Commons Sitting of 21 October 1909

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

FINANCE BILL (CHARGES ON PROPERTY).
Return ordered, "Showing the amount of public charges leviable in respect of property having a capital value of £100, £1,000, £10,000, £100,000, and £1,000,000, respectively, of the following kinds:—

(a) Consols;

(b) The ordinary shares of an industrial company yielding five per cent.;

(c) Freehold agricultural lands and buildings (assuming buildings to represent 30 per cent. of cost), the property yielding three per cent.;

(d) Long leaseholds of urban land, built upon, yielding four per cent.;

Under the under-mentioned heads (including in the case of land and houses all charges, whether levied upon owners or upon occupiers):—

(1) Stamp Duty upon conveyance on sale;

(2) Stamp Duty upon marriage settlement;

(3) Income Tax;

(4) Land Tax;

(5) Inhabited House Duty;

(6) Local rates (on an assumed average of 7s. in the £ for town and 4s. in the £ for the country, respectively);

(7) Death Duties on one succession (i.e., Estate Duty on passing of the property upon death and Legacy or Succession Duty, assuming it to pass in one sum—(a) to a spouse or lineal; (b) to a stranger in blood, distinguishing between (a) unsettled estate; (b) settled estate on first passing; and (c) settled estate on second or subsequent passings under the same settlement;

(a) On the 31st March, 1909;

(b) Under the Finance Bill as introduced;

(c) Under the Finance Bill as amended in Committee."—[Mr. Walter Long.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Death of a Chinese (Case of Inspector Mears).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he was now in a position to say whether the procedure was the same in China when a Chinese was accused of having killed a British subject and when a British subject was accused of having killed a Chinese; whether, in the case of John Mears, a British subject, accused of having killed Yu-Fa-Cheng last April, all inquiry was refused until July, then conceded under commercial pressure, but held in camera, and a regular trial before the British Court of Shanghai was still refused; and whether this was the procedure when a Chinese was accused of having killed a British subject?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): China being a country in which His Majesty exercises extra-territorial rights, British defendants are tried in. British courts and Chinese defendants in Chinese courts. To this extent, therefore, the procedure is different. The hon. Member's sketch of the course of events in the case of Police Inspector Mears is not in accordance with facts.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the facts are?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The facts are that Mears was accused of having contributed to the death of the Chinese, and an inquiry was made into the circumstances by the British Consul, who considered that there was no case to send for trial, the evidence of the doctor being that the man had not received any injuries.

  Canton-Kaulung Railway (Trial of Accountant).
  Mr. GINNELLasked if the hon. Gentleman would inform the House of the result of the trial of the chief British accountant of the Canton-Kaulung Railway on a charge of embezzlement?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: According to telegrams in the Press the accused has been sentenced to two years' hard labour, but I have no official information on the subject at present.

  English Peruvian Amazon Company.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked whether the hon. Gentleman can communicate the

  441
  result of his inquiries on the alleged misdeeds committed under the control of the English Peruvian Amazon Company?!
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Since the date of the hon. Member's last question, the nearest British source of official information, namely, the Consul at Iquitos, has been communicated with; but as this place is some hundreds of miles distant from the scene of the alleged misdeeds his report neither disproves nor corroborates the allegations. I hope, however, to receive very shortly a report from a gentleman who has recently travelled through the district affected, and the United States Government have also been asked what is the nature of the information stated to have been supplied to the United States Consul at Iquitos.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Has the hon. Gentleman received any demand from the English Peruvian Amazon Company for an inquiry into this matter?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No; I am not aware of any.
  Mr. HART-DAVIES: Is not the Consul at Iquitos in England at the present moment?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Not that I am aware of.

  Burning of Whale Stations (Norway).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked when the whale stations in the north of Norway were burned down by the fishermen and what was the reason adduced, and when the Act prohibiting landing of whales in Norway was passed by the Storthing?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have no information in regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question. As regards the second part, paragraph I of the Norwegian Law of 7th January, 1904, prohibits the landing of whales in the provinces of Nordland, Tromso, and Finmarken. This Act was passed by the Storthing on 11th December, 1903, and came into force on 1st February, 1904.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: In view of the fact that whale stations were burned down in Norway, will the hon. Gentleman obtain the information that I ask for, namely, any particulars he can get with regard to the occurrence?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot make a promise on the subject, but I will consider the matter.

  International Opium Commission.
  Mr. GEORGE GOOCHasked when the Report of the Shanghai Opium Commission will be published?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A few copies of the Report of the International Opium Commission have now been received at the Foreign Office, and will be placed in the libraries of the House of Commons and House of Lords as soon as possible.

  Kinlea Police Hut.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state, with regard to the Kinlea police hut, the cost of erection of the hut, the rent, if anything, paid to James Griffin, J.P., the total annual cost of the maintenance of the police stationed there, including their pay and all incidental expenses?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The erection of the police but cost £122, and the cost of the maintenance of the police there amounts in round figures to £485 a year. A rent of one shilling a year is paid to Mr. Griffin for the site.

  Labourers (Ireland) Act (Killadysert Union).
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked whether the Chief Secretary has heard complaints from labourers in the Killadysert Union, West Clare, that the provisions for the erection of labourers cottages under The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, are being carried out slowly and with much impediment; and whether he will look into this matter so as to extend the benefits of the Labourers Act more actively and more widely than at present?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have received two complaints from individual applicants for cottages. An order was made last year authorising the erection of 33 cottages in the district, and 27 of these have been completed or are in course of construction. Fourteen additional cottages were authorised this year, and the arbitration proceedings preliminary to taking possession of the lands have just been completed. Forty-seven cottages have, therefore, been authorised within the last two years as compared with a total of only 52 built between 1883 and 1905. In view of these facts I see no reason for moving in the matter.

  Town Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that

  443
  town tenants in Ireland suffer under disadvantages similar to those which were formerly experienced by tenant farmers; and whether he can hold out a prospect of early legislation with regard to these citizens which shall have for object the fixation of fair rents, compensation for improvements, and due facilities for the purchase of the properties tenanted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would remind the hon. Member that the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1906, provides for compensation to certain classes of town tenants for improvements and for unreasonable disturbance. The Government do not contemplate further legislation on the subject.
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH (for Mr. Reddy)asked, with reference to the escape of Cavanagh from custody at Shrinrone barracks, whether the prisoner was allowed to walk outside the barracks with the police whilst he was in custody, whereas men who had been arrested in the same district for cattle-driving were kept handcuffed and in close confinement; and, if so, what explanation was offered of the difference in treatment?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the constabulary authorities that the hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that Cavanagh was allowed, while in custody, to walk outside the barrack premises from which he escaped. The seventeen men arrested for cattle-driving in the same district were handcuffed while being brought to the barrack, and also when being taken on to Limerick, this precaution being considered necessary owing to their number.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how this prisoner, Cavanagh, escaped if he was not allowed outside?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If the hon. Gentleman will ask me privately I will give him the information.

  Asylums in Ireland (Local Taxation Account).
  Mr. J. MacVEAGHasked whether the Chief Secretary's attention has been called to the resolutions passed by the committee of management of the Down asylum and other asylum committees in Ireland with regard to the resources of the local taxation account being insufficient to meet additional demands, and to the
  444
  probability that in future the grants may have to be reduced; and whether inquiries will be made as to the advisability of a readjustment of the financial arrangements?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have received a number of resolutions on the subject. The matter is receiving my attention, but I am not in a position at present to add anything to my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for West Limerick on the 17th June last.

  Estates of Mr. John J. Smyth, Loughrea.
  Mr. J. MacVEAGH (for Mr. Duffy)asked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Mr. John J. Smyth, of Mason Brock, Loughrea, sold out his estate situated in the townlands of Derry French, Bornakulla, Cormack, Lisheen, Brackla, and Garvaneath, so long ago as November, 1904; is he aware that Mr. Smyth has been paid the purchase money by the Estates Commissioners since August, 1907; whether he is aware that the tenants are still paying interest at the rate of 3½ per cent. on the purchase-money; and whether, in view of the fact that the landlord's interest has long since been cleared, he will direct the Commissioners to place the tenants on the annuitant rate of interest on the rents now falling due, and at the same time have the Commissioners to remit to the tenants the surplus interest paid by them since the date when the purchase money was paid to the landlord?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The purchase money of the estate referred to was advanced to the owner in August, 1907, by the Estates Commissioners, who purchased the property from him under Section 6 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. A large number of the holdings had to be re-arranged, improved and enlarged at a considerable expenditure out of the reserve fund in conjunction with an adjoining estate which has also been acquired by the Commissioners. Section 18 of the Act provides that the interest in lieu of rent shall be at the rate of not less than 3½ per cent., and in their purchase undertakings purchasing tenants agreed to pay interest at that rate until the lands were vested in them. The lands will be vested in the tenants at an early date. Meanwhile the tenants are not required to pay any interest on the increase of prices consequent upon the money expended by the Commissioners on improvements which have been now completed.

  Estate of Mrs. Sarah Hyde (County Cork).
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Cork)asked whether the Chief Secretary was aware that with regard to the proposed reinstatement of Mr. William Bulman in his former holding on the estate of Mrs. Sarah Hyde, Ballindangan, county Cork, the Estates Commissioners were informed that the owner accepted the estimated price offered by them for the holding; and whether the delay in the completion of the sale and purchase and consequent reinstatement of Mr. Bulman was caused by the refusal of the owner or her agent, Mr. William Rochfort, to carry out the original arrangement for the acquisition of the holding in question on voluntary lines; and what steps do the Commissioners now intend to take in this matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The lands in question cannot be acquired by the Estates Commissioners under the Evicted Tenants Act as the eviction took place since the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1903. The former tenant can, therefore, only be reinstated by agreement for purchase and sale under the Act of 1903 between him and the owner. No such agreement has yet been lodged, although the owner has expressed her willingness to sell at the price.
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the agent will not take any further proceedings until the Land Bill is passed, and, if that be so, can the Estates Commissioners not take Bulman's case into consideration with a view to his reinstatement?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think that the circumstances referred to could be usefully brought to the attention of the Commissioners.

