for the second time, duty having already been once paid on the death of the owner. The question arises how much Increment Duty is due? Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 provides that in a case of this kind original site value will be apportioned to various parts of the original four acres, so that one acre will be given an apportionment of the original site value, but not necessarily one-fourth. The sub-section (1) of Clause 3 provides that credit is to be given for duty paid on previous occasions. But how much is the duty paid on previous occasions on this particular acre? It is true that £200 has been paid in respect of the four acres, but it is natural to suppose that the acre, which has now been developed, has an advantage over the other three acres, and it is quite evident that it would not be fair to say that that acre had merely appreciated by one-fourth of £l,000. That is to say, the acre in question, which is now sold, will have accounted for more than one-fourth of the first increment of £1,000, and consequently, if that is so, it is absolutely necessary to apportion the first increment of £1,000 between the three acres, which are left in somewhat the same manner in which you apportioned the original site value over the various parts of the total area. I think this is a case which shows beyond doubt that some apportionment of the first increment is absolutely necessary where land is subdivided after one Increment Duty or two Increment Duties have already been paid. I am aware that in Clause 19 there is an occasion mentioned of apportionment, and a great deal of that clause would deal with cases of this kind, but I think it is necessary to point out that arrangement is made for apportionment only where it is necessary for purposes of assessment. Under Clause 2, as it now stands, after the alterations of yesterday and the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the owner has a right to ask for an apportionment of the original site value, for the purpose, as I gather from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of

  1951
  getting some indication, for himself to guide him in the policy of development. That is to say, the owner under Clause 2 has the right to ask for an apportionment before he begins to work his land, in order to see bow much original site value is put on any particular plot, and it seems to me particularly important for the owner for the same reason also to know how much of the increment which already has been declared, and on which duty has been paid, has also been apportioned on plots and sub-divisions. To sum up: When sub-division of various lots of a given area is necessary after Increment Duty has already been paid once, or more than once, then that increment should be apportioned in the same manner, but not necessarily in the same proportion as the original site value had been apportioned.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Sir W. ROBSON: I am inclined to think, as a matter of fair construction, that the words just added, namely, "after giving credit for," would be construed by the court so as to have the effect desired by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J. F. Mason), and which he seeks to achieve in this Amendment. But I quite agree after considering the hon. Member's Amendment that his words certainly make the matter more expressive. I think it is desirable not to leave to mere implication the apportionment of Increment Duty as well as the apportionment of increment value. That is what the hon. Member has brought out by his Amendment in his very useful point. But the words which he has chosen, I think he himself will agree, are not quite satisfactory. For instance, he said, "where apportionment of site value is necessary after Increment Duty has already been paid on any land as a whole": the words "as a whole" are not very convenient, and I am not very well satisfied with them, and I shall be glad if he will allow me to put in words indicating what both the hon. Member and myself are striving for, and to insert "where for the purpose of giving such credit," that is giving credit for the Increment Value Duty that has been paid "it becomes necessary to apportion any Increment Duty previously paid, the Commissioners shall make such apportionment of that duty as they may determine to be proper." The hon. Member has reached the same end by saying that the apportionment is to be made, of course, by
  1952
  the Commissioners, but it is not to be necessarily in the same proportion as the original site value. That is clear. The apportionment of the increment will, of course, not necessarily follow the apportionment of the site value; quite the reverse. So it should be left more or less in general terms. Personally, if the Committee desired the words to be inserted now, I should certainly do so, but I am bound to say that I think the better plan would be—and I shall be guided by the Committee in this matter—to leave the matter over until the Report stage, with an explicit pledge that the object sought to be achieved by the hon. Member shall be met by the Government in some well-considered form of words.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Do we or do we not vary the unit of valuation? You get the original unit of valuation of four acres. That is split up into a dozen different ownerships. You have got to go back in every case to the original unit of valuation, and you have a dozen different owners all at once of different parts of the property on which Increment Value Duty has been paid.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think it touches the unit of valuation. The case was put by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mason) where you have an increment value of one particular acre, that acre has to have allocated to it not merely its proportion of the original site value, but its proportion of the Increment Duty which has already been paid. That would be entirely a question of value. If it is paid as one interest there is no difficulty at all. Anyhow, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's warning shall not be lost sight of. It is quite understood that words are to be brought up at the Report stage which are to give effect to the hon. Member's Amendment, and also to take into consideration the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: On the question of apportionment I venture to point out that if they had in the previous clause inserted words to say that upon each occasion upon which Increment Duty became payable such apportionment should be made as the Commissioners might determine and in the manner in which they might determine, then there would have been an end of these difficulties. That opportunity was lost, and we passed the clause in the shape in which it now appears

  1953
  on the Paper. The consequence is in dealing with the present clause we have been, by the Amendment we have passed a few moments ago, placed in the difficulty of having to consider these words of apportionment. I think it the most desirable course to leave the whole of these difficult words over to the Report stage, because it would be undesirable to frame in. a hurry or without mature consideration the words which are intended for all times to guide the Commissioners in this very difficult question, when two or three Increment Duties have already been paid on a piece of land in which all sorts of interests arise. The astounding difficulty of dealing with that question would be brought home to the Government more if they sat down to try to draft sensible words which would adequately meet the various occasions that may arise. Not only will they require to apportion the original value—that obviously must be apportioned to the new site—but they will require to apportion that original site value again when it is part of a piece that has already been apportioned, and, where anything has happened, they will require to do that over again to apportion the site value of a piece perhaps in quite a different way——
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): If the Amendment is to be withdrawn, I do not see any need for going into this discussion.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Then we should oppose the Amendment being withdrawn. I am prepared to say that unless we are to have some intelligible machinery to carry out this. Bill, it would be our duty to stop at this point and insist on knowing how this is going to be done. At all events, I think we are entitled to insist upon trying to find out whether the Government have realised the astounding difficulties which may arise in almost the most simple transaction, and to meet which they are not making the faintest effort. It is all very fine to come here and alter this clause at the last moment with manuscript Amendments, while they actually tell us that they are not satisfied with those Amendments, and propose, therefore, to get rid of the difficulty for perhaps twelve months until this clause is taken on Report. I do not think that is a satisfactory position for the Government to take up. Whilst I for one would be prepared to admit that the wisest course the Government could take 5s to adjourn this difficulty as long as they
  1954
  possibly can in the hope that people will have forgotten it when it comes to be dealt with again, at the same time I think it is not treating this Committee fairly to put this most important question of machinery off to a remote date, and not to deal with it in Committee in some practical shape.
  Mr. J. F. MASON: In view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I think it well to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Viscount HELMSLEY Viscount HELMSLEY moved to add at the end of section (1) the words "and after giving credit for the amount of Death Duties and Income Tax paid in respect of such amount." I think that is a very important point to bring before the notice of the Government, and I am supported in my view on this subject by a speech the Prime Minister made not long ago, in which he argued about the Increment Tax and the allegation made against it that it was a tax imposed on a particular kind of increment and not on other kinds of increment. He said that other kinds of increment were undoubtedly subject to Estate Duty and Income Tax. The object of this Amendment is to bring this class of increment into the same category, and, therefore, no more increment should be taken in the case of land than would be taken in the case of other increment—that is, allowing for the amount of the Death Duties and Income Tax which may have already been paid. I am sure it is perfectly obvious that this is a fair proposal. It cannot be justified by any argument whatever that you could tax a man twice upon the same increment. I maintain there are a great many cases where this Increment Duty is to be imposed, in which, as a matter of fact, the increment has already been taxed in the shape of either Death Duties or Income Tax. We have never had any argument whatever to show up to now why there should be this exceptional taxation, this Increment Duty, over and above those two taxes. Hon. Members opposite say: "This is all very well, but land is in a different category from other kinds of property." Granting for a moment that may be so, it may still be an argument for putting on an Increment Tax over and above the existing taxes, but it is not an argument for putting on an Increment Tax and not making any allowance for the existing taxes that have been paid. It is a well-estab-

  1955
  lished principle of our taxation that we do not tax a man over and over again on the same property. Indeed, some of the exemptions and Amendments carried on this Bill already show that it is not intended by the Government to tax a man more than once on the same property. Therefore, I cannot help thinking that the Government will be inclined favourably to consider this Amendment. Look at the position. In the case of Increment Duty being payable at death. Nobody will deny that if an estate has gone up in value when it passes at death, the person who succeeds will have it valued on the basis of that improvement in value, and he will pay Estate Duty on it. Therefore, it seems to me that whatever he pays in the shape of Estate Duty should be set off against what he may be asked to pay in the shape of Increment Duty, because, otherwise, it would be asking him to pay twice on the same description of property. I suppose, even if this Amendment were carried, there would still be other cases where Increment Duty would be payable when no Death Duties or Income Tax had been paid on that particular income. From the Government point of view I understand that is a case which they are anxious to tax, but I do not see that it is in the least fair to tax the whole increment again when it has already been tapped in the shape of Death Duties or Income Tax. I hope the Government will seriously consider this Amendment, and see whether they cannot accept it either in this form or some other, because I am quite certain that if they want to do anything approaching justice in this matter they are bound to make this allowance for what has been paid.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The Noble Lord must see that this is a deduction not from the increment value, but from the Increment Duty itself. Death Duties are paid on the whole estate, and Increment Tax is paid on the increment, so that when it comes to making deductions in respect of the Death Duties and the Increment Taxes——
  Viscount HELMSLEY: In respect of that land.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The Noble Lord has drafted this Amendment rather hastily, but when you come to deduct all those sums Increment Value Duty has disappeared. When you have got to the end of your deductions you have entirely disposed
  1956
  of it, that is the consequence. On the merits itself there is no reason why, granting this to be a fair tax—and that is the assumption on which the Committee is proceeding—for deducting Estate Duties. There is one point which I think might fairly be considered, and we shall consider it. I think it arises on some later Amendment. We ought not undoubtedly to aggregate for the purposes of Estate Duty until we have deducted the amount of Increment Duty before we begin the aggregation of Estate Duties.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: That is obvious.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Estate Duties are paid on the whole value, the capital value and Increment Value Duty is taxed on a particular value for the reasons that have been urged so often in the course of this Committee stage This is a tax no doubt additional to the other taxes already existing on land and upon land-owners, just in the same way as you have Settlement Estate Duty, a tax which is additional to the ordinary Death Duty, and Succession Duties, which are additional to the Estate Duties. You have a great many taxes which are on different interests in land, and it would not be fair to say you are taxing the same thing twice over. You are taxing different interests in the same thing, but not twice over. We are adding Increment Value Duty to the burdens which fall on the land.
  Mr. JOHN GRETTON: As far as I can make out the argument of the right hon Gentleman, it is that the Government, by existing taxation, are going to already appropriate the increment value and then for the purposes of this clause they are going to tax the estate for the money which has been already extracted from it. It appears to me that any proceedings of that kind is a complete condemnation of the whole process of taxation which they propose on the occasion of the death of the owner. I may have misunderstood the argument, but it occurs to me we really want some further explanation. A more amazing and astonishing argument from those benches opposite on the whole collection of arguments we have heard against the proposals we have made to improve the Bill we have not heard than that we have just listened to. It is an abominable injustice in many cases to tax the same property over and over again, and again on death, with an accumulation of taxes. I could understand that argument if it were urged by hon. Members sitting below