  Bengal Police (European Inspectors).
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary for India, whether the last Report issued on the administration of the Bengal Police shows that the crime of gang robbery, not infrequently accompanied with murder, in Eastern Bengal, has been carried on to a great extent by extremists belonging to the educated classes; whether the Inspector-General of Police remarked that the increase in the number of riots and serious offences against persons and property is the indirect result of the organised efforts of agitators to weaken the authority of government and to bring its officers into contempt; whether, until the Secretary of State lately posted a detachment of a native regiment at Dacca, the police were
  446
  the only representatives of law and order in the towns and villages of Eastern Bengal; and whether, in view of the want of support the police receive in the detection and prevention of crime from the educated classes in Eastern Bengal, the Secretary of State will consider the propriety of advising the Government of India to strengthen the force by the provision of a larger number of European inspectors?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (the Master of Elibank): As regards the first and second questions of my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State proposes to place in the Library a copy of the Inspector-General's Report, from which Members can draw their own conclusions. The answer to the third question, using the words in the sense given to them by the hon. Member, is in the affirmative, but the term "police" of course includes Military Police. Steps for strengthening the force, numerically and in respect of superintendence, are being taken.

  Medical College (Madras).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked whether the senior assistant professor at the Medical College, Madras, and the senior assistant surgeon at the General Hospital, Madras, are Eurasian military assistant surgeons lent to the civil medical department; whether he can state their medical qualifications and salaries, with the salaries of the civil assistant surgeons under them; and whether it is proposed to open these posts to well-qualified Indians?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: It appears from the Madras Civil List that the two officers mentioned are military assistant surgeons; the Secretary of State has no information as to whether they are Eurasians, or as to their medical qualifications; their total emoluments are, respectively, Rs.575 and Rs.255 a month; the civil assistant surgeons in the medical college, who hold appointments of equal rank, draw either Rs.250 or Rs.200 a month. As was stated in reply to a question on 2nd March, the Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that duly qualified Indian assistant surgeons will not be held eligible for these posts in the event of vacancies occurring.

  Northbrook Society (Report of Committee).
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked whether the Committee appointed to inquire into the affairs of the Northbrook Society had completed its labours; and, if so, when the report may be expected; and whether it would be made public?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has received the Report of the Committee, and has it under consideration. For reasons that my hon. Friend will appreciate, he does not propose to make it public.

  Indian Indentured Labourers (Death-rate).
  Sir HENRY COTTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he was aware that the death-rate among Indian indentured labourers in the Federated Malay States in 1908 amounted to 84.8 per thousand; and whether the Government of India are taking any steps for the protection of the lives of British-Indian subjects who are indentured for labour on the rubber plantation in the Malay States?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The figures referred to by the hon. Member have been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State, and the report of the Resident-General containing them has been communicated direct to the Government of India, whose views on any action that it may be practicable to take will be received in due course. As the hon. Member is aware, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, in reply to a question on 4th October, undertook to make inquiries of the High Commissioner.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: May I ask whether the percentages given in the question are correct?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I understand that the facts as stated are correct, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies is making inquiries.
  Sir H. COTTON: Does this matter come within the purview of the Committee recently appointed to inquire into the case of the indentured labourers in the Colonies?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I am not sure, but I will make inquiries.
  Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: There is also the case of the Mauritius?

  Indian Railway Finance and Administration.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Under-Secretary for India what steps have been taken to give effect to the following recommendations of the Report, dated 5th March, 1908, of the Committee on Indian Railway Finance and Administration, that
  448
  Government should provide every year £12,500,000 for the expenditure of the railways; that, in addition to this sum, further funds should be provided through the agency of the companies; and that Government should not interfere in matters of detail, but leave to the companies a wide discretion as regards detail and the responsibility for efficient working; and whether any, and, if so, which, of the specific recommendations of the Committee's Report has been carried out?
  The HON. MEMBERfurther asked (1) whether, in the years 1908–9 and 1909–10, the amount allotted for railway expenditure was £10,000,000 only, instead of £12,500,000 as recommended by the Committee on Indian Railway Finance and Administration; and (2) whether he will explain why recent orders of the Government Railway Department, such as Resolutions No. 431 R.A. of 4th June, 1909, and No. 566 R.A. of 3rd September, 1909, were issued, in view of the recommendations of the Committee on Indian Railway Finance and Administration that Government should not interfere in matters of detail, but leave to the companies a wide discretion as regards detail and the responsibility for efficient working?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I will answer my hon. Friend's three questions together. The Committee on Railway Administration and Finance recommended in March, 1908, a capital outlay of £12,500,000 in normal years. The financial arrangements for 1908–9 had been made when this recommendation was submitted, so that the first year in which it would have been possible to give effect to it was 1909–10; but the financial position at the beginning of that year was not normal, and did not justify a large increase of expenditure. The programme of capital outlay was, therefore, not raised above the level of £10,000,000, at which it has stood for some years. As regards the raising of money through railway companies, various schemes to facilitate this in particular cases have been considered by the Secretary of State. One of them has been embodied in a contract between the Secretary of State and the Rohilkund and Kumaon Railway Company, which enabled the company to raise £600,000 in the present year. It is hoped that contracts will in due course be made enabling other companies to raise capital; but, as the House will understand, it is not possible to give detailed information while negotiations are pending.

  449
  The recommendation of the Committee regarding the administrative action of the Railway Board has, with the Committee's other recommendations, been brought to the notice of the Government of India; and in one important respect, namely, the abolition of the consulting engineers, through whom a considerable amount of detailed control was formerly exercised, action has been taken in accordance with the spirit of the Committee's Report. The Secretary of State is in correspondence with the Government of India regarding the Resolutions referred to in the third question, but is not yet in a position to make a statement.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the abolition of the consulting engineer took place before the Committee Report, and that it cannot be said that the doing of that was in any way the result of the Committee Report?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: In regard to the abolition of the consulting engineer, that also abolishes a large amount of the details of which the hon. Member complains.

  Civil Medical Departments (India).
  Mr. REESasked whether Eurasian military assistant surgeons lent to civil and medical departments in India are not generally statutory natives of India, and in that case equally qualified with natives of India proper for all and sundry appointments reserved for natives of India; and whether natives of India, Europeans, and Eurasians are as such in any way disqualified from employment in the Civil Medical Department?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The reply to the first question is in the affirmative. Indians are equally eligible with Europeans for admission to the Indian Medical Service, which Service contains many Indian members. As to the Civil Medical Department, I beg to refer my hon. Friend to the Papers recently presented to Parliament.

  Patiala (Alleged Sedition).
  Mr. REESasked whether the Secretary of State for India has any information which he can impart to the House regarding the steps taken by the Maharaja of Patiala to stamp out sedition in his State?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has no official information on this subject, but he expects to be furnished with a report in due course.
  450
  When it is received I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  Bengal Police Report.
  Mr. GEORGE GOOCHasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he will place in the library a copy of the Report for 1908 of the officiating Inspector-General of Police for Bengal?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I shall be glad to place a copy in the Library when a supply of copies is received.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary whether his attention has been called to the statement made in the Report for 1908 of the officiating Inspector-General of Police for Bengal, that the cases of murder were of the usual type, most of them being the outcome of intrigues, domestic differences, and land disputes; and whether the Secretary of State has any reason to doubt the accuracy of the Inspector-General's view in regard to the origin of these crimes?
  The HON. MEMBERfurther asked whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Report for 1908 of the officiating Inspector-General of Police in Bengal, corroborated by the Lieutenant-Governor, that the increase in the cases of cognisable crime was to be attributed principally to the high price of food and the distress consequent thereon; and whether the Secretary of State has any reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the Lieutenant-Governor and the Inspector-General?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has read the passages referred to, and he has no reason to doubt the correctness of the views therein expressed.
  Mr. REESasked whether the Secretary of State's attention has been called to statements made by police and other authorities to the effect that the difficulties of the Indian police in Bengal in dealing with crime arise in a great measure from the fact that the educated classes do not co-operate with the force or render it proper assistance; and whether the Secretary of State has any official information to this effect?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has seen statements in the sense indicated; the hon. Member will find official information and a review of the facts by the local Government in the "Bengal Police Report for 1908," a copy of which the Secretary of State proposes, as I have just stated, to place in the Library.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask whether it is a fact that the Report of the Police Commission appointed by Lord Curzon found that the want of co-operation on the part of the people of India was due to terrorism by the police, and the Commission found that they did not wonder that the people shrank from taking any part in the investigation of crime?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I am not sure that that is quite a correct summary of the Report. It is true that the Commission finds that the investigations on the part of the police were sometimes unnecessarily oppressive. If the hon. Member will allow me, I will quote two or three lines from the Report, and at the same time I regret to have to refer to certain characteristics of the Indian people:—
  "Neither do the Commission forget that much may be said in excuse for the misconduct of the police in the generally indifferent attitude of the people in respect of crime; in the encouragement of corruption by the readiness with which the people offer illegal gratifications; and in the low pay and poor prospects of tihe police service."
  In connection with that the Indian Government are endeavouring, both by increasing the pay and generally increasing the standard, to remedy that of which the Report speaks.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask whether I am not perfectly correct in stating that the Report textucally states that there can be no wonder the people are said to be in terror of the police and to abstain from taking any part in the investigation of crime? Are not those the words of the Report?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: It must be read in connection with the context.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether any assistance is given to the Government of India in improving the police by wholesale denunciations in this House of the character of those we have heard?
  Mr. LUPTON: May I ask as to his remark about the character of the Indian people whether other people would not be liable to corrupt influences when they are willing to be corrupted?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a general question on which hon. Members can form their own opinion.