  1957
  the Gangway on this side, but advanced by the Government it amounts to a complete revolution of the whole policy which has hitherto directed taxation in this country. It is so remarkable that I think we should have a more clear and definite explanation than that given by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir W. Robson).
  Mr. G. R. LANE-FOX: It is obvious this Amendment has been drafted rather hastily, but my Noble Friend did not ask the Attorney-General to accept the absolute words, but to accept the principle. It was not quite fair of the right hon. Gentleman in reply to say that the Amendment as drafted would not carry out the purpose. The argument of my Noble Friend was that, as the Prime Minister said that the reason for not taxing other increments was that they were already taxed in another form, then land should be treated exactly with the same degree of fairness as all the other forms of property. The answer of the learned Attorney-General is what does it matter; we have already two or three forms of Death Duties, and therefore why should we not put on another? If the Prime Minister's words are to be carried out, then some such Amendment as this should be accepted, and the Government ought to give the matter consideration.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I moved an Amendment to Clause 2 on this particular point, and there is a rather curious disagreement between hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to accept my Amendment, but in this form, that he would make the deduction in Part III. of the Bill, and that he would allow Increment Value Duty to be deducted first. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on July 7th said ["Official Report"]:—
  "It is a case which I have been looking into, and it is one which I have to deal with, and I frankly admit that I am more favourable, in a sense, to the owner in my view than the hon. Gentleman himself. But I think he had better leave it to me, and I propose to deal with it on Part III. of the Bill, and I give him a promise that I will deal with it there."
  The point on which the right hon. Gentleman said that he was more favourable to the owner was a mathematical point, and on looking into the matter I find it makes absolutely no difference which you take first. I proposed, as does this Amendment, that the Death Duties should be taken first, and that Increment Duty should only be levied on the residue. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that Death Duties are not now levied on the same
  1958
  sum. There is, first, Estate Duty on settlement on the residue, and Succession Duty on the residue. It is obviously just that you cannot levy Increment Value Duty which is paid from the estate in Death Duties. It is quite immaterial, mathematically and financially, which you deduct first. The Chancellor of the Exchequer having given his definite undertaking that he would accept that principle, and that he would make the deduction when we come to Part III. of the Bill, and as he prefers to let the Increment Value Duty be paid first and the Death Duty afterwards, we shall raise no objection to that course. I regret I did not observe this sooner, and ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, as the point is met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I am not certain that the point is quite the same; but if it is, of course I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Not Increment Tax?
  Viscount HELMSLEY: There is that point in addition, and there is also the question whether it is the same to deduct the amount paid in Death Duties from the amount to be paid in Increment Duty as to deduct the amount paid in Increment Duty from the amount to be paid in Death Duties. It seems to me that my Amendment would produce a rather greater deduction than the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to accept. We have also had from the Attorney-General to-night the admission that he was prepared to deduct from the amount payable in Death Duties the amount paid in Increment Duty. I do not quite see that that is the same as I am proposing, and I should like some explanation as to what the Government really propose to do before I withdraw the Amendment. The criticism of the Attorney-General that my Amendment was too widely drawn has a certain amount of weight. It does cover rather more ground than I intended. I did not mean to deduct the amount of Death Duties payable over the whole estate, but the additional amount due to the increment; and if the Government can see their way to adopt the principle, there will be no difficulty whatever in adjusting the words.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. A. Dewar): I am afraid that all the information I can give the Noble

  1959
  Lord, and all that he can possibly expect from me is this. If it be that his Amendment comes within the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it will be given effect to. On the other hand, if it does not, for the reasons stated by the Attorney-General, it will not be given effect to.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think we ought to be deeply grateful to the Solicitor-General for Scotland for the exceedingly logical method in which he has discharged the trust reposed in him during his temporary occupancy of that illustrious Bench. The Attorney-General has three methods of dealing with Amendments. The first is to give us a highly technical legal disquisition. He has spared us that on this occasion. His second method is to give us a paternal lecture as to how we ought to read the Bill, and where we shall find things, which, when we look into the clauses referred to, we are unable to discover. No doubt they are really there if only we could see them. His third method is, in a speech altogether apart from the real object of the Amendment, to make on behalf of the Government a most damaging admission. That is the method he has adopted on this occasion. This Amendment says that on the payment of Increment Duty there shall be deducted an allowance for the payment of Death Duties and for the payment of Income Tax. I cannot follow my Noble Friend in regard to an allowance for Income Tax, because I do not see that Income Tax has anything whatever to do with Increment Duty. But the Attorney-General made the astonishing admission that if the Government allowed Death Duties and Income Tax to be deducted there would be no Increment Duty to pay. That is a most damaging admission, because it means that the Government, in asking for this Increment Duty, are asking for a tax which they have already collected under other names. I do not think that is what they intended, but that is what the Attorney-General actually said and gave as his reason for rejecting the Amendment. I listened very carefully to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week upon an Amendment to the same effect as this, and if I understood him aright he distinctly promised that there should be a deduction with respect to the two duties where they fell upon the same object. That is to say, if increment accrued to a property and Increment Duty became payable, no Death
  1960
  Duties should be collected in respect of that increment or in respect of that duty—I am not quite certain which. My Noble Friend has explained that he does not wish to go quite so far as the actual words of his Amendment. If the Amendment were carried so as to say that the same property should not pay two taxes it would be absurd; I think my Noble Friend would have to modify the words in some way so as to make them reasonable under the circumstances; but what he really desires is, I think, perfectly just.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I understand from the hon. and gallant Member below me (Mr. Pretyman) that the substance of this Amendment has been promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I gave a very definite promise to deal with it, and my recollection is that I gave a promise much more favourable than the hon. and gallant Member was trying to extract from me.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Take a pencil and a piece of paper; the two sums work out exactly the same. Take off 20 per cent., and afterwards 10 per cent. on the residue, and it is exactly the same as if you took off 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. off the residue. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I should not make a statement to the Committee if I had not tried it. Therefore that underlies the fact of our insistence on the point. This Debate has arisen because the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Government, has been refusing this suggestion.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEOGE: I myself gave a definite promise on Part 3 of the Bill.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I stated so, and asked the Noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: There still remains the question of the Income Tax, which is not covered. I maintain that if Income Tax has been paid in respect of this particular increment this ought to be adopted. It is obviously fair, and it is putting into formal words the argument which was raised by the Prime Minister at Southport. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider that point of view as well. As I understand from the Government there is a pledge that really the substance of this Amendment will be met—although no one would have gathered so from the Attorney-General—I withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. J. F. MASON Mr. J. F. MASON moved to leave out "transfer or" ["of the transfer or passing on death of the fee simple"]. The reason I have put this Amendment on the Paper is that section (2) states that in certain cases, namely, the transfer or the passing on death, the whole amount of the duty shall be collected, which I take to mean shall be collected at once, and in one sum. On the other hand, section (3) dealing with another class of cases says "such proportionate part of the amount of the duty which is due shall be collected as may be determined by the Commissioners." The point is that in a certain category of cases you propose to collect the whole sum at once, and in another category of cases you give facilities for collecting the money, presumably by instalments. The case of the transfer of land is not always one on which there is any reason to demand summary payment of the whole duty. I think it has been put forward in the course of the earlier parts of our Debates that the sale of land is a particularly opportune moment to collect the whole of the duty, because there is a certain sum of money which can be taken for the purpose. What I particularly want to call attention to is that in many cases land may be mortgaged, and, as under this part of the Bill there, is no allowance for disregarding mortgages or encumbrances, it is quite possible that a piece of land may be sold for only just sufficient to pay off the mortgage. In that case, presuming there is no other property, there is no sum from which the whole of the duty can be easily paid, so that the object of the Amendment, as in the case of transfer or the sale of land. is that the facilities of payment by instalment shall be given the same as in the other category in section (3). Of course, in the case of the Death Duties you have the deduction on the mortgage, but also in the case of Death Duties you have facilities for payment by instalment. I think it will be worth comparing sections (2) and (3) to see whether the division can be fairly dealt with between the kind of occasions named in section (2), which enjoins summary payment, against the sub-section where payment is by easier methods. In the meantime, I beg to move.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'transfer or' stand part of the Clause."
  Mr. A. DEWAR: We have made arrangements on the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman for the collection of the debt. What the hon. Member intends
  1962
  will be a fact. It is a short point, and I do not think I need go into it further.
  Mr. CLYDE: As the hon. Member puts it the purpose of section (2) and even of section (3), but particularly section (2) is to provide the machinery for collection, but there is not a single bit of machinery either in section (2) or (3). It has got nothing to do with machinery. I admit that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that in section (4) but section (3) has to do with something else altogether. Accordingly it would not do to say that there is no inconsistency in the words proposed under section (2), and what the Committee have determined in the preceding section. On the contrary it seems to me that if the analogy to which appeal has been made so frequently is of any value at all, the exact analogous position of the Act of 1S94 is section (6). After all what section (6) was dealing with was the duty, and a heavy duty moreover, payable on death. So is this. I submit that if the analogy of 1894 has any value, it ought to be followed. My answer is it is nothing to do with machinery at all; it relates to the case of the passing on death, as under the Act of 1904. Surely it would be reasonable to treat them both in the same way? I agree you cannot confound the case of sales with that of passing at death, and therefore I submit that the reasons advanced for not accepting this Amendment are wholly insufficient, and that the Amendment is fully justified.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The answer given by the hon. and learned Gentleman does not meet the point at all. The whole point of my hon. Friend's argument was that in the clause as it stands it does not provide for mortgages. I submit to the Government that they ought to give some answer to these points, raised very clearly and very properly. It is quite obvious that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Scotland did not appreciate the point that was made.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: After listening very carefully to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Clyde), I would like him to explain what payment by instalments has to do with the omission of these words. I confess I am unable to follow his arguments so far.
  Mr. CLYDE: As I understand, the present Amendment involves as a sequel to