  Medical Appointments (India).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the India Office had received a resolution
  452
  unanimously adopted at a meeting of the members of the medical profession, held under the auspices of the Bombay Medical Union, submitting that the present system of reserving all high and important posts in the medical service of India for military officers of the Indian Medical Service had led to the systematic exclusion of Indian doctors from them, no matter how highly qualified or deserving those Indian doctors might be; whether he was aware that the system in question had given rise to discontent and imposed unnecessary expense of over £100,000 on the Indian revenue; and what steps it was proposed to take in the matter?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has not received the resolution referred to; on the general subject, I would refer the hon. Member to the correspondence recently presented to Parliament as to the steps that are being taken to promote the growth of an independent medical profession in India by throwing open to the profession in general some of the various Civil appointments now held by officers of the Indian Medical Service and other similar appointments which may be created in future.
  Sir H. CRAIK: In making these changes has the Secretary of State had regard to the needs of the large number of English officials in India?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: Both the Secretary of State and the Viceroy are making inquiries.
  Mr. REES: Would not the expense of Indian administration be greatly increased if military medical officers were not engaged in Civil employment in time of peace, inasmuch as a double set of officers would have to be retained?

  Federated Malay States (Death Rate).
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the death rate in the Federated Malay States in 1908; and whether he would give the figures for rubber plantations, as well as for the general population, if available?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The death rate in 1908 was approximately 38 per 1,000. No separate statistics are available as regards the death rate amongst labourers on rubber plantations.
  Mr. J. WARD: Can the hon. Gentleman give any explanation of the difference between a death rate of 38 per thousand and the previous figure of 84?
  Colonel SEELY: The death rate given in reply to a previous question, to which I think the hon. Member refers, was for Indian indentured labourers. This is the general death rate. We have not the figures for all the labourers, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes us to obtain them we will try to do so.
  Mr. J. WARD: I think the House and the country would like to have them.
  Colonel SEELY: I will endeavour to obtain them.
  Sir H. COTTON: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that the indentured labourers are adults—men in the prime of life—whereas the figures he has just given relate to the whole population?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, that is why I said I would try to get the figures. If the facts are as grave as they appear, it is certainly a very serious matter.

  Foreign Firms in United Kingdom (Capital).
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH (on behalf of Mr. Hooper)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he could inform the House of the number of foreign firms or companies carrying on business within the United Kingdom; and whether he could give an estimate of the capital employed therein?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr Tennant): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department to answer the question of the hon. Member. There is no information in the possession of the Board of Trade as to the number of foreign firms carrying on business in this country. The number of foreign companies incorporated outside the United Kingdom (including Colonial companies) which have established a place of business in the United Kingdom and have effected registration with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies is 889. I am, however, unable to give the hon. Member an estimate of the capital employed by such foreign companies in the United Kingdom.

  Carbon-Monoxide Poisoning.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention had been directed to a disease affecting certain workers in the printing trade known as carbon-monoxide poisoning, arising from the fumes of a gas mow being largely used in heating the
  454
  metal pots attached to linotype composing machines; and whether he would cause an inquiry to be made with a view to the disease being scheduled as an industrial disease under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I have made inquiry into the case of which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me particulars, and the reports would appear to show that it was a case of gradual poisoning by carbon-monoxide. Such cases are extremely rare, and no other case of the kind in connection with linotype work is known to the Department. Poisoning by carbon-monoxide is, of course, not uncommon, but it is almost invariably more or less sudden, and of the nature of an accident, so as to come clearly under the main provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The question of scheduling carbon-monoxide poisoning as a disease was considered by the Industrial Diseases Committee, but they were unable to regard the evidence as sufficient to justify their recommending its inclusion. In view, however, of the present case, I will give instructions for the matter to be carefully watched by the officers of the Department.
  Mr. LUPTON: Is it not a fact that gas companies of late years have introduced carbon-monoxide into their gas in much larger proportions than used to be done?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: That may be the case. Does my hon. Friend mean that that would account for the poisoning?
  Mr. LUPTON: It might result from a slight leakage.

  Lodger and Service Franchises (Number of Voters).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked what were the estimated numbers of those who were on the Parliamentary register by virtue of the lodger franchise and of the service franchise, respectively, in England, Scotland, and Ireland?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The available figures are given in the Return of Parliamentary Constituencies (Electors, etc.), (United Kingdom), issued in March last (House of Commons (64), 1909). The figures for lodgers are complete (see page 20 of the Return). As regards service franchise, the figures for England and Wales are given on page 12 (Occupation Voters, Division II.), but the figures for Scotland and Ireland are not distinguished from other occupation voters.

  Manx Constitution (Inquiry).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could state whether there was to be an inquiry into the reform of the Manx constitution; and, if so, when such inquiry would take place?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I hope that the inquiry announced in the spring will take place before long. It has been delayed by the pressure of Parliamentary work and by Ministerial changes, and I am not yet in a position to name a date.

  Old Age Pensions (Isle of Man).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the people in the Isle of Man were paying their quota by taxation to the cost of old age pensions, he would make representations to the Lieutenant-Governor of the island with a view to the early adoption in the island of the Old Age Pensions Act?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: There has been no increase in the contribution which the Isle of Man makes to the Imperial Exchequer, and I do not know on what ground it is suggested that the people in the Isle of Man are paying any quota to the cost of old age pensions. The provision of old age pensions in the island depends upon the ability to raise revenue adequate to their cost. The question has been, and is, under the careful consideration of the Lieutenant-Governor, but it is a matter solely in the discretion of the insular Legislature.

  Disturbances in Liverpool (Inquiry).
  Mr. M'ARTHURasked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to the renewal of sectarian disturbances in Liverpool and the danger of further outbreaks, he would explain why the appointment of a Commissioner to hold a sworn inquiry had been delayed, and state what action, if any, in the interests of peace and order, he proposed to take?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The reason for the delay is twofold: First, that the city council were unable to send a final reply for a month to my letter of September 6th asking certain necessary questions as to the arrangements for the inquiry; and secondly, that on October 6th they passed a fresh resolution asking that the inquiry should be held only if the evidence could be taken on oath. To take the evidence
  456
  on oath will require legislation, and I am considering whether a short Bill for that purpose can be introduced.

  Kingswinford Common Lands (Plan).
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH (on behalf of Mr. Hooper)asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he was aware that the plan of common lands made in respect of and referred to in the Act of Parliament, 24 Geo. III., 1784, which divided and enclosed such common lands, was missing, and that the owners of land in the district affected were unable to tell if their land was or was, not part of such common lands; and whether he would obtain from the lord of the manor a copy of such plan to which Members of this House might have access?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this question on behalf of my hon. Friend. I presume that the lands alluded to are those dealt with in the Kingswinford Enclosure Act, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the then Home Secretary to a question on this subject on 27th July, 1897 (Hansard, Volume 51, column 1223). Though the matter is not one that comes in any way within my authority, I have communicated with the solicitor to the Earl of Dudley, who is lord of the manor, and he informs me that the plan originally deposited in the parish church has been missing for many years, but that it is believed that there are other copies in the district; and that persons interested in the enclosed land have been permitted to see the maps in Lord Dudley's possession, and recently a copy was furnished on payment of the cost to an applicant.

  Cattle Disease (Leebotwood, Salop).
  Mr. STANIERasked the hon. Member for South Somerset if he could give any information as to the cause of death of five cows which died suddenly on the farm of Mr. T. J. Hollis, of Betchcott, Leebotwood, Salop; and if the Board had made inquiries into this mysterious malady?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): We have not received any information as to the deaths of the animals mentioned, nor should we in ordinary course do so unless they were reported to the police as affected with, or suspected of, any of the contagious diseases scheduled by Order under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894. We will,

  457
  however, have inquiry made, and I should be much obliged if the hon. Member will be good enough to supply me with any information he may have on the subject.

  Decrease in Horses (London).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he could give any information as to the decrease of horses in London during this and the last three years respectively?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The returns collected by the Board relate only to horses used for agricultural purposes, and mares kept for breeding and unbroken horses. They do not therefore supply the information desired by the hon. and gallant Member with regard to London.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me to whom I can apply for the information?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I will inquire.

  Small Holdings (Earl of Gainsborough's Estate).
  Mr. ESSEXasked what land on the estate of the Earl of Gainsborough was recently offered for small holdings, and where is it situated?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: So far as we are aware, no land has recently been offered for small holdings on Lord Gainsborough's estate.

  Vaccination Act, 1907 (Declarations).
  Mr. LUPTONasked the President of the Local Government Board if he would state for what proportion of the births occurring from 1st January to 30th June, 1909, were declarations made under the Vaccination Act, 1007; and how many declarations were actually made during that period?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The number of births in England and Wales registered in the first two quarters of 1909 was 466,216. It cannot at present be stated in respect of bow many of these children statutory declarations of conscientious objection to vaccination have been made. The number of declarations received by the vaccination officers during the first six months of the present year may be stated approximately as 88,500.

  Parish Councillors (Number).
  Mr. ESSEXasked the President of the Local Government Board if he could say
  458
  how many parish councillors there were in England at this date, and how many of them were women?
  Mr. BURNS: It is estimated that the number of parish councillors in England and Wales is about 58,000. I am unable to say how many of them are women.

  Irish Exporting Manufacturers (Directory).
  Mr. P. O'BRIEN (on behalf of Mr. Boland)asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he could now state what steps had been taken to secure the publication at an early date, for use outside the United Kingdom, of the promised directory of exporting manufacturers of Ireland; and could he state in what languages the necessary information would be given?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE for IRELAND (Mr. T. W. Russell): Circulars and memoranda calling attention to this proposed directory will be issued in the course of a few days to the Press and Irish exporting manufacturers. The necessary information will be given in English, French, German, Spanish, and Italian.

  Old Age Pensions (Suspension Pending Appeals).
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he was aware that it was the practice, where a pension officer had appealed against a pension which had already been granted and for which payments had begun, to suspend payment until the appeal had been determined; whether, seeing that the pension had become in such cases a charge upon the public funds, he would say under what statutory or other authority this payment became suspended by an administrative Act?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Under Section (7) (1) (c) of the Old Age Pensions Act the allowance of a claim by a pension committee is, in the event of an appeal being made against it, not operative, but the claim stands referred to the central pension authority, and no pension can commence to accrue under Section 5 (2) of the Act until it has been allowed by that authority. In such cases the pension does not become a charge upon public funds until the appeal has been determined, and any payment made before notice of appeal was given is to be deemed to be a payment made in error.

  Customs (Preventive Officers' Examination).
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state when the successful candidates at the last preventive officers' examination in connection with His Majesty's Customs are likely to be appointed, and the causes which have contributed to the delay in regard to the matter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Successful candidates at the Departmental examinations for posts of preventive officers are promoted to such posts as vacancies arise. Of the 39 officers successful at the last examination, 13 have already been promoted, but there are no more actual vacancies at present, and it is not possible to state how soon the remaining 26 can be absorbed.

  Bristol Headmaster's Superannuation Allowance.
  Sir HOWELL DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Education what is the total amount of the superannuation allowance and annuity on which Mr. J. T. Francombe, headmaster of the Redcliffe Boys School, Bristol, will be retired on 27th October next, and at what age such retirement takes place, and after what number of years of service as a certificated teacher in public elementary schools?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): Mr. Francombe's certificate has not yet expired, and his case has, therefore, not yet been referred to the Treasury for consideration with a view to the award of a superannuation allowance and annuity. Mr. Francombe's certificate was continued for a year after he reached the age of 65. The period of extension will expire on 24th October, at which date he will be 66 years of age, and will have served for 37 years as a certificated teacher.
  Sir HOWELL DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an idea as to the scale on which the pension will be based?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: Not at present; the matter has been referred to the Treasury.

  Prince of Wales (Admiral of the Fleet).
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has been recently promoted to the rank of Admiral of the Fleet?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The reply is in the negative

  Admiralty Contracts (Fair Wage Clause).
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Fairfield Shipbuilding Company, of Govan, the London and Glasgow Shipbuilding and Engineering Company, of Govan, Messrs. John Brown and Company's Shipbuilding Company, of Clydebank, Messrs. W. Beardmore and Company's Shipbuilding Company, of Dalmuir, and Messrs. Yarrow and Company, of Scotstoun, pay the labourers in their employ 4½d. per hour; and whether, in view of these facts and of the fact that 4d. per hour only is paid by Scott's Shipbuilding Company, of Greenock, to their labourers, he will take steps to enforce the fair wage clause in this case?
  Mr. McKENNA: Having regard to the relative geographical positions of the firm of Messrs. Scott and of the other firms named in the first part of the question, it has not been considered necessary to make any inquiry as to the comparative rates of pay of labourers employed by Messrs. Scott and by those other firms. The Fair Wages Clause enforces the payment of the rates current in the district, but does not enforce the same rate in different districts.

  Second-class Cruisers (Orders).
  Mr. RENWICKasked whether, in view of the depressed state of the shipbuilding industry and the consequent curtailment of employment and the near approach of winter, the orders can now be placed for the second-class cruisers for which tenders were received by the Admiralty upwards of a month ago?
  Mr. McKENNA: There will be no delay in the placing of these orders.
  Mr. RENWICK: The suggestion of the question is that there has been delay. May I ask if the delay is on account of an alteration in the plans or the abandonment of the intention to give the orders?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman is in error in assuming that there has been any delay. There has been no delay; there will be no delay.

  Labour Exchanges (Welsh Qualification).
  Sir IVOR HERBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Committee appointed to make selection from among the candidates for employment in labour exchanges has been instructed to make provision of a sufficient

  461
  number of employés able to read, write, and speak the Welsh language for service in the exchanges in Wales and Monmouthshire; and whether, in making selection for appointments in Wales and Monmouthshire, preference will be given to candidates possessing the bilingual qualification?
  Mr. TENNANT: No instruction of the kind suggested has been issued to the Committee of Selection. In the allocation of officers to the various districts regard will, however, naturally be had to ability to deal with the special local conditions.

  Island of Vatersay (Crofters).
  Mr. COCHRANEasked the Lord Advocate whether the prospective crofters and cottars in the island of Vatersay have been requested by the Congested Districts Board to sign agreements; whether these agreements differ from the terms of the Crofters Acts; and whether all these crofters and cottars have accepted these terms?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The agreements provide for the tenure being that of the Crofters Acts, subject to the terms of the agreements, which, in accordance with precedent in similar cases, include specific regulations on various points of estate management made in the general interest of the various townships. The agreements have so far been signed by 51 out of 58 applicants.
  Mr. COCHRANE: Have any of these crofters been threatened with eviction if they do not sign these agreements?
  Mr. URE: No.
  Mr. COCHRANE: In no cases?
  Mr. URE: No.
  Mr. COCHRANEasked the Lord Advocate whether he will publish the further correspondence regarding Vatersay which has passed between the cottars and squatters and the Congested Districts Board, the Secretary for Scotland, and the Lord Advocate; also the correspondence which has passed between the agent for the Congested Districts Board and the agent for the cottars and squatters, Mr. Donald Shaw; and also the correspondence between this gentleman and the secretary to the Congested Districts Board?
  Mr. URE: The correspondence will be published, if desired, in due course; but arrangements for the settlement of the farm are at present going on, and it would not be expedient to publish any correspondence until they are concluded.
  Mr. COCHRANE: May I ask when the conclusion will be arrived at, and when we may expect the correspondence to be published?
  Mr. URE: I cannot say the precise date.
  Mr. COCHRANE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very great interest in this experiment?

  Whaling Stations (Regulation).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that two members of the crew of the fishing-boat "Children's Trust" were prepared to give evidence on oath with reference to the identity of the vessel charged with contravention of the law for the regulation of whaling stations, and of the feeling that has been aroused by the abandonment of the prosecution, he will state whether the duties of the procurator fiscal were undertaken by someone else, and, if so, by whom?
  Mr. URE: The duties of the procurator fiscal were performed by himself.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: May I inquire, in view of the fact that the Bill for the regulation of whaling stations in Shetland was blocked by the ex-Member for King's Lynn, at the instance of Messrs. Salveson, and that there is a very uneasy feeling that the same gentlemen still exercise an entirely unjustifiable influence, he will publish the evidence which the fishermen in question were prepared to give?
  Mr. URE: No, Sir.

  Post Office (Auxiliary Labour at Christmas).
  Mr. CURRANasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the prevalence of unemployment, he will issue the same instructions as he did last year for the employment of auxiliary labour during the Christmas pressure?
  Mr. JOHN JOHNSONalso asked the Postmaster-General if he can state the number of unemployed persons who were engaged by the Post Office authorities at Christmas, 1908; if the venture was a success; and if he will continue the same procedure for 1909?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I will answer these two questions together. As regards the figures asked for by the hon. Member for Gateshead, I could not supply them without considerable labour. But my specific instructions were that genuinely unemployed men should be, as far as possible, employed; and I know that these instructions were carried out. I have already issued instructions to the Controller of the London Postal Service to the postmasters and others concerned similar to those of last year. They are shortly as follows: "The Postmaster-General desires to remind you that in selecting men for casual assistance during the Christmas pressure it is desirable to engage men who are genuinely unemployed, if suitable men can be found, in preference to those already in work. Married men should be preferred." Where a labour exchange, or if there be no labour exchange, where a local distress committee exists, communication should be opened with the exchange or committee, and a certain number of the men employed should be selected from those recommended by them. It will be desirable to point out to the exchange or local committee the importance of recommending men of good character and suitable for the work.
  Lord BALCARRES: Is it expected that more men will be employed during the forthcoming Christmas than is normally the case?
  Mr. BUXTON: I cannot say at present. The circular issued is on the same lines to that issued last year.
  Mr G. N. BARNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who are men genuinely unemployed, having regard to the fact that there may be no work for men who want it?
  Mr. BUXTON: I should say generally if I were to give a definition that it was men who really were anxious to obtain work and were unable to get it.
  Mr. BARNES: Is it intended to set up a new inquisition by the Post Office in regard to these men?
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not understand what is meant by "a new inquisition." We receive applications for the work, and those who apply have to fill up a form to show where they have been employed before in order that we may be able to see if they are really men who, as I said, really desire to work, and are not mere loafers.
  Mr. CURRAN: May I ask if an age limit has been set up?
  Mr. BUXTON: The age limit was a little lower, and I have raised it to 45. We have found that is about the age we can go to. But if I find active men about that age we might consider their case.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Are there any men out of employment who would not work if they got the opportunity?
  Mr. BUXTON: So far as we can, we employ those whom we know are used to the work.
  Lord BALCARRES: What is the nature of the preference given to those applicants whose applications come from places where labour exchanges do not exist?
  Mr. BUXTON: I said, "Where labour exchanges or distress committees exist." It does seem to me that these having been created under Statute, and being under the control of the Local Government Board, we ought as far as possible to consult them in regard to the men we should employ.

  King's Lynn Post Office.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that much unestablished indoor labour, both male and female, is employed at the King's Lynn office, and that for some while telegraph messages have been despatched by a female learner receiving no wages; and whether he will inquire into the administration of that office with a view to restricting the amount of unestablished and untrained labour there employed?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am having inquiry made.

  Territorial Force (Auxiliary Postal Officials).
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRISasked the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to recommend an alteration in the Post Office and Treasury regulations which provide for the stoppage of the pay of auxiliary postmen and other part-time officers during the time they are attending camp in the Territorial Forces?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am not in a position to reopen this question at the present time.

  Birtley and Chester-le-Street (Durham) Postal Districts.
  Mr. JOHN TAYLORasked the Postmaster-General if he can state what is the index number of units of work and cost of living in the Birtley and Chester-le-Street postal districts?
  Mr. BUXTON: The number of units of work at Chester-le-Street is 26. There are no separate units of work for Birtley, which is a sub-office under Newcastle-on-Tyne. The cost of living at these places is estimated to be about normal. The staff at each office receive an increase in their various wage under the classification.