  1963
  it the Amendment lower down on the Paper, which seeks to insert "at such times and in such instalments as the Commissioners may think fit."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: You mean a consequential Amendment?
  Mr. CLYDE: Yes. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees that that could not be applied to sale, and therefore could not be applied to transfer.
  Mr. J. F. MASON: There seems to be some difficulty about the meaning of these words. The reason for desiring to remove the words "transfer or" is that in the case of mortgage which amounts to the whole of the amount of the sale there would be some difficulty in paying the whole of the duty at once, and I desire to get transfer put into the same category in sub-section (3). It seems to me that my object might be equally met by my other Amendment, and if at the end of sub-section (2) you put in the words "at such times and in such instalments as the Commissioners may think fit," I would withdraw my Amendment for the omission of the words "transfer or," the object being that the duty should be paid in instalments instead of at once. I might point out in case of land passing on death it is only reasonable that it should be paid in instalments, because already the duty at death is paid in instalments.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the hon. Member will find this is provided for by the Act. This Amendment is only the first of a series by the hon. Gentleman opposite
  which would provide payment by instalments. That is provided for in section 5 already.
  Mr. J. F. MASON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has been dealing with the same point. I propose these two Amendments as one alternative to the other, and my hon. Friend (Mr. Clyde) took them as consequential one on the other.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: My hon. Friend was not dealing with Death Duties at all, but with the question of transfer on sale. The Amendment is to leave out "transfer or." The proposition is to exclude the occasion of the sale of land from section (2), which makes the duty collectable in one lump sum. The case given in support of this Amendment has not been dealt with at all. The point was that in the case of a mortgage which had exhausted the whole value of the estate, it would be exceedingly inconvenient for the person liable to find the whole of that duty at that particular moment, and it is only fair that it should come under section (3). That point has not been answered by the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred the Committee to Clause 5. Is it not a fact that in that case the payment would be spread over eight years?
  Question put, "That the words 'transfer or' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes. 259; Noes, 86.

  Division No. 277.]

  AYES.

  [10.25 P.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brigg, John

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Bright, J. A.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Agnew, George William

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cowan, W. H.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Armitage, R.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Cullinan, J.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Barker, Sir John

  Cameron, Robert

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Beale, W. P.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Clough, William

  Elibank, Master of

  Bell, Richard

  Clynes, J. R.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Brace, William

  Cooper, G. J.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Gill, A. H.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Seddon, J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Massie, J.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Hall, Frederick

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Snowden, P.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Meagher, Michael

  Soamos, Arthur Wellesley

  Harcourt, Bobert V. (Montrose)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Summerbell, T.

  Harwood, George

  Morrell, Philip

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morse, L. L.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Myer, Horatio

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Napier, T. B.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetiaw)

  Thomasson, Franklin

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

  Nicholls, George

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Verney, F. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Walsh, Stephen

  Hodge, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wardle, Gecrge J.

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Waring, Walter

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Grady, J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  O'Malley, William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jackson, B. S.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Jenkins, J

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Pointer, J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Ponsonby, Arthurr A. W. H.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lambert, George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Lamont, Norman

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

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

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Winfrey, R.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Lundon, T.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robinson, S.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  NOES.

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cave, George

  Gretton, John

  Arstruther-Gray, Major

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cecil, Lord B. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Hills, J. W.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fardell, Sir N. George

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Kerry, Earl of

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gardner, Ernest

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  1966

  1967

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Stanier, Beville

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Starkey, John R.

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Renton, Leslie

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Renwick, George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Oddy, John James

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. J. F. Mason and Mr. Lane-Fox.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Mr. J. F. MASON Mr. J. F. MASON moved to add at the end of section (2) the words "by the Commissioners in accordance with rules made by them for the purpose." This is an alternative suggestion.
  Mr. J. F. HOPE: On a point of order: Do I understand you to rule the whole question of instalments out of order. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mason) proposed first the omission of the words "transfer or" with the intention that, if that were rejected, the question of the instalment might be dealt with as a second alternative.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Two or three speeches were delivered on that specific point during the discussion on the last Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): I certainly thought that point was disposed of.
  Mr. J. F. MASON: I think the difficulties likely to arise in the case of passing on death of the fee simple in land might to a certain extent be met if the Commissioners had power to make rules in the same way as is provided in section (3). It appears to me that it is necessary to do something to avoid having laid down hard and fast rules in these particular cases, that the whole amount of duty shall be collected in one sum. I fail to understand what objection there is to giving some facilities for paying in a more convenient manner. I take it if the Commissioners were able to make rules for the purpose it would include the power to make arrangements for payment by instalments, or otherwise, and such rules would to a certain extent facilitate the working of the section. I beg to move.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Of course rules are not so necessary in this case as they are in the following section (3), but at all events it may be desirable that the Commissioners should lay down any regulations which they may think necessary to deal with cases of death or sale.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is altogether wise in moving this Amendment, because he is giving the Commissioners a very large discretion in admitting these rules, and when he spoke of the analogy of the next section I may say that I take very strong objection to it, because of the powers given to the Commissioners there, and Amendments have been put down providing that the rules to be framed by the Commissioners in that section shall not take effect until they have been reviewed by Parliament. I do not know that the occasion on this section is so important, but I view with some suspicion the readiness of the Attorney-General to accept this Amendment, and if these words are passed I would submit that very likely the same reference to Parliament, and hanging the rules up until the assent of Parliament has been given, will be necessary in this section, as we above the Gangway hold that it will be necessary in the section to come. Therefore I am not disposed to vote for the Amendment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Would not the objection of my hon. Friend be met if we understood from the Government that any qualification introduced in section (3) as to rules to be laid down by the Commissioners shall also be applied to section (2). I think it would be inconvenient to discuss this question of whether the rules should be laid on the Table, but if that Amendment is introduced in section (3) I have no doubt the Government will be prepared to introduce it on Report in this section.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I quite accept the view taken by the Leader of the Opposition.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I object to leaving these powers to the Commissioners. Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will limit the power of the Commissioners to make rules in a manner to be discussed later on?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is not the point. That point is raised specifically, on

  1969
  the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton). The only undertaking is that whatever limitation there is would apply to these rules as well as to the others. That is the point put by the Leader of the Opposition, and to that I assented.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved to omit section (3). In section (2) we have passed that where there is a transfer or passing on death of the fee simple, that is to create a case in which the money is to be paid in full. I do not understand why that clause was put in at all, unless it was to mark the occasion when the duty should not be paid by instalments, but should be paid in full. Section (3) goes on to say that there are to be certain occasions where duty may be paid by instalments. But we were referred just now by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Clause 5, and when we get to Clause 5 we find that on every occasion of death, at any rate, the duty is to be collected exactly in the same way as if it were an Estate Duty. Then says the Chancellor of the Exchequer you can pay that by annual instalments. This is one of those points in which the soul of the Attorney-General delights, and which he will be able to dispose of in a few moments. Why put a clause in the Bill under which duty is not to be paid by instalments, but in full, and then refer to a subsequent clause under which it is provided that the duty need not be paid in full, but by instalments? Why not say at once that this duty may be paid on every possible occasion by instalments? On reading the sections two or three times over, with any little intelligence I have been able to bring to bear upon them, I have entirely failed to grasp the subtle distinctions involved in a position like this. I wish the Attorney-General to explain the inconsistency of the different clauses.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think the hon. Member underrates his intelligence in dealing with the clause, and very much overrates my delight in explaining such a point as he has raised. I have difficulty in connecting the point raised by the hon. Gentleman with the Amendment in any shape or form.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I thought you would.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I will make some observations with the object of satisfying the
  1970
  hon. Gentleman on the question of payment by instalments. Under section (2) we have payment upon sale when the whole amount is being received by the vendor. Why should he not pay the whole amount subject to the Amendment which I have accepted as to rules which the Commissioners may make as to collection. In section (3) we are dealing with payments which will be of a periodical character For instance, the duty upon the grant of a lease will be assessed under this section. The consideration for a lease may well consist of periodical payments, and it is convenient therefore in such a case that there should be power given to the Commissioners to collect by instalments. That power is given by section (5) of Clause 4. When we come to deal with payments on death under Clause 5, we provide that the powers contained in the Finance Act of 1894 shall apply. I think I have made the point clear.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It has been made so clear by the Attorney-General that the two clauses are inconsistent that if he wishes to put them in the Bill I think we had better consider it. I would therefore ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE Mr. JAMES HOPE moved, in section (3), after "such" ["such proportionate"], to leave out "proportionate."
  The object is to get rid of the arbitrary power of the Commissioners to make apportionments under this sub-section and to substitute for it the proper proportion payable, having reference to the site value of the land. The site value is the basis on which Increment Duty is to be assessed, and the occasions referred to in this subsection is the granting of a lease. That is covered by the words "interest in land on the transfer or passing by death of any interest in land." Therefore the duty payable would be proportionate to the whole of the Increment Duty on the whole site value, and the only way of getting the thing is to insert the proportion between the value of the interest and the whole of the site value. That having been once determined, the proportion between the whole of the Increment Duty and the duty payable under this will naturally be determined. I take it that it is the intention of the Government that this should be so. The words of the section are extremely vague and indeterminate, and I submit that the action of the Commissioners in