  FINANCE BILL.

    SPIRIT DUTIES (LOCAL RATES).
    Sir HENRY CRAIK (for Mr. Gardner)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the diminished consumption of spirits will lead to a reduction in the grants from Customs and Excise Duties made to local education authorities under the Technical Instruction Act; if there is such a reduction, will any aid be given to local education authorities who prepared their estimates for 1909–10 before the Budget was introduced; and, if not, will the local rates Buffer by the limitation of their share of the Customs and Excise Duties to the produce at the old rate of duty?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is not at present possible to say to what extent the diminished consumption of spirits during the current financial year will affect the amount of the payments to local taxation accounts under the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890, still less to what extent any reduction in the payments to those accounts may affect the contributions which county councils are empowered to make out of their shares of those payments for the purposes of technical instruction under Section 1 (2) of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890. It would, therefore, be premature to enter into a discussion of the contingencies contemplated in the latter part of the question.

    HOTEL LICENCE (WHITEHALL COURT).
    Lord EDMUND TALBOT (for Mr. Samuel Roberts)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the increased Licence Duty for Whitehall Court will amount to the sum of £790 18s. as against £20 at present, whereas the total receipts for excisable liquors only amount to £2,385, and that the imposition of this increased charge will necessitate the surrender of the licence, causing inconvenience to the occupants of the building as well as loss to the revenue; and what steps he proposes to take to meet this and similar cases?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend is aware that a licence at the hotel rate
    466
    of £20 is at present held for Whitehall Court. As regards the duty which will be payable under the Finance Bill, I may point out that under Clause 45 (3), as amended in Committee, the duty payable in respect of hotels, etc., may, at the option of the person by whom the duty is payable, be a duty of 25 per cent. on such amount as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue certify to be the annual compensation value of the premises. Consequently, until such compensation value has been determined, it is not possible to say what will be the amount of duty payable, but it seems hardly probable that it will be as high as is suggested in the question.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to reply to the last part of the question: What steps he proposes to take to meet this and similar cases?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I pointed out that until the compensation value is determined it is impossible to say what the duty will be, and therefore it seems unnecessary to take any steps at present.

    LICENSED PREMISES (COMPENSATION VALUE).
    Mr. G. D. FABER (for Sir Henry Kimber)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will inform the House or lay upon the Table a statement showing the method of calculation which will be adopted by the Commissioners of Excise in ascertaining the compensation value of licensed premises, and also the annual equivalent of such compensation value and the data employed in such calculations, in order that licence holders may be able to estimate their own liabilities in business?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I may refer the hon. Baronet to my right hon. Friend's reply of the 19th instant to a question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, which dealt very fully with the subject.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Considering the importance of the changes foreshadowed in that reply of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask when the Amendment will be placed upon the Paper?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think it will be done in good time.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Licence Clauses are certain to be reached on Monday?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will represent that to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: And that the changes made amount almost to a new Licence Duty?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not anticipate that.

    UNDEVELOPED LAND DUTY (GLASS-HOUSES EXEMPTION).
    Mr. B. STANIER (for Mr. Abel Smith)asked whether the proposed exemption from Undeveloped Land Duty of land on which glass-houses have been erected is intended to extend to land bonâ fide used in connection with the business, but not actually covered with glass?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As my right hon. Friend stated yesterday in the Debate, the question whether such land is developed by the erection on it of glass-houses or greenhouses is one for the decision of the Commissioners, subject, of course, to appeal.
    Mr. STANIER: Is it not a fact that land bonâ fide held in connection with these glass-houses is part of the development of that particular garden?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate upon the Finance Bill.

    LIEUT.-COLONEL MANLIER AND THE BUDGET.
    Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to a speech made by Lieut.-Colonel C. T. Mander, D Squadron, Staffordshire Yeomanry, in which he complained of the Budget, and said that no drill hall or riding school would be provided until there was a new Government; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. HALDANE: This matter has already come under the consideration of the Army Council, who have instituted inquiries regarding it.

  4th Battalion Lincolnshire Regiment.
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBYasked the Secretary of State for War if it is proposed to disband the Bourne half company of the 4th Battalion Lincolnshire Regiment, whose strength is three officers and 41 men, in view of the fact that the regiment being already 142 men below establishment, the general officer commanding, in his report on the regiment, urged the importance of bringing up the battalion to its full strength; if it is customary to convey the decisions of the Army Council to the county associations before or at the same time as to the district headquarters; and if this was done in this case?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): No action has been taken by the military authorities with regard to the proposed disbandment of this half company to which the hon. Member refers. Therefore if such a step is being considered it is on the initiative of the county association. Any Army Council decision affecting the work for which a county association is responsible is notified to the association as well as to the command headquarters if these are in any way affected. In the present case there having been no Army Council decision, no notification has been made.

  Cavalry Manœuvres (Six-Year-Old Horses).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked what number and what percentage of five-year-old horses were employed on the recent cavalry manœuvres in the cavalry and artillery respectively?
  Mr. HALDANE: In accordance with a decision given in July no horses under six years of age were permitted to be employed at manœuvres.

  Yeomanry (Trained Horses).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary for War whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent the same horse being hired for several different corps in the same year, thus making a false estimate of trained horses available for the Yeomanry and inviting confusion and disaster in case of war?
  Mr. HALDANE: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a similar question put by the hon. and gallant Member on 12th July last.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries on the subject, as it is freely stated in Scotland that some of the horses served with three corps and some even with five?
  Mr. HALDANE: I have no doubt that may be so, but we are discouraging it as far as possible, and as soon as we get a census of horses we shall have a better system.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I hope so.

  8th Hussars (Men's Defective Teeth).
  Mr. RENWICKasked whether the 11 men belonging to the 8th Hussars who were recently certified as unfit for service in India owing to defective teeth have been retained for service in the Home depôt, or whether they have been dis-

  469
  charged from the Army, with or without a pension?
  Mr. HALDANE: Of the 13 men of this regiment found unfit for service in India at a preliminary inspection four only have been finally rejected. These four men have been discharged from the service.

  Inspectors of Musical Instruction in Ireland (Religions Views).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the reasons why the recent appointments of organising inspector of musical instruction and assistant organising inspector of musical instruction under the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, were not thrown open to competition by examination so as to give all the teachers under the Commissioners of National Education an equal opportunity of competing; whether applicants for the position were required to state their religious views; and, if so, for what reason?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Commissioners of National. Education that the appointments in question were advertised in the public Press, and that it was open to any national teacher who felt qualified for either position to apply for it. The Commissioners consider that the course pursued by them in the selection of candidates secures the appointment of the most suitable officers. All candidates for appointments under the Board are required to give particulars as to their age, qualifications, and religious denomination, the information being required for administrative purposes.
  Captain CRAIG: What is the necessity for stating one's religious views in connection with the teaching of music?
  Mr. BIRRELL: For administrative purposes it is stated that in Ireland it is sometimes desirable to know. These things, to me, I confess, are inexplicable.
  Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman in future confine these appointments to those under the administration of the Board, so as to encourage a teacher to qualify for such examinations?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will communicate that to the Commissioners of National Education.
  Captain CRAIG: It would be much appreciated.

  Labour in Nyasaland.
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether the Government
  470
  policy as regards the emigration of labour from Nyasaland has undergone any change since he replied to the question of the Member for Montgomery Boroughs on 15th September?
  Colonel SEELY: There has been no change either as regards the general policy or as regards the number of Nyasaland natives to be recruited. Only questions of detail remain under discussion.
  Mr. REES: May those interested in trade in Nyasaland take it that only 3,000 passes stand, and that no more will be issued this year?
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, certainly, Sir.

  NEW WRIT.
  For the county of Armagh (South Armagh), in the room of William McKillop, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Patrick O'Brien.]
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT (1897) EXTENSION.
  Bill to extend the powers and provisions with respect to the construction and carrying of sewers of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, to water mains and pipes of statutory trustees and commissioners of water undertakings.—[Mr. Gibson.]—Presented, and read the first time. (To be read a second time on 1st November.)
FINANCE BILL.
As amended in Committee of the whole House, further considered.
UNDEVELOPED LAND DUTY.

  CLAUSE 16.—(Duty on Site Value of Undeveloped Land.)
  (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, there shall be charged, levied, and paid for every financial year in respect of the site value of undeveloped land a duty, called Undeveloped Land Duty, at the rate of one halfpenny for every twenty shillings of that site value.
  (2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act land shall be deemed to be undeveloped land if it has not been developed by being built upon or by being used bonâ fide for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture:
  Provided that—

  (a) Where any land having been so developed reverts to the condition of

  471
  undeveloped land within the meaning of this Section, and so remains for one year, it shall be treated as undeveloped land for the purpose of Undeveloped Land Duty until it is again developed; and

  (b) Where the owner of any land shows that he or his predecessors in title have spent sums at the rate of at least one hundred pounds per acre for the purpose of so developing the land on roads (including paving, curbing, metalling, and other works in connection with roads) or sewers, that land shall, for the purposes of this Section, not be treated as undeveloped land although it is not for the time being built upon or used for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture, but for the purposes of this provision no sums shall be taken into account after ten years have elapsed since the time when the sums were spent.

  (3) For the purposes of Undeveloped Land Duty, the site value of undeveloped land shall be taken to be the value adopted as the original site value or, where the site value has been ascertained under any subsequent periodical valuation of undeveloped land for the time being in force, the site value as so ascertained:
  Provided that where Increment Value Duty has been paid in respect of the increment value of any undeveloped land, the site value of that land shall, for the purposes of the assessment and collection of Undeveloped Land Duty, be reduced by a sum equal to five times the amount paid as Increment Value Duty.
  (4) For the purposes of Undeveloped Land Duty undeveloped land does not include the minerals.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE Mr. JAMES HOPE moved, in Sub-section (2), after the word "agriculture" ["other than agriculture"], to add the words "and if it could be developed without causing to contiguous or adjacent land in the possession of the same owner an injury countervailing the advantage he might be expected to derive from its development."
  This Amendment applies to land which is not capable of development without causing injury to the property adjacent held by the same owner. There are many cases where this will undoubtedly be so. Supposing a man owns 40 acres of land and one corner of his property is adjacent
  472
  to some cross-roads along which there is a good deal of cyclist and pedestrian traffic. Some enterprising person might Bay, "Here is an ideal site for a public-house, and I will give you a large sum for the piece of land at that corner." To build upon that land will undoubtedly be developing it. The Attorney-General said yesterday that development meant getting the utmost price the owner could get, and in this case the selling of a site for a public-house might be deemed getting the best advantage the owner could get for his plot of land. The owner might refuse to sell that particular corner because it would affect the value of the other 39 acres. There are some narrow-minded people who object to public-houses, and the landlord might be looking forward to selling the whole of his 40 acres for residential property, and the taking away of the little plot of land at the corner for the purpose of a public-house might spoil the prospects of letting the remainder for residential purposes. There are many other examples where the letting of a portion of an estate would depreciate the rest of the property. The owner of a piece of land might get an offer for the erection of chemical works which would emit obnoxious fumes, and there might be available other land for such a factory where no harm would be done to neighbouring property. I might multiply instances of this kind. In the South of England there are a number of small residential estates varying from 80 to 100 acres, and it is quite possible that one or two corners of such estates might be developed as separate sites, and if they were the amenities of the property as a whole might be destroyed. Somebody might offer a large price for four or five acres, and many such cases have come to my notice. I know in some of these cases substantial compensation has been paid for severance, and the same element which allows a man to obtain compensation for severance ought to operate in the cases I have mentioned. I know that Clause 25 deals with restricted covenants, but the provisions are very vague and unsatisfactory, and they do not cover very many cases of this kind. I think it is necessary that you should not impose this tax in cases where there is no public object to serve. It is not a question of land being needed for housing. It is simply a matter of whether it is possible for the Commissioners to say that this or that land might be developed, although the owner can prove that only part of it could be developed, and the whole of it

  473
  would be injured by that development. I think hon. Members will realise that such cases ought to be met, but they are not met by this Clause. The valuation may be taken on any small unit of land. Under Clause 29 it would be quite within the power of the Commissioners to say that any particular corner of a piece of land if not developed might be developed, and in that case the whole of the value of the remaining land would be destroyed. I do not think this case was brought prominently forward in Committee.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS Sir PHILIP MAGNUS seconded the Amendment. I have known many similar cases to those brought forward by my hon. Friend.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I quite recognise the force of the arguments which have been advanced by the hon. Member, but I do not think he need have any apprehension on this point. I think the words of the Clause quite cover the sort of case he has mentioned I am not quite sure that the introduction of such words as he has proposed would not be really embarrassing. Take the case of the public-house which he has given as an illustration. I do not think that is a likely case.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I said it would be an unlikely one.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think we may dismiss the public-house case at once. A valuer looking at the land would not be likely to say, "This is a good site for a public-house." Besides a licence is a very difficult thing to get.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Yes, but the owner might have an offer subject to a licence being granted.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The granting of the licence depends upon the magistrate. No valuer would say that if a judicial authority granted a licence then undoubtedly this land is very valuable. That is not the principle we have to follow in regard to land. The hon. Member said that the setting up of a public-house in the case he alluded to would depreciate the value of the other property. I hope he will bear that admission in mind when we come to discuss later clauses in this Bill.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I said that narrow-minded persons might think so.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I hope he will bear that admission in mind when we come to another part of the Finance Bill. A far
  474
  better case given by the hon. Member was that of a man who has had an offer for a piece of land upon which to erect a factory, the nature of which might destroy the value of the surrounding property. Before any owner sells land for that purpose he always insists upon getting a price out of proportion to the actual value of the area covered by the factory, because he has to take into account the fact that the rest of his property will be destroyed. The owner may ask £20,000 for a piece of land for the setting up of a factory, although he might be prepared to sell the same piece of land for £10,000 for some purpose which would not cause a nuisance. Valuers always take that kind of thing into account. What they have got to do is to find the market value of the whole of the property, and the market value for exceptional things of that kind will only be taken as evidence, that is all. I think the hon. Gentleman may very well leave it to the words of the Act itself.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What words?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Clause 25—"For the purposes of this Part of this Act the total value of land means the amount which the fee simple of the land, if sold at the time in the open market by a willing seller in its then condition, might be expected to realise." That is commonly known as market value. If you send a valuer down for Death Duties—it is the same principle—he does not take an exceptional offer of that kind and say, "No, you have had an offer of £5,000 for a few acres for the purpose of setting up a bone factory; therefore, the whole is worth £30,000."
  Mr JAMES HOPE: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten Clause 29, which provides for assessment on separate parcels of land and apportionment of valuation?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, but he takes the whole of the land into account It is an apportionment entirely in the interests of the subject, and is made with a view to the increment. It is to prevent the State saying, "You have an increment of so much on this particular plot. If you spread that over the whole area it means that your increment is very considerable." It is purely in order to enable the subject to claim an apportionment, with a view of diminishing the amount of the increment charged. I do not think the words which

  475
  have been submitted by the hon. Gentleman could possibly be accepted. They would introduce a very serious complication, and I agree with what was said yesterday, that you do not want to introduce any of these unnecessary considerations. It is far better to aim at simplicity, if you can possibly achieve it, in an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer gives very cold comfort to any of those concerned in these matters or to those who are interested to secure justice for those who are concerned. He thinks it is better not to enter into these unnecessary matters, but what are the unnecessary matters? You are going to tax a man for not putting a particular plot of his land to a use which deteriorates the value of all the rest of the land more than he gets for that plot, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer describes that as a consideration into which it is unnecessary and better not to enter.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I said that when you are drafting an Act of Parliament you had better not enter into every consideration, which must be present to the mind of the valuer, but that is a very different thing. I certainly think the valuer ought to enter into those matters.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is certainly different from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as I understood it; but even that is not satisfactory. I could not quite make up my mind what was the Chancellor's real defence—whether it was that he did not wish to do what my hon. Friend wanted, and his concluding sentence, which I misunderstood, undoubtedly seemed to point to that, or whether it was that the Bill had already done what my hon. Friend wanted in a better way than he suggested. I gather now that it is the latter of the two contentions which is the right hon. Gentleman's defence. He says the owner ought to be protected against having a tax imposed upon land for not having put it to a use which would cause a greater deterioration of the rest of his property than the increased value given to the particular plot so used, and that that is done. How is it done? He referred us to the words of Clause 25, which defines, as he said, the total value. It is no longer to be the definition of total value, but is to become the definition of
  476
  gross value. That is immaterial except for the purpose of accuracy and clearness. The Government should, at least, remember the changes they are making in their definitions. "The gross value of land means the amount which the fee simple of the land, if sold at the time in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise." That is exactly the case which my hon. Friend put. It is not necessarily a question of estimate. A buyer comes along and says, "I will give you so much." The owner says: "That is so good an offer that I am forced to ask what you want it for?" The buyer says he wants it to put up a dust destructor, gas works, chemical works, or it may be simply a factory in a district where a factory is itself, so to speak, out of place. That is a definite offer. How can the valuer go behind it? How can a valuer say that the amount of an offer before the owner is not the value of the land, and disregard it? I venture to say Clause 25 will give no protection in a case of that kind. The valuer is not called upon to value the land in plots, and he will say, "Here is so much of the land of which the value may be comparatively small, but here is a particular plot which has a very high value, and the proof is that here is Mr. A, who offers to give a cheque for that amount for it to-day." There is no protection in Clause 25 for that case. It is quite true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, that when a man sells a bit of his land for what I may call a noxious use, he takes in the price which he gets compensation for the deterioration in the value of the rest of the land, but that is a consideration which is more germane to the Increment Tax than to the tax with which we are now dealing. It is a consideration I tried to press upon the Government when we were discussing the Increment Tax, I pointed out it was quite unfair to tax as unearned increment that which was compensation for the deterioration of the rest of the property. The Government refused to pay any attention to our representations, and decided to tax as unearned increment that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now himself explains is compensation for the deterioration of the surrounding property. It is impossible to trace any consistent idea underlying the Government action on these different Clauses. They seize upon whatever consideration for the moment is most convenient to their particular purpose, without any regard to what they said the day before or what they are going to