  1971
  the matter should be determined by the instructions of Parliament, and the definite instructions in this case should be to ascertain the exact proportion between the value of the interest and the site value of the land, which is the basis of all the duties under the first six clauses of this Act.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I gather that the intention of the hon. Member really is to introduce a suhstantive Amendment?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: That is so. I thought it necessary to omit the word in order to bring in the substantive Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: That hardly is a matter that arises subsequently.
  The CHAIRMAN: As I understand, the two arguments substantially arise now.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The substantive Amendment is "to leave out from 'collected' to the end of section (3), and to insert (so far as it has not been paid on any previous occasion) 'as bears the same proportion to the whole amount of the Increment Value Duty on the land as the value of the interest bears to the site value of the land.'" That is the substance of the hon. Member's Amendment. I think it is founded upon a mistaken conception of how the duty will be calculated in such a case. The hon. Member denies that the increment shall be assessed in the same proportion as the value of the interest appears to be to the value of the land. I think there are instances where that will not be the case. Take a long leasehold interest at a time when the leaseholder's interest is five-sixths of the increment value and the reversioner's interest one-sixth. Let us suppose that the leaseholder makes a claim, there being then an interest. The leaseholder has then made up five-sixths of the interest, leaving one-sixth which has been allocated to the share of the reversioner. Later on—the increment not altering: I am keeping it at the same figures—the increment will remain stable when the leaseholder's interest is down to one-sixth and the reversioner's has become five-sixths, because the reversion may have fallen in. The result of the hon. Member's words if adopted would be that the leaseholder would pay the whole of the increment, appropriating his share when the sale would be brought into this fresh apportionment, because if the reversioner sold when his interest was only one-sixth
  1972
  of the increment he would claim under the hon. Member's words an allocation of part of that one-sixth of the increment in the leaseholder's interest. He would say, "You are only to put against me exactly the proportion of the value of the increment which, in my case one-sixth, it bears to the site value of the land," the truth being that there ought to be put against him the whole of the one-sixth increment which had been registered and appropriated as his share when the leaseholder's interest was five-sixth. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take my assurance that the words he desires to add would introduce a proportion into the case where no such proportion would be equitable as between the parties concerned. The proper sum to be paid by the reversioner when he ceases his interest towards the end of the lease, would be at least the proportion which he ought to have paid if he had paid at the time of the original appropriation.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I confess I have not absolutely followed every word the hon. and learned Gentleman has said with full appreciation. It arises from the extraordinary method of including the site value where the interest passes under Clause 2. The Amendment is perfectly logical as applied to Clause 2. It sheds a rather lurid light on the way in which increment value is computed under Clause 2. Under that clause the site value is got by certain deductions from the fee simple, and the fee simple is got at by calculating the value of the interest passing. It was argued then, and not disputed, that that was often an exceedingly fallacious way of calculating the value of the fee simple, and, consequently, a fallacious way of calculating the site value. If that method be adhered to, my Amendment follows logically. If my Amendment results in injustice it only follows from the extraordinary way in which the fee simple, and therefore the site value, is arrived at in Clause 2 (c) of the Bill, and that the whole method is entirely wrong.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The amendment is an attempt to introduce mathematical accuracy into the calculation where it is not possible, as the learned Attorney-General has explained for a variety of reasons, with any justice. When you come really to look at the, facts, to introduce any mathematical accuracy whatever, or to get any real sensible relation. As the learned Attorney-General has pointed out in certain cases of leases what

  1973
  is the position? The lessor and the lessee are the two persons interested in the property at the moment. Their respective interests as between one another are constantly changing from the very first year when the lease is made. Suppose the lease is for 75 years, from the very first year right down to the end of it the proportion of ownership as between the lessor and lessee is constantly changing. The lessee at the beginning especially has got a very considerable interest in the property. If the lessee dies or assigns his interest, there is a very large proportion of the Increment Duty payable at that moment. Supposing, after ten years passes along, the owner of the fee simple dies, there again his interest is quite a different proportion at that date from what it would have been if he happened to die two years earlier or if his life had been prolonged for three or four years more. There is not only that difficulty, but the uncertainty of the increment, which is also continually altering. The land may have risen in value owing to a variety of circumstances, which may affect one corner of the property and not the rest. I could give numerous illustrations showing this to be the case. Then, again, you have got almost every other factor in value and in increment which attached to the original site attaching to the new site, or proportionate part. It is practically impossible to draft any clause which would adequately describe the maze of calculations and of apportionments into which this Bill is bound inevitably to lead. Therefore the learned Attorney-General was perfectly right when he said it was not possible for him to accept an Amendment to make mathematical or arithmetical sense of the position. Even with regard to one illustration which he gave he very carefully guarded himself, and stipulated that you must not have any variation in any of the other interests affected, because, if you have, you would make confusion worse confounded. I do not think we could have a better illustration after all these days and nights of discussion on this Bill of the utter impracticability and impossibility of the machinery by which this Bill is sought to be carried out than the illustration we have brought about by this Amendment, and the admissions of the Attorney-General himself.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think the point is really an important one. My hon. Friend (Mr. Rutherford) seems to regard the case as so complicated that no simple arith-
  1974
  metical statement will do justice as between the parties. That may be true, though I am not sure, that it is. But if it is true, we ought, before we leave the section, to know on what principle the Commissioners are to act. The suggestion of my hon. Friend (Mr. James Hope) is that when, in the case of a property which belongs in part to the freeholder and in part to the lessor, Increment Duty has to be collected it should be collected in proportion to the interests of the various parties concerned in the property. That seems quite simple and, on the face of it, quite just. The Attorney-General made a speech, which I am sure he endeavoured to make clear, and tried to prove that to make each person pay in proportion to his interest in the property would not be fair. Did anybody in the House understand the Attorney-General's argument? I am sure he made it as clear as it could be made, but I did not understand it, and I do not believe a single Member who listened to him understood it. I do not believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself understood it. The Amendment we do understand, and it seems to be perfectly just. But the matter is so complicated, that I may be wrong. There may lurk behind this apparently simple and just Amendment some fallacy which at present I do not see. Does anybody see the fallacy? If it is unjust—as it may be; the matter is so complicated—we ought to be told why it is unjust, and to have from the Government some indication of how the unfortunate people concerned are to discover what they have to pay to the State on account of Increment Value. That should be explained by the Government, unless they plead guilty to having brought forward a Bill which, perhaps from the nature of the case, or through faulty drafting, is of so incomprehensible a character that the vast interests it affects will be as little able to understand what they have to do and why they have to do it, as this Committee is able to understand the provisions it is endeavouring to, and I suppose will, pass, without the smallest conception of upon what substantial grounds the policy is based.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Let me try, if I can to put in a somewhat simpler form, why I think the Amendment of the hon. Member is unnecessary. He says, that under his Amendment, whenever he comes to collect increment value you must collect it. You must, he says, collect it in such proportion

  1975
  as the value of the interest appears to the site value of the land. I take the ease of where there is a leaseholder who made a sale at an early period of his lease, when he had the greater part of the value. His value, of course, is a waning value; the reversioner's interest is a waxing value. The increment attached to the site value remains, in my hypothesis, the same. The leaseholder makes a sale of his interest, of which, at the time, he has five-sixths. The Commissioners say: "You have five-sixths of the interest at this moment, if you sell your land you will get five-sixths of the value and there will be one-sixth left for the reversioner." Years roll on. For the purpose of the illustration, the increment remains exactly the same, but the leaseholder's interest gradually diminishes. The reversioner's interest gradually increases. The reversioner still remains liable. Nothing has occurred to alter his liability for the one-sixth of the increment value. That is the way in which the increment value was understood: that was the proportion in which it was divided—five-sixths and one-sixth. Nothing has happened to alter the amount of the increment. But something has happened to increase the reversioner's interest. The reversioner sells. How much ought he to pay? On one-sixth, which is the interest against him all the time. The hon. Member says: "No; that one-sixth which is to be collected shall be collected in the proportion in which your interest appears to the complete site value of the land at the time of the collection." By this time the reversioner has got five-sixths interest, and so he will not pay the whole of it. Part of it will be turned over to the leaseholder, who has paid his full share a long time before. Under these circumstances it is not a wise plan which compels the Commissioners every time they collect the duty to have regard, not to the amount of duty which has actually accrued against each particular interest and ought to be paid as soon as the occasion arises, but to have regard only to the proportionate value of that particular interest to the whole site value at that time. It is right when you are taking the increment on a transfer or a sale to then treat the proportion between the interest and the site value as the amount which ought to be collected; but it is quite wrong to do it in this particular case. It is quite wrong to take the test as suggested by the hon. Member's Amendment, because it would
  1976
  put upon every leaseholder a part of the Increment Value Duty that he ought not to bear. He has paid the full five-sixths——
  Mr. BALFOUR: He paid nothing!
  Sir W. ROBSON: The payment was made by the leaseholder. I am treating one person as representing the increment. It is clearly unfair to throw over the leaseholder's interest which has paid its full share of increment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Attorney-General has left out one very important consideration, namely, that on the first occasion five-sixths of the Increment Value Duty would have been paid. That clears it to that extent upon the whole property. There are two separate occasions, and when the second occasion comes the five-sixths previously paid will be deducted from the amount upon the second occasion, and there will be only one-sixth payable. Under my hon. Friend's Amendment, whichever interest has to pay by transfer or by death, would pay its proportion not of the whole Increment Value Duty, but of the residue, which in that case would only be one-sixth, which appears to me to be perfectly fair and just. Upon every successive occasion that Increment Value Duty becomes due you have to make two calculations—first, to calculate which is the particular interest and what proportion of the duty is leviable, and secondly, what amount of the duty has previously been paid by other interests or any interest, but for that purpose the Increment Value Duty is treated as a whole. And whenever the Increment Value Duty on any unit falls due you have to deduct the duty previously paid by the owner on any interest whatever. That being deducted you arrive at a certain residue. This residue is chargeable to the whole property if it all passes. If it does not pass my hon. Friend contends the residue on that occasion should be deducted in proportion. That seems to be a reasonable proposal, and the only proposal upon which on equity you can possibly value. I cannot see how the explanation given by the Attorney-General alters our view upon that point.
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: One word in regard to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition. We are dealing here with the amount of taxes which vast numbers of people and bodies in this country will have to pay. Everybody