  477
  say the next day. They do not mind how they contradict themselves so long as they find some answer, good, bad, or indifferent, to the particular argument of the moment. It is not merely the case of a factory or of a noxious trade. A case of ordinary building may arise in exactly the same way. I was told the other day of a case in London which, if the facts given to me are correct, sufficiently illustrate my meaning. It is the kind of case to which, I think, all of us could point in populous districts with which we are acquainted. There was attached to a certain house in a closely inhabited district a considerable amount of ground, and the fact that there was this open ground caused the houses in the neighbourhool to be much sought after. The owner of the house and vacant ground sold it for building purposes at a building value—a high building value. It was thought by his friends that he had acted extremely foolishly, and that he had got a very bad price. I have been told something about the subsequent history of that land. The syndicate which took it failed, another syndicate which took it on more favourable terms also failed, and I am not certain whether a third syndicate is not now in process of failing in this attempt to develop land which appeared to have a great building value. It seemed to have a special building value because the houses in that neighbourhood were much sought after. But they were sought after because of the amenities of this vacant land, and, the moment it was cut up for building purposes, there was not only no demand for the houses put upon it, but the houses in the immediate locality also lost their tenants. Whether in that particular case the facts are as I have described I cannot say, but we all of us know that there are plenty of cases where a vacant plot of land may fetch a very good price provided there is no intention to build on the adjacent land. If there is such an intention to build the value is totally different. You must, in common fairness, do something to protect owners against having the land valued as if the offer made for any particular plot governed the price of the whole. The Government have not done that; neither does Clause 25 cover the point. There is no direction to the valuers to take account of the land as a whole. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not give any direction at all. That is the point raised by my hon. Friend; that is why he moves this Amendment. It points to a gap in the
  478
  Bill which ought to be filled up. My hon. Friend says in his Amendment, "You shall have regard to the whole of the land, to this extent, at any rate, that you shall not charge the land with the Undeveloped Land Duty on the possible value of a particular plot, without having regard to the damage which the use to which that particular plot is proposed to be put would do to the rest of the estate." I have got from the Chancellor of the Exchequer an admission that that is not in his Bill, that there is no direction of the kind to the valuers to take that into account, and I say it is only common fairness it should be taken into account; otherwise great injustice will result.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: It is very interesting to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer trying to convince a fatigued House that an Act of Parliament ought to be as simple as possible. I wonder when the right hon. Gentleman made that discovery. We have been debating and threshing out this Finance Bill for at least five months, and I think the general opinion in all quarters of the House is that, so far from its having advanced in simplicity, it has become greatly aggravated in complexity. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman practice what he preaches? Great simplicity in an Act of Parliament is, no doubt, much to be desired, but I am afraid that that doctrine is more honoured by the right hon. Gentleman in the breach than in the observance. As regards this particular Amendment, may I take a concrete case which seems to me to be to the point? Where I live in the country I bought some little time ago a rag mill on the Thames. It was worked by water power. It was a great detriment to the adjacent property. I threw the mill into disuse. At present it is not used for anything at all, and by reason of the disuse the property adjoining has risen in value. I have built some model cottages close to it. But suppose the Commissioners fixed upon the piece of land where this rag mill is and said, "It is disused, but we consider it is undeveloped land. It has a great business use for the purpose for which it used to be used, and we shall now value it as undeveloped land for the purposes of a rag mill." The effect of putting it in work again upon the adjoining property, and especially on my model cottages, would be most disastrous, because, after all, the rag mill was an intense nuisance. What I want to ask is—first, would the Commissioners, and, secondly, could they, take into account the

  479
  effect upon the adjoining property of reinstating the rag mill, or would they be obliged to insularise that particular property used as a rag mill? Is there anything in the Bill which entitles them to go into the position of the adjoining property or must they segregate this particular piece and consider it by itself without any regard to the detriment it may cause to the rest of the property? I think that is the point my hon. Friend had in mind when he moved this Amendment. I have given a concrete case. He only dealt with the matter in the abstract. I cannot see anything in the Bill which entitles
  the Commissioners to look outside a particular piece of land. In fact, I thought the whole argument of increment and decrement amounted to this—that they could only look at the increment and they could not consider the decrement. That constitutes a great hardship. Although we have met with but little response to our appeals, I think we should be wanting in our duty if we did not put forward points of this nature with a view to securing a remedy.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 168.

  Division No. 821.]

  AYES.

  [4.10 p.m.

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Foster, P. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Gordon, J.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Renton, Leslie

  Beck, A. Cecil

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

  Renwick, George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Stanier, Beville

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Bertram, Julius

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Valentia, Viscount

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Whitbread, S. Howard

  Chance, Frederick William

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Moore, William

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. James Hope and Mr. G. D. Faber.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Davies, David (Montgomery, Co.)

  NOES.

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Agnew, George William

  Crossley, William J.

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

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

  Astbury, John Meir

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Barker, Sir John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hodge, John

  Barnard, E. B.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Barnes, G. N.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Erskine, David C.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Beale, W. P.

  Essex, R. W.

  Idris, T. H. W.

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Betheil, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Falconer, J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Keating, M.

  Brace, William

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Brigg, John

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lambert, George

  Bright, J. A.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gibson, J. P.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Ginnell, L.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Cameron, Robert

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lupton, Arnold

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Guiland, John W.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Maclean, Donald

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Clough, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  M'Micking, Major G.

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

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Massie, J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Tomkinson, James

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Morse, L. L.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Verney, F. W.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Robinson, S.

  Vivian, Henry

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

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Myer, Horatio

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Walters, John Tudor

  O'Grady, J.

  Rowlands, J.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Phillpps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Sears, J. E.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Shackleton, David James

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

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

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Rees, J. D.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert instead thereof the words, "Where any land having been so developed or used reverts to the condition of undeveloped land owing to the buildings being abandoned, or owing to the land ceasing to be used for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture, it shall, on the expiration of one year after the buildings are so abandoned or the land ceases to be so used, as the case may be, be treated as undeveloped land for the purposes of Undeveloped Land Duty until it is again so developed or used."
  The reason why I put this Amendment in is that it was suggested by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Lord Castlereagh) that this provision might have the effect of treating houses which became vacant as undeveloped land and that that would be an interpretation which would be adopted. Therefore, he said it ought to be made clear that that was not the intention of the Bill, and on that ground I move the Amendment.
  Question, "That paragraph (a) stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I remember the discussion on this point, and I have been refreshing my memory about it in order to see what the point raised was. I think this is a question on which both sides of the House are at one, but are the Government satisfied that their new wording will really carry out their meaning? Personally, I should have thought that instead of the conjunction "or" we ought to have the conjunction "and," so that the proviso should read, "owing to the buildings being aban-
  482
  doned and owing to the land ceasing to be used for any business," etc., and not "owing to the buildings being abandoned or owing to the land ceasing to be used." I am not quite certain, as this is a question of draftsmanship, what the meaning of the word "abandoned" in regard to a building is. I quite admit that I am very likely to be wrong in a matter of construction and draftsmanship. Suppose the buildings are left vacant, is that in point of law an abandonment of them? Supposing a trade ceases to be carried on after a factory has been put up. Let us suppose it was one of the old Coventry silk factories at the time that the silk trade failed there. The factory would not let. The land would cease to be used and the factory would be abandoned, in one sense; but whether it would be legally abandoned or not is the point I wish to be informed upon. It was not letable, and the owner had to wait until some other trade came to Coventry and settled and found occupation for these factories, having more or less to transform them in the process. I admit I am quite unable to say what the interpretation of the word "abandoned" would be, but clearly a case of that kind ought not to be taxed. The land is in one sense developed. The owner would be very glad to find a tenant, but the trade has gone, and no other trade has come which can make use of those buildings. There may come a time when the right thing to do is to pull down that factory, abandon all the capital sunk in it, and put up something quite different, but there will be a long interval before such a position arises where it will pay you to pull down a factory and put up dwelling-houses or to pull down dwelling-houses and put up a factory. It may be either way, but surely if a man cannot get tenants for a building you do not mean to tax him. I take it that you do not. I

  483
  do not think you mean to tax him, and under these circumstances he is entitled to protection. Have you protected him by these words? It seems to me that the buildings would be abandoned or derelict, and that they would not afford a case for taxation.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree that on both sides of the House we have the same purpose, and what we mean by "abandoned" is not that the tenant has left you with a building and you are looking out for another tenant. It will not in that case have been "abandoned"; but, supposing the landlord took no further interest in it, did not repair it, allowed the roof to fall in. Then really "derelict" is the word.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will you put in the word "derelict"?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If it is a legal term I will. I find it is a legal term, and I should be quite willing to put it in. I understand it is a term that can be used, and if it would meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman I would move that the word "abandoned" be omitted and the word "derelict" be inserted.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It would be better to make it read "owing to the buildings becoming derelict."
  Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN: Before that is put, may I ask how it would apply to land? There is another question entirely apart from the building, and one part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment provides for a case where the land has ceased to be so used, that is to say, where it is not being used for any business trade or industry other than agriculture. Will the word "derelict" apply to land as well as to buildings? Then I think it would be an excellent word, and it ought to be used for this reason, that land will not have ceased to be used for a particular trade or business unless it has ceased to pay, and if it has ceased to pay it seems to me to be extremely hard upon the owner of the land that, having once developed it, and developed it successfully, the land has become undeveloped again, and then it is to be the subject of fresh taxation.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: "Derelict" would not be the word there, because it is clearly inapplicable to land, as there are all sorts of users as far as land is concerned. Supposing you take the case of a timber yard. You cannot say that the moment it
  484
  has ceased to be used for a timber yard the land becomes derelict. That is not the word, because you may use it for agricultural purposes. It means, cease to be used for that purpose. A rope walk is another case. It may cease to be used for that purpose, but "derelict" would not be the word to use. "Derelict" would be applicable to buildings and buildings alone.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: "Derelict" is a term very commonly used with regard to land. "Derelict land" is a common phrase, and it is perfectly well known what it means, and in this case of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman land is mentioned that has "ceased to be used for any trade, business, or industry other than agriculture." I want to know how that land is going to be protected, and I am afraid from what the right hon. Gentleman has said up to the present time there is no protection in his Clause for land of that description.
  Mr. J. BERTRAM: It seems to me that the word "abandoned" is an extremely loose word, and that the word "derelict" is very little better, and in any case, especially in regard to houses, this Clause must some time or another become the subject of judicial interpretation. I should be very glad to know if there is any real objection to retaining in the newly-proposed Clause what appeared in the old Clause, which I very much prefer. I should like to see the words "within the meaning of this Section" retained in the Clause. Then in the case of a, judicial decision having to be placed upon these words, "abandoned" or "derelict," the judge would be able to take into account the whole meaning of the Section and the whole scope of the tax.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Am I right in supposing, in regard to the illustration which the right hon. Gentleman gave as to a rope walk—a person who has started a rope walk finds that he cannot make a profit on the business, and consequently he gives it up—that the land on which the rope walk is erected when it is used as agricultural land is to be treated as undeveloped, and is to be taxed because it is no longer used as a rope walk, and he can get no tenant to take it? If that is so, it seems to me a very great hardship upon a man who has developed his land in a direction in which there is a demand that when it ceases to be profitable and he puts it back to the use of agriculture he is to be taxed.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then it is untaxed. It certainly would not be taxed. It could not be taxed as a rope walk or a building.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman exactly in what position a disused burial ground would be? Is that being used bonâ fide for any business, trade or industry other than agriculture? There are disused burial grounds, and a very great many of them, and therefore I do not quite see how they are to be dealt with under this Clause. The words are "ceasing to be used for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture." There is no trade, and I do not suppose even a burial ground which is being used would be described as being used for a "business, trade, or industry" unless it belonged to a company. Then I suppose in that connection it would be an industry; perhaps the only agricultural industry which the Government are going to leave out. How are you going to deal with a disused burial ground? How does that come under this Clause—a thing we cannot leave entirely on one side as of such insignificant importance or of such rare occurrence that it may be neglected by the draftsman.
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: With regard to the use of the word "derelict" we may consider the case of a factory. A foreign tariff injures the business, and the factory is closed. The owner might hope that the trade might be revived, and that possibly by a change of Government and of policy that which was derelict might very soon not be derelict.
  Mr. RENWICK: I have noticed several cases where disused burial grounds have been used for buildings, and all that is necessary is to get a faculty for the removal of the remains, and then the land is used.
  Amendments made in the proposed Amendment: To leave out the words "being abandoned," and to insert instead thereof the words "becoming derelict."
  To leave out the words "are so abandoned," and to insert instead thereof the words "have so become derelict."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Proposed Amendment, as amended, made.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Channing), was disposed of by the decision of the House last night.
  Sir FRANCIS CHANNING: We inserted, on the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, the words "including glass-houses or greenhouses" in Subsection (2) of this Clause. I, therefore, meant to submit the Amendment omitting the words "greenhouses or other" in order to argue the wider question, and what I wish to submit is that by the Amendment made yesterday the Government practically admitted that market gardens which have been made of a permanent nature ought to be treated as developed land. I wish to submit that, that provision having been made with regard to this higher class, it ought logically to be extended to other classes of market gardening where the outlay and expenditure has been of a permanent character, and would last a number of years, and that special consideration should be given to these cases.
  Mr. COX: The essence of my Amendment was that no agricultural land should be taxed, whereas this Amendment accepts the principle that agricultural land is to be taxed, but makes an exemption in the case of land on which certain development has taken place.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The House decided yesterday that agricultural land was to be taxed, and the whole argument raged round the question of small holdings and intensive culture in the neighbourhood of towns. Then came the very point which the hon. Baronet seeks to raise again. I do not see how if a Debate arises now it could be distinguished from the Debate that we had last night. It seems to raise exactly the same point.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On the Amendment we were discussing last night, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved in order to meet the case of glass-houses, I had intended to raise this very question of intensive culture. I did not do so because this Amendment distinctly raised that question, whereas the glass-houses Amendment did not do it. I suggest that there is something more in this Amendment than was raised by the glass-house Amendment, and at the same time that it is distinctly less than was raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Cox), and that there would be nothing inconsistent with the previous decisions of the House that they will not except all agricultural land, or that they will except land on which glasshouses have been put, in saying now that