  1977
  must agree that in such a matter it is of the first importance that they should be certain so far as possible as to the amount which will be due upon the incidence of this duty upon any occasion. The Government has chosen to say that this duty is to be charged upon all these enormously different and varying interests upon these particular occasions. How is that duty to be levied and assessed? It is not to be done haphazard. It is to be done according to rule, and the question is whether this Committee is justified in leaving these rules to be made by the Commissioners, or whether it is not clearly part of our duty to the taxpayers of this country, having chosen to say duties are to be levied upon these people, to lay down plainly upon the face of the Bill for the information of all persons who may be liable to this duty, what it really is they will have to pay, and the conditions under which they will have to pay it. It appears to me to be a most extraordinary thing that the House of Commons should say taxes are to be levied upon certain persons, but what the amount is to be or how the total is to be allocated as between different interests, are matters which we admit will have to be the subject of very careful rule under a great scheme of taxation, but that these rules are to be made by Commissioners of Inland Revenue in their discretion and judgment. That appears to me to be an abdication on the part of the Committee of their responsibility to the taxpayer in regard to the amount of this charge. It is another instance of what appears to me to be the usual manner in which this Government gets out of almost insoluble difficulties.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I will put a question to the Attorney-General which will enable us to understand what the mind of the Government is if they have really thought this question out. The hon. and learned Gentleman took the case of a freehold let for a long term of years, and then took the occasion when the interest of the leaseholder was five-sixths of the whole and the owner one-sixth. He also suggested other hypotheses that might happen. I will stop at that point, and I ask the Government what proportion at that point is to be paid by the freeholder on the one side and the leaseholder on the other. According to the Attorney-General the leaseholder owns five-sixths and the freeholder one-sixth. One of them dies, or there is an occasion under this subsection when the duty has to be paid. In
  1978
  what proportion in that case has the increment value to be paid? That is a very simple question, and it would help us if we were given that information.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The leaseholder would pay five-sixths and one-sixth would be left over, which would be appropriated to the share of the reversioner. Later, the reversioner sells, and he sells at a time when the lease is nearly up. Then there remains only one-sixth of the Increment Value Duty to pay, but he has by that time got five-sixths of the interest. Under those circumstances I say he should pay his one-sixth, but this Amendment says to the reversioner, "You have not to pay your one-sixth, but you have now to apply the proportion between the land owner's interest and the site value." That is not the proper occasion on which to apply that proportion, and he ought to pay one-sixth.
  Mr. BALFOUR: You have one principle on the first occasion and another principle on another occasion, and surely that cannot be right. It must be determined according to the relative interests of the various owners, leasehold or otherwise, in the property. The ratio must be the same throughout the whole of the lease. You cannot apply one principle at the beginning and another at the end.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The only difficulty arises from our anxiety not to take the duty twice. That is really what we are endeavouring to avoid. When the leaseholder has paid the greater portion of the increment, we do, I dare say, what is illogical, but at all events it is not a matter of which hon. Members opposite should complain. We say that has franked the whole. Later on, when the reversioner comes to sell, you do not need the precaution suggested. There is only one-sixth to be paid, and that is the one-sixth attributable to his interest when the leaseholder sold. Assuming the increment has remained stable and his interest has not diminished, then he pays the whole one-sixth.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Take two leases both of 50 years. In one case the leaseholder sells quite early in his lease. He has got five-sixths of the property, and he pays five-sixths of the tax. In the other case the leaseholder does not sell until the last few years. Again, I suppose he pays his proportion, one-sixth. The freeholder has been exactly in the same position all through. He has had nothing whatever

  1979
  to do with the selling of the lease, and yet in one case he has to pay a one-sixth, and in the other five-sixths. That is accepted by the Government. Are these things to be embodied in the rules of the Commissioners to be laid upon the Table? What principles are they going to embody? Is it going to be a rule of thumb? The owner who is unfortunate enough to choose a young leaseholder who sticks to his lease will pay everything, and the man who gets a tenant who is going to sell his leasehold in the next few years will pay nothing. No wonder the Government call their system illogical, though why they say we should not complain of it I do not know. If there is to be a competition in want of appreciation between the two sides of the House, it is not this side which will win.
  Mr. BOWLES: The learned Gentleman has told us what in his view would happen in the case he has put before the Committee. What security has he that the Commissioners will take his view? It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to tell us what he thinks the Commissioners will do, but he will have no control over them. This Committee will have no control over them. When the hon. Gentleman tells us that all that will remain will be one-sixth that is only his opinion, right or wrong, of the view the Commissioners may take, and the question for us is
  whether the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or the view of my right hon. friend (Mr. Balfour), will accord with that the Commissioners will take. The question is whether the authority who is to make the rule is to be the Commissioners or the House of Commons. I say we are the people and not the Commissioners who ought to make these rules. The Attorney-General takes a particular case and says such and such will be the duties payable. What security has the Committee or any man in the country that the Attorney-General's views will be shared by the Commissioners when it comes to the point? If this section is passed as it stands, it will not be the Attorney-General or the Government, but those gentlemen of the Inland Revenue upon whom the decision will depend. I do not know whether the Committee is prepared, merely on the chance that the Commissioners will take the view of their duties which is foreshadowed by the Attorney-General, whether it is prepared on that security to rest the amount of taxes to be paid under that section. It seems to me a most extraordinary proceeding. The effect is to leave the taxation of the subject not to the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, but to the discretion of Commissioners.
  Question put, "That the word 'proportionate' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 91.

  Division No. 278.]

  AYES.

  [11.30 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Agnew, George William

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinbugh, S.)

  Alden, Percy

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Armitage, R.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Elibank, Master of

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Clough, William

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Barnes, G. N.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Beale, W. P.

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Beauchamp, E.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Cooper, G. J.

  Gill, A. H.

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

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Bennett, E. N.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Glover, Thomas

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Brace, William

  Cowan, W. H.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas A.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Brigg, John

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Bright, J. A.

  Crossley, William J.

  Hall, Frederick

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Cullinan, J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Massie, J.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morrell, Philip

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morse, L. L.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

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

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Myer, Horatio

  Summerbell, T.

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

  Napier, T. B.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholls, George

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Hodge, John

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Hogan, Michael

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Hooper, A. G.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Tomkinson, James

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hudson, Walter

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Verney, F. W.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Pointer, Joseph.

  Vivian, Henry

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Jackson, R. S.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Jenkins, J.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Waring, Walter

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Reddy, M.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lamont, Norman

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Robinson, S.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wiles, Thomas

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Winfrey, R.

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.)

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

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

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Seddon, J.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Seely, Colonel

  NOES.

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

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Anson, Sir William Renell

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.)

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

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brown lee

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gretton, John

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Oddy, John James

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hills, J. W.

  Renton, Leslie

  Clyde, James Avon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Renwick, George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kerry, Earl of

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  1982

  1983

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Walrond, Hon Lionel

  Stanier, Beville

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. James Hope and Mr. Bowles.

  Starkey, John R.

  Williams Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Amendments made, to leave out "of the Amount," and to leave out "which is due."—[Sir W. Robson.]
  Mr. J. F. MASON Mr. J. F. MASON moved, after "Commissioners" ["as may be determined by the Commissioners"] to insert "after hearing all reasonable evidence submitted to them in that behalf by or on behalf of the holder of the lease or of the interest in the land." This is designed with the object of giving anyone who is interested in the land a right of access to the Commissioners in case they have any evidence to lay before them which might influence their decision, and in order to save them the expense which would occur if the Commissioners were left first of all to make this apportionment and then afterwards the evidence had to be brought before the referee.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think these words are unnecessary. I can scarcely believe it possible that the Commissioners would refuse to do under this Bill what they do under every other taxing Bill committed to their administration. They not only willingly hear but are careful to require information which will enable them to make a just assessment, and they will do so all the more when they are subject to appeal. Any refusal to receive information would be so much against them on appeal that they would be very unlikely to do so.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the Government might accept these words. The speech of the Attorney-General seems to be in favour of the Amendment. I am bound to say that my experience of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue has not been quite on the line indicated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is sometimes difficult to get a hearing from them. They ask that cases to be put before them should be stated in writing. The point of the Amendment is that they should be required to hear all reasonable evidence. Without these words in the clause it will be possible for the Commissioners to say, "Send your statement in writing. We have no time to hear you personally." If you could get behind the closed door at Somerset House, you would be able in nine cases out of ten to settle matters without putting the persons concerned to the expense and worry of an appeal.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: There can be no harm in putting in the words proposed in the Amendment. In view of the enormous amount of work which will be cast on the Commissioners, there will be great temptation not to give a hearing. If these words were inserted in the clause, the taxpayer would have an absolute right to have evidence heard by the Commissioners.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 84; Noes, 215.

  Division No. 279.]

  AYES.

  [11.50 p.m.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kerry, Earl of

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

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

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Faster, P. S.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gretton, John

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Oddy, John James

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Percy, Earl

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hills, J. W.

  Renton, Leslie

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Renwick, George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Younger, George

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. James Mason and Mr. Joynson-Hicks.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

  Stanier, Beville

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Starkey, John R.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Pointer, J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Agnew, George William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hall, Frederick

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Radford, G. H.

  Armitage, R.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Reddy, M.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Harwood, George

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Beale, W. P.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Bennett, E. N.

  Hobhouse, Rt Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hodge, John

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

  Brace, William

  Hogan, Michael

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hooper, A. G.

  Seddon, J.

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

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

  Seely, Colonel

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hudson, Walter

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Jenkins, J.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Joyce, Michael

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Lamont, Norman

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Summerbell, T.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Clough, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  Lundon, T.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Cowan, W. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Crosfield, A. H.

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Crossley, William J.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Verney, F. W.

  Cullinan, J.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Walsh, Stephen

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Massie, J.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Waring, Walter

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Morrell, Philip

  Watt, Henry A.

  Elibank, Master of

  Morse, L. L.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Myer, Horatio

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Nicholls, George

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gill, A. H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Winfrey, R.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Glover, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Question, "That the word 'duty' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to insert, at the end of section (3), the following:—
  "(4) For the purpose of the collection of duty on the increment value of any land under this section, the increment value shall be deemed to be reduced on the first occasion on which increment value becomes due under this Act by an amount equal to ten per cent, of the original site value of the land, and on any subsequent occasion by an amount equal to ten per cent, of the site value on the last preceding occasion on which Increment Value Duty has become due, and the amount of duty to be collected shall be remitted in whole or in part accordingly.
  "Any duty which by reason of this provision is remitted on any occasion shall not be collected and shall be deemed to have been paid.
  "Provided that no remission shall be given under this provision on any occasion which will make the amount of the increment value on which duty has been remitted during the preceding period of five years exceed twenty-five per cent of the site value of the land on the last occasion on which increment value became due prior to the commencement of that period or of the original site value if there has then been no such occasion."
  I have already explained this Amendment to the House. It deals with the 10 per cent. instalment. The only part of the Amendment which I have not quite explained is this: I did indicate that it would be necessary to safeguard this exemption, otherwise it might be possible, with the 10 per cent. instalment, to get rid of the increment of 50 per cent. or even 100 per cent. I think this was pointed out on the discussion of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stepney, on which first of all I promised this Amendment on the part of the Government. Therefore, it should be accompanied by a safeguard of this kind, otherwise it would be followed by transactions preventing an increment of 50 per cent. That obviously is not the intention, and therefore, I move this section.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated perfectly accurately what he has already told us—exactly what it is he means to give, but he has not told us to this day the proviso by which he means to accompany it. This really shows, I think, how impossible it is to make any change in this tax without introducing every kind of absurdity and
  1988
  difficulty. Take the case, which certainly occurs, of a bit of land which is sold, and on which the increment value is just under ten per cent., and on which no duty is paid. Then it is sold again with the increment under ten per cent. and no duty is paid. Then there may be an increment of four per cent. again and no increment is paid. The land may then be held for a very long time and there may be a change with the increment over twenty-five per cent., and the last man who holds it has to pay the whole increment since the original site value. I think that is the case, I may have mistaken the purport of the last paragraph of the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The idea is whatever is over twenty-five per cent. shall be liable to Increment Duty, but it certainly will not be liable for the whole twenty-five per cent.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am supposing a series of transactions and all the people engaged in the earlier transactions are franked up to 24 per cent. Then when the land is sold to the next person, if the land only increases one per cent., has the duty to be paid on the 25 per cent.? That is what puzzles me. I should have thought if land increased but one per cent., the man in whose possession the land was when that additional one per cent. increase occurred had to pay the whole of the increment value since the original site value was fixed.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Does he only pay one per cent., and does the 24 per cent. escape?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes; it is franked up to 25 per cent., and it is what is over that.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Then the new period begins?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is franked up to 25 per cent.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Then the last man only pays one per cent.? It seems to me quite clear either the Government will lose the whole of the Increment Duty when the transaction takes place, if there is less than 25 per cent.; or, if they do not lose the Increment Duty, then the whole of it must come on the last possessor at the end of the five years' period. I do not see any way out of it, and I am putting the question in all sincerity.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: This provision of the third Clause which is before us, does it really mean that Increment Value of 24½ per cent. can accrue within five years, and not a halfpenny to Toe paid to the Exchequer on it?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It means this, that the maximum which you can frank in five years is 25 per cent. That is to prevent a series of transactions of 9 or 10 per cent. running up to 100 per cent. It is really to prevent a method of eluding the tax and having a series of conveyances which, although representing increment of 9 per cent., would in the aggregate represent transactions totalling to 60 or 70 per cent. In order to prevent that it is provided by this sub-section that you can only frank 25 per cent. of increment within five years. Any excess over that will have to bear Increment Duty, whether it is great or small.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Surely I am right in saying that land might have increased by 25 per cent. in five years during a series of five years—in other words, 100 per cent. in 20 years—and no duty would be paid at all.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: Should not the word "duty" come in after the words "on the first occasion on which increment value"?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: Then we clearly understand that it is only when the increments on these various transactions aggregate 25 per cent. within five years, that any Increment Duty will be payable?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Supposing in the course of five years there are four transmissions of property, with an increase of 6 per cent. on each occasion, those will all be franked. If a fifth person sells, and makes another increment of 6 per cent., is he to pay the tax?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: On 5 per cent.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What justification is there for taxing this man rather than the other four? What has he done that he should be taxed, while the other four men who have made exactly the same profit go scot free? Why in a series of years should the fifth man be taxed while the four preceding and perhaps the four succeeding him escape? There can be no justification for such an extraordinary method of taxation.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I desire to move the omission of this proviso, which appears to have been somewhat ill-considered.
  The CHAIRMAN: Before the Noble Lord moves, I understand the word "duty" is to be inserted.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, after the words "on which Increment Value," to insert the word "duty."
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I propose to move the omission of the proviso, for the purpose of understanding the matter. I do not desire to make any unnecessary complain against the Government, but it is rather hard that an Amendment of this character should be on the Paper for the first time to-day. This case was, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember, raised more than a fortnight ago, and it was understood that an Amendment would be put on the Paper without delay. It appears to me very doubtful whether the wording of the proviso will carry out the stated intentions of the Government. Under this section the whole amount of the Increment Value Duty is to be paid only if you get beyond the 25 per cent. line. Even if the proviso does carry out the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it seems to me a very clumsy way of carrying them out. The Government desire to prevent an evasion of this tax by colourable transactions that keep just within the margin allowed. I should have thought that words could be found to say that these transactions should be bonâ fide. I do not see any answer to the point put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Manchester. Why draw the line at 25 per cent.? All increment beyond that amount is to be taxed, whereas increment up to that amount has not to be taxed, however many transactions have taken place. The proviso appears to me to be indefensible, and I move its omission.
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: I would just like in one sentence to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment which has been proposed by the Noble Lord. It has been made abundantly clear by the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, by the hon. Member for North-West Manchester, and by the Noble Lord who sits for Marylebone, that Members above the Gangway do not

  1991
  want the proviso. Nobody else wants it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will, therefore, satisfy everyone by accepting the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It might better meet the case of some if the whole of the Amendment was left out. It is quite possible for a series of colourable transactions to take place whereby the Revenue might be—I will not say defrauded—but deprived of increment. It is purely a matter of adjustment between the different parties. Therefore this proviso is absolutely necessary. As to the bona fides of the transactions, I think the Noble Lord will realise that it is wholly impossible for the Commissioners to enter into questions of that kind. At any rate, it is infinitely better to avoid it, if it can be done arbitrarily by a method of this kind. How can the Commissioners investigate each transaction and say this is a bonâ fide transaction and that is not. It is better to put in a proviso of this kind, which will safeguard the revenue against the possibility of anything in the nature of a fraud. I agree with the hon. Member for North-West Manchester it would have an apparently illogical effect. It franks the transaction in regard to the first three or four men, but it does not in regard to the fifth, but he knows perfectly well if he is going to sell he will have to bear that proportion of the Increment Duty. There is no unfairness. It is very rarely you get a series of bonâ fide transactions such as four or five sales in four or five years. There will be exceptional cases, but I am perfectly certain unless there is a proviso such as this it would be possible for the revenue to be defrauded.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The whole argument against leaving the proviso out appears to be the question of a colourable transaction taking place. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has left it open; the whole of his argument cuts against the 25 per cent.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: For the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anybody else to presume that it would be possible in these transactions for a number of persons to conspire together to have conveyances drawn and stamped in order to make a transaction apparently bonâ fide is, to my mind, absurd. I cannot imagine that there is the slightest ground for supposing that the circumstances
  1992
  which this proviso is apparently designed to meet can possibly arise, and for that reason I join in the appeal to the Chancellor that if he is going to give relief to transactions where there only is a comparatively small increment in value, he would do well to leave the proviso out, because he is providing against a series of elaborate frauds which might possibly happen, but which really in practice could not take place.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this proviso does not safeguard the clause against frauds which have been mentioned. As soon as the value approaches 25 per cent. it can be sold and no duty is payable, but on the next occasion, when it is near 25 per cent., it can again be sold and no duty will be paid. The consequence is that in 20 years you may have four sales, one every five years, with an increment value of £96, on which not a single penny is payable. Therefore the proviso does not safeguard you against fraud. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take warning by this concession, which has not been received with much grace. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should leave the decision of this clause to the free choice of the House. There is no reason why the Government Whips should tell. If the proviso had been to the effect that 25 per cent. should be the limit of the concession upon all transactions it might have safeguarded the position, but to allow 25 per cent. on these transactions is simply no safeguard at all against fraud. I hope the whole clause will be left to the free decision of the House.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The proviso with which we are dealing in no way represents a concession. Under it fraud can be practised.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: On this proviso the Government have given a distinct pledge, and we must stand by it.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The pledge given was in connection with small transactions. With regard to this proviso, I wonder if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought out what its effect is going to be. Take the case of land which has passed from agricultural to building land within the last year or two. I know of a piece of land in Buckinghamshire which used to be part of an agricultural area where fields were under cultiva-

  1993
  tion in the ordinary way. That land has now become building land, and what was the process? The fields were sold in large areas to certain persons. They were sold, and within 12 months they had changed hands in smaller parcels with an added increment value. The other day certain sections of the property which had been subject to a second sale again changed hands. I know the property very intimately, and it has changed hands three times within the last three years, and with each transference an increment has been bought and sold. I do not know at what price these transferences have taken place, but I shrewdly suspect in every instance they would come within the proviso, and that increment the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to put his hand on would altogether escape. A grave injustice will be done to the Exchequer by allowing this proviso to go through.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member and some of his friends confuse the proviso with the Amendment. The proviso is to safeguard the Revenue, but the Amendment is a totally different matter, and the question is, given the Amendment, is there going to be this proviso to safeguard the Revenue?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The proviso does not fulfil the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His object is perfectly clear, and we are quite prepared to vote for a proviso which will do what he wants, but this proviso, as a matter of fact, will play into the hands of those who want to do the Exchequer.
  Mr. YOUNGER: It seems to me that in each of these transactions there would be an expensive valuation, and there would not be very much chance of doing the Exchequer. The hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) in the case he put left us in doubt whether there was any profit or any increment at all.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I do not know the correct figure, but, as a matter of fact, the transfer on each occasion was accompanied by an extra increment.
  Mr. STEWART BOWLES: Might I ask one question as to the real meaning of this proviso? It is very definite and quite mandatory. It says no remission shall be given under this provision, that is not only under the proviso, but under the whole new section. Take the case of land
  1994
  worth £100 site value at the beginning and reaching £126 within five years. What would be the amount of duty payable on an occasion occurring within those five years. Would it be on the whole of the increment from the beginning or only on the increment from the last step?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will it be possible under this proviso for four sales to take place within 20 years, and for there to be an increment of 24 per cent. on each occasion, representing £96 altogether, without a penny being paid to the Exchequer?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member is dealing with the proviso and not with the Amendment. The proviso is a limitation of the possibilities of the Amendment. It may not be adequate, but it is perfectly clear that no man would enter into a fraud which it would take 100 or even 20 years to bring to an issue, therefore it is a case that is not likely to arise.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: My question is plain: Can there be four transactions in the course of 20 years, each sale showing an increment of 24 per cent., and will these escape duty under the proviso exempting all transactions under 25 per cent. for five years?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The transaction which is franked must be a 10 per cent. transaction and not more. A 25 per cent. transaction is not franked. It is only one aggregate transaction and that is dealt with in this manner.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I quite recognise this is a concession, although I doubt if it is the best way of carrying out the object in view. I do not desire to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, and will ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That at the end of section (3) the following words (as amended) be inserted:—?
  "(4) For the purposes of the collection of duty on the increment value of any land under this section, the increment value shall be deemed to be reduced on the first occasion on which Increment Value Duty becomes due under this Act by an amount equal to 10 per cent of the original site value of the land, and on any subsequent occasion by an amount equal to 10 per cent. of the site value on the last preceding

  1995
  occasion on which Increment Value Duty has become due, and the amount of duty to be collected shall be remitted in whole or in part accordingly.
  "Any duty which by reason of this provision is remitted on any occasion shall not be collected and shall be deemed to have been paid.
  "Provided that no remission shall be given under this provision on any occasion which will make the amount of the incre-
  ment value on which duty has been remitted during the preceding period of five years exceed 25 per cent of the site value of the land on the last occasion on which increment value became due prior to the commencement of that period or of the original site value if there has then been no such occasion."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 36.