  487
  they would also except land on which similar expenditure has been incurred though not in the form of glass-houses.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the governing words are "other than agriculture." These words stand in, and we cannot begin to whittle them away. We cannot begin to say agriculture is not to include the planting of raspberries, the growing of strawberries, and so on. There seems to be no object in putting in the general words if they are to be whittled away.
  Sir F. CHANNING: May I ask whether the position in which I stand of wishing to extend a provision which was introduced last night does not alter the conditions under which you made your ruling.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the Amendment ought to have been worked in somehow, if it were possible, on the word "agriculture," but we have passed that point.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I draw you attention to paragraph (b)? Paragraph (a) having said that Undeveloped Land Duty is to be charged generally on all undeveloped land, paragraph (b) provides that land on which a certain amount of money has been spent shall not be considered to be undeveloped, even though it does not fulfil the definition of "developed land." It seems to me that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet really runs exactly parallel with the exemption given in paragraph (b), though it applies to a different thing.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think paragraph (b) applies necessarily to agriculture.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is so. Sub-section (1) applies generally, and says that all undeveloped land is to be charged. Sub-section (2) says what undeveloped land is, and then paragraph (b) says that although certain land would be undeveloped land as defined in Sub-section (2), yet it is not to count as undeveloped land for the purpose of the tax.
  Mr. COX: The introduction of the word "greenhouses" does not bring out the parallel which the right hon. Gentleman opposite insists upon, because paragraph (b) says where you spend the money on sewers, etc., the land is exempt. In the same way, greenhouses being treated as buildings, where you spend money in developing land for the purpose of greenhouses that makes it an exactly analogous case to paragraph (b).
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member wishes me, in other words, to strike out paragraph (b). That is a concession which was made by the Government.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Subsection (2), paragraph (b), after the word "land" ["Where the owner of any land"], to insert the words "included in any scheme of land development."
  It was objected in Committee that the sum of £100 which the Government are prepared to take as the expenditure for exempting land for development purposes might not cover anything except the particular ground upon which the money is spent, and therefore we want to make it perfectly clear that the sum of money is to cover the whole ground for this part of the scheme of development. Otherwise it might very well be argued that the £100 only protects the land which is actually contiguous, as it were, to the road. This very largely covers the case of a garden city and also of a builder who develops an estate. He may spend £4,000 or £5,000 on one particular part of the property, but he develops the whole, and we want to make it clear that so long as the money is expended as a part of the scheme of development he shall be given credit for the whole of the £5,000, as far as the whole of that area is concerned. I move these words for that purpose.
  Amendment made.
  Further Amendment made: In same paragraph to leave out the words "spent sums at the rate of at least one hundred pounds per acre for the purpose of so developing the land," and to insert instead thereof the words "with a view to the land being developed or used as aforesaid incurred expenditure."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. RENWICK Mr. RENWICK moved, in the same paragraph, after the word "sewers" ["in connection with roads or sewers"], to insert the words "or on draining or levelling or (in case of any land intended to be used solely for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture) on railway sidings, tramways, quays, or jetties."
  This is an Amendment of very great importance to important interests in this country. The object of paragraph (b) is that where an expenditure of £100 an acre has been made the land shall not be considered as undeveloped land, provided the £100 is spent in a certain way. The object of my Amendment is to extend the purposes for which the money can be spent.

  489
  It is quite evident that the draftsmen have not considered the matter as it ought to have been considered. If it had been so considered they would have known that, in addition to roads, money is expended upon railway sidings, upon small tramway lines, upon retaining walls, jetties, quays, and upon drainage and similar works.
  I have two concrete cases in my own personal experience which I desire to bring before the House. The first of these is an important undertaking in the neighbourhood of Manchester—the Trafford Park Company. That was a very large estate primarily bought for the purpose of developing factories contiguous to the Manchester Ship Canal. It consisted of no less than 1,180 acres, of which 480 have already been developed for that purpose. Large works have been raised there, and dwellings have been put up in the neighbourhood for the convenience of the workers engaged in these factories. The development has been very enormous in that district, and a large amount of money has been spent on roads, not only for the convenience of the 480 acres which have been developed, but the whole 1,180. Not only have roads, but sewers, drains, walls, tramways, and railway sidings have been constructed, and it would be a great hardship to this company if the expenditure on these works were not included as well as expenditure on roads. It may interest the House to know one or two facts in regard to this company in order to indicate that it has not gained through the enterprise shown by the promoters of the company. It is, I think, 15 years since that land was purchased at a cost of no less than £762 an acre. During the whole of these 15 years, with the exception of the last financial year, which ended a month ago, no dividend has ever been paid. For the past year the shareholders have received 1¼ per cent. I think it cannot be denied in the face of figures like these that the owners of this land have received nothing like adequate remuneration for their enterprise. It would be awkward and disastrous for Manchester and district, and especially for the Manchester Ship Canal, if by the imposition of the Undeveloped Land Duty that company had to pay in respect of their land at Trafford Park a sum which, I am informed, would amount to £1,200 a year. That is a large sum for a company paying no dividend. It would be disastrous if the land were driven into the market prematurely, and, for instance, small dwellings were put up where fac-
  490
  tories ought to be. The factories already erected are huge, and they have added greatly to the development of Manchester and of Stretford and other suburbs of Manchester. The company is doing an enormous work. It has done a great deal for the growth not only of the canal traffic, but of the factories in the neighbourhood of the canal. Those who know the facts will recognise how disastrous it would be if the effect of the tax were to drive the land prematurely into the market to be used for purposes for which it was never meant to be used—purposes for which, perhaps, it might be most unsuitable. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not recognise how this tax is going to saddle on such companies as I have mentioned onerous charges. I believe the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is not going to cast further expenditure on this company at all. If the charge in respect of this company's land will amount to £1,200, surely the right hon. Gentleman, when he introduced the Bill, could not have imagined that he was going to saddle that company, which is doing such good work, with the payment of so large a sum.
  Let me give another case. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that only roads and sewers are necessary for the development of land, but I would point out what happens in the case of land alongside of navigable rivers which is required for various purposes, such as shipbuilding, dry docks, and so on. Before that land can be developed or a single penny obtained, retaining walls have to be put up, and quays and jetties have to be constructed. In the case of land with which I am intimately acquainted, roads and railways have been constructed, and, in addition, it was necessary to build jetties and quays. They are the roads from the water on to the land and they are far more valuable in certain ways than the roads which the right hon. Gentleman seems to think are the only things to be exempted. Hundreds and thousands of pounds have been spent on jetties and quays. Purchasers for the docks and big warehouses have not yet come forward. It would be monstrous to go down to one of those ports, where £17,000,000 has been spent, where huge grain, wool, or cotton warehouses have been erected, and to set up alongside of them flats or small dwellings, as might be done if the land is forced prematurely into the market. I plead that the right hon. Gentleman should extend the concession already

  491
  given in regard to this matter. If argument is necessary to induce him to do so, I would remind him and the House that this Clause was amended in Committee, with the result that the exemption I am now asking was removed. Why it was withdrawn I do not know. If that was done in Committee, I think we are entitled to some reply from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he is prepared to meet us at the present time. The facts are the same. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that unless he meets us more liberally than is proposed by the Clause as it stands, he is doing