  Division No. 280.]

  AYES.

  [12.35 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Elibank, Master of

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Faber, G. Denison (York)

  Nicholls, George

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Ferens, T. R.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Armitage, R.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Foster, P. S.

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

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington).

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Percy, Earl

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barlow, Percy Bedford

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Beale, W. P.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gretton, John

  Radford, G. H.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Renton, Leslie

  Brace, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Renwick, George

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Robinson, S.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Burnt, Rt. Hon. John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Seely, Colonel

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hogan, Michael

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Chance, Frederick William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Clough, William

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

  Stanier, Beville

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Starkey, John R.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Crosfield, A. H.

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

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

  Crossley, William J.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tomkinson, James

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Verney, F. W.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Dowar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Massie, J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Montgomery, H. G.

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Waring, Walter

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Younger, George

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

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

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

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Jenkins, J.

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

  Barnes, G. N.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Seddon, J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Summerbell, T.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lundon, T.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Gill, A. H.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Glover, Thomas

  Macpherson, J. T.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hall, Frederick

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Hodge, John

  Pointer, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. G. Roberts and Mr. C. Duncan.

  Hudson, Walter

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Mr. LYTTELTON Mr. LYTTELTON moved to insert at the end of section (3):—"Provided that the rules made by the Commissioners under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament for confirmation for a period of not less than thirty days during the Session of Parliament, and if neither of those Houses presents an Address to His Majesty within such period against the draft or any part thereof such rules shall be deemed to be confirmed, and prior to such confirmation of such rules no Increment Value Duty shall be charged."
  I thought I had a very strong case for the Amendment before the discussion which took place an hour ago, and I entirely agree that the principle of the tax ought to be laid down on the face of the Act of Parliament, and the Commissioners ought to be instructed to act according to those principles. It is, however, very evident now that the Government were not able to set forth the principles upon which this tax should be paid. Taking the very simplest case which could be taken, the Attorney-General was occupied for some half hour in endeavouring to explain the incidence of the tax. It was not due to his fault, but to the complexity of the conundrums which arose under the section. The Government have treated the matter as insoluble, and have not unnaturally laid it upon the back of the Commissioners by a code of rules to do that which they have been unable to do themselves. It is quite manifest, I think, that you cannot give the Commissioners legislative power by a code of rules—power to do that which the Government have failed to do, namely, to state the principles on which the tax is to be levied. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks for a moment of the concessions already made with regard to
  1998
  appeal, he will see that it would be vain to give an appeal from the Commissioners to the High Court on questions which might or might not be of importance, while at the same time leaving them legislative power by a code of rules to determine the nature of the tax to be levied. You cannot say that there should be the right of appeal to the High Court, and at the same time give to the Commissioners the power to legislate on their own behalf. I, therefore, submit that these rules should be laid on the Table for thirty days, and that they should be subject to review in either House of Parliament.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I quite recognise the force of the right hon. Gentleman's contention that the Houses of Parliament ought to have an opportunity of criticising these rules and of altering and amending them, but I could not accept the Amendment in this form for a reason which he will realise is a very practical one. He proposes that the rules and regulations should not come into operation until they have lain on the Table of the House for thirty days and been confirmed by Parliament. The effect of that; would be that the Increment Duty would not come into operation at all within this financial year. That, at any rate, is not what the right hon. Gentleman has in view in moving the Amendment in this form. Are we to suppose that Parliament would sit for thirty days after the Finance Bill has been passed? I do not think it would be right to inflict that penalty on Parliament even for the purpose of discussing these rules and regulations, and as Parliament would not be asked to sit for thirty days they could not be discussed this Session. Next Session, if they were laid on the Table of the House immediately Parlia-

  1999
  ment meets, still they could not be confirmed for a whole month after the meeting of Parliament. Meanwhile nothing could be done with the view of bringing the Bill into operation. The end of the financial year would arrive and the tax would not be a tax at all for the present year. I propose, therefore, that the Amendment should take the alternative form, which is to be found in many Acts of Parliament, namely, that the rules shall be laid on the Table of the House, and that, if an Address is presented within thirty days praying that the rules should be annulled, that could be done by the method prescribed in such cases. That would enable Parliament to discuss the rules and even to amend and alter them.
  Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM: It is apparent from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that Parliament is to have an opportunity of reviewing and revising these rules after these rules to which Parliament might take exception have been in operation. The only reason that could be urged for what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes is that the amount of money to be raised in the first year is a matter of real importance. That argument can hardly be urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Prime Minister, although he has not for reasons quite adequate taken a very great part in the Debates in this House, did last Friday, at Southport, give a general explanation of the whole of this Budget, and he said that by the very nature of the case no great revenue could be expected from these taxes for the first year, and even for the first few years, so that, according to the Prime Minister, there is no question of urgency from the financial aspect of the matter. And, since the proposal of the Government admits that revision by Parliament is a desirable object, it would be better that that revision should come into operation at the beginning rather than at a later stage. I cannot see what the Government have to gain by making what may be a false start. They are not in need of the money, and in their interests and in the interests of the proper working of the Act the review by Parliament should come into operation before and not after a serious mistake has been made.
  Mr. G. H. RADFORD: I wish to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession which he has made a moment ago in the direction of allaying anxieties
  2000
  that might be felt as to the very large powers given to the Commissioners under this Bill. But there is one question which I wish to ask. Is the Address, which I understand it is suggested may be made on the subject of the rules submitted to Parliament to be an Address of this House, or is it also to be possible for the other House to present an Address? Because, while wishing to treat the other House with all respect and courtesy and to have the rules laid before them for their information, I do not wish to give them any opportunity of presenting an Address on the subject of taxation—a subject with which I think they have no concern, and as to which I think they make no claim to interfere with this House.
  Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN: I do not understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has that right to depart from what, to the best of my recollection, has been the ordinary and regular practice in almost all legislation that I remember. This Bill was presented without any clause whatever requiring that the new rules to be made by the Commissioners should be laid on the table at all. It is strange that the ordinary practice was not observed in this case. No doubt there have been some exceptions for special reasons, but there are special reasons in this case why the ordinary practice should have been observed and why this Amendment should be accepted to-night. The first of them is this difficulty. We all perceived on the part of the Government, not an hour and a half ago, that they showed clearly they were not in a position to explain the course which ought to be pursued by the Commissioners, and they were still less able to insert anything in the nature of an Amendment in the Bill. That is one reason why I think we ought to be more careful than ever in inserting some provision in the nature of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. It was pointed out only last night by my right hon. Friend, although not the smallest notice was taken of it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by any Member sitting on that side of the House—the only notice taken of it being to move the closure—it was pointed out by the Chancellor's predecessor in office, and by myself, that in two cases, two very remarkable cases, taken from the law reports of "The Times" only yesterday, the Commissioners had been guilty of making most serious errors. In one case the Court of Appeal said there was no

  2001
  shadow of foundation for the case of the Commissioners, and in the other the Court was absolutely unanimous against them. It may be very unfortunate that these discussions should be going on when we have two such remarkable cases in which—what shall I say?—there was want of sufficient care. That is the least I can say. The question arises, therefore, whether or not the rules to be made by the Commissioners should be laid on the Table of both Houses, and should not be valid until there has been thirty days' notice, and Parliament shall not have petitioned against them. I am bound to say that I am surprised, in a Bill of this extreme gravity, that what I believe to be the ordinary rule should not have been observed, still more that we should have had so unsatisfactory a reply from the right hon. Gentleman on the present occasion.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the precedent which he himself set in the Agricultural Eating Act. I have followed exactly the form of that Act almost in so many words. That Act was for expending £2,000,000; this Bill is to raise money. At any rate, I followed exactly the precedent which the right hon. Gentleman now denounces as unequitable, unconstitutional, and every other form of iniquity which his very inexhaustible vocabulary can command.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The difference between the two cases is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the Agricultural Rating Act dealt with two millions of money. This Bill deals with property amounting to something considerably over, I believe, four thousand millions of money.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met me as fully as I am entitled to be met in this matter. I put again to him this position, whether it is really possible to give appeal to the referees and then to the Courts on any point of valuation by the Commissioners, and in the same Act of Parliament give them power to set up a code of rules to make a subsequent precedent for taxation. The two things are absolutely inconsistent, and I would submit to him that it is an absurdity to grant such a power in one case, the present, and to withdraw it in another. There is, again, great force in the statement made that the Government anticipates no revenue, or scarcely any revenue, from this tax in the present year, and, therefore, they would be losing nothing by getting their code in
  2002
  proper shape before it finally becomes law. I understand that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposes is that these rules should only have effect until that time when, after review by the House of Commons, they shall be annulled, and that all proceedings shall be good up to that time, without prejudice. If these rules were afterwards annulled by the House of Commons as clearly wrong it would be a manifest injustice that the taxes that have been paid under them should be retained by the revenue. If the right hon. Gentleman will insert in his Amendment, provision as to the taxes which are paid under these rules that may since have been annulled, I would accept it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I quite see the justice of the point put by the right hon. Gentleman, and I will give the words favourable consideration.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: On that understanding I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Amendment I propose to move will, I think, meet the points raised by hon. Members. It is as follows:—"That every rule under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be, and if an address should be presented to His Majesty by both Houses of Parliament within the next subsequent thirty days during the Session of Parliament in which the rules are made, His Majesty may annul the rules, and it shall be void without prejudice to anything done under it."
  Mr. R. D. HOLT: Am I right in understanding that if this House wishes to annul the rules, and if the other House refuses to agree, then the rules will stand? In other words that under this Amendment it would be impossible for this House alone to disallow acts of which we disapprove, and that we should be in the power of the other House who could prevent us disallowing rules.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the House of Commons passes any rule of the kind, it has complete control of the Executive, and therefore the Executive would have to take steps to put the matter right. But I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am simply using the ordinary constitutional forms. I do not wish to raise any great constitutional issue merely upon a Motion of this kind dealing with rules,

  2003
  and I do not think it is desirable to do so. The interests of the House of Commons are amply safeguarded by this proposal. I put it in the form of an address by both Houses of Parliament, as otherwise it would be in the power of the House of Lords, by simply moving an address to His Majesty praying for an alteration, to make nugatory the whole of our taxation. Therefore, I make it perfectly clear that it must be by both Houses of Parliament, and therefore the privileges of the House of Commons are amply safeguarded. I put it in this form because I do not want to raise any embarrasing constitutional issues merely upon a Motion of this kind dealing with rules. I am following the course followed by the Government in regard to all their rules and regulations. This is the precedent invariably followed, and the only precedent that could possibly be followed in a matter dealing with taxation.
  Lord BALCARRES: I submit that it is not according to precedent to use the words "next subsequent thirty days." Thirty subsequent days means the next calendar month. If Parliament adjourned on the 1st and did not meet again until the 30th it would have no opportunity of discussing the matter, although technically it would have been laid on the Table thirty days.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is the "subsequent thirty days during the Session of Parliament."
  Lord BALCARRES: Last year this House adjourned for three weeks and three days in the middle of the Session. It might have been four weeks and three days, and under those conditions it might easily happen, the rules having been deposited, that neither House would be able to discuss them. That would be "during the Session of Parliament." The words used are usually simply thirty or forty days, as the case may be, and not the "next subsequent" days. Will not the right hon. Gentleman call it 30 days, as he says he is acting according to precedent?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This is taken out of an Act of Parliament—the Old Age Pensions Act.
  Lord BALCARRES: The precedent of the Old Age Pensions Act provides for the subsequent 21 days on which the House has sat. That vitiates the state-
  2004
  ment of the right hon. Gentleman. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore reconsider the point and make the Amendment read: "The subsequent 30 days on which either House has sat"?
  Mr. LYTTELTON: I think in view of the objection that has been justly made by my Noble Friend we ought to see this Amendment on the Paper before we assent to it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the right hon. Gentleman does not like the Amendment I will withdraw it. I have offered two or three very substantial concessions to the Opposition to-night, and every concession has been made the occasion, not merely for a prolonged Debate but for something that is really of the nature of an acrimonious dispute. That is not very encouraging. If the precedent is not in the Old Age Pensions Act—the book was put into my hand—it was taken out of an Act of Parliament. I have gone as far as I can to meet the right hon. Gentleman, and have give him the opportunity he desires for Parliament to discuss these regulations. If he cannot see his way to accepting the Amendment I will withdraw it.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: The right hon. Gentleman said that in discussing a Finance Bill we have to be careful, but he seems to limit that need to himself and his friends. I do not think I am going too far when I say that the constituencies who returned Members who sit on this side are also bound to exercise some care in discussing the provisions of a Finance Bill. How do we stand? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a concession, and my right hon. Friend raises an objection, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer found so much substance that he at once said he would consider it at a later stage. Is it not difficult, without seeing an Amendment, to speculate on the chance of a further concession which the right hon. Gentleman will give to meet the objection raised by my right hon. Friend? It seems to me that the point of my right hon. Friend has not been met. This is a complicated matter, and the Government might just as well take the Amendment of my right hon. Friend and place the matter on a clear basis.
  Mr. J F. REMNANT: I do not understand where we are. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyttelton) withdrew his Amendment subject to being satisfied. I

  2005
  do not know what the present Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer means. These manuscript Amendments are constantly being handed in——
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It has been read from the Chair.
  Mr. REMNANT: I could not take it all in. I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend's Amendment is still before the Committee?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): No.
  Mr. REMNANT: IE my right hon. Friend is not satisfied surely his Amendment is now before the Committee?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANproceeded to put the Amendment.
  Mr. REMNANT: Surely, Mr. Caldwell, I am entitled to be satisfied on the point I have raised? May I ask you whether my right hon. Friend's Amendment is before the Committee now?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) has been, by leave, withdrawn, and another Amendment is now before the Committee.
  Sir H. CRAIK: We are bound as Members of this House to consider what is really in accordance with precedent. I have acquired considerable knowledge in drafting Acts of Parliament, and I say there is no precedent for this Address of both Houses of Parliament on such a Minute or Order in Council. If the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) is sure that his draftsmen tells him that there is such a precedent, I am bound to accept what he says. I know of none. We are establishing a precedent now which will limit the power of both Houses. An Address by the House of Commons, unless supported by the House of Lords, will now have no effect whatever. Orders in Council and Minutes of various Departments have to be laid upon the Table of the Houses of Parliament. An Address of either House of Parliament acts as a check to such an Order in Council. You are establishing now a precedent which is quite new, you are limiting not only the power of the House 'of Lords, but of this House also.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: I do not think the position is satisfactory. I have a suggestion to make. The Chancellor of the
  2006
  Exchequer asserted more than once that the purpose of my Amendment was an exceedingly reasonable one. I withdrew my Amendment on the face of his promise that he would insert an Amendment which would meet my case.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Which I read.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: I think the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that what I said bears upon the point, and I am sure the criticisms are worthy of consideration. My suggestion is that as, there are numerous other rules to be dealt with in this Bill, this matter should be adjourned till that subsequent stage in order that the rules may be dealt with at once. That, I think, is a reasonable suggestion. Meanwhile, we should see the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the Paper, and have time to consider the validity of the criticism. At this hour of the night it is not fair to expect us——
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I simply offer this as a concession to the Opposition. If the Opposition tell me to withdraw it, I shall certainly do so [Cries of "No, no."]
  Mr. LYTTELTON: That really is not a handsome way of getting over this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that my Amendment is a reasonable one, and he has brought forward an Amendment which he says will meet the reasonableness of my case. It is not fair or just to us that he should refuse a reasonable time to examine his Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not object to a reasonable time. I could do anything of this kind on Clause 3.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: Bring your Amendment up again.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman wants us to consider the whole rules and regulations. I could not give an answer as to the whole of these. We shall consider them later on.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: If this subject is dealt with when the other rules come up for consideration it should do. The right hon. Gentleman could take the matter into consideration when he comes to other sections which deal with these rules.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: Supposing it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman

  2007
  to produce the rules on the subsequent clause, he could, at any rate, bring up his rules again on the Report stage of the Bill in a form that was satisfactory to my right hon. friend and fully meet the case that he desires to be met.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There are regulations in the very next clause.
  Mr. J. MacVEAGH: I desire to ask whether there is any precedent for inserting a clause in the Finance Bill giving the House of Lords power to disapprove of the Finance Bill 1 I doubt whether, if the House of Lords adopted such action, it would not be considered as a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved to add after section (4). ["Increment Value Duty shall be a Stamp Duty collected and recovered in accordance with the provisions of this. Act,"] the words "but shall not be a charge on the land so as to affect any subsequent bonâ fide purchaser for value." I venture to think the sense of justice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lead him to think this Amendment should be adopted. If this Amendment were not accepted, the effect of leaving the Bill as it stands would be that every occasion on which the Increment Duty may become due would necessitate the production amongst the title deeds of a deed bearing a denoting stamp to show whether there was any duty payable and whether in fact the duty had been paid. If any death happened or any transfer of lease in connection with the property during the preceding 30 or 40 years, the fact of not producing the denoting stamp upon the document would be that there would be a blot upon the title,
  which will create great difficulty in connection with the transfer of property and perhaps a difficulty which in many cases would cause the proposed transaction to go off entirely. The Amendment is that each occasion should be judged on its merits and that the duty is to be a sum collected in the way indicated in the Bill, but that is not to be a subsequent blot upon the title if it is found impossible to produce a deed bearing a denoting stamp for subsequent purposes. It is especially to relieve all conveyancing in the future that I move the Amendment.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Arthur Dewar): Generally speaking, throughout the Act there is no kind of blot upon the title. As the hon. Member knows, it cannot arise except on two possible occasions by inference. One is in the transfer by death and in the case of a corporation if it is sold to a purchaser without notice. In no case where a purchaser has notice will he be liable. I do not think the hon. Member's Amendment. is necessary. When a purchaser has not notice he is not liable. When he has notice, of course, he is liable.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I only moved the Amendment to give the Government an opportunity of stating their views upon it. I understand they intend to insist upon leaving this very serious difficulty of a possible blot upon every subsequent transaction relating to land. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and must leave them to stew in their own juice.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 57.

  Division No. 281.]

  AYES.

  [1.35 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Armitage, R.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Clough, William

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Ferens, T. R.

  Beale, W. P.

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

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Bennett, E. N.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Bowerman, C. W.

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

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Brace, William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gill, A. H.

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Glover, Thomas

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Brooke, Stopford

  Crossley, William J.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hall, Frederick

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morrell, Philip

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

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

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nicholls, George

  Summerbell, T.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Thomasson, Franklin

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pointer, J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Tomkinson, James

  Hodge, John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hogan, Michael

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Verney, F. W.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Walsh, Stephen

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Hudson, Walter

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Waring, Walter

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jenkins, J.

  Robinson, S.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Seddon, J.

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

  Lundon, T.

  Seely, Colonel

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Sheehy, David

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

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

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

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Renton, Leslie

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Renwick, George

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanier, Beville

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Forster, Henry William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Younger, George

  Foster, P. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pretyman, E. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Viscount Valentia.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day (Wednesday).
  Adjournment,—Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes before Two o'clock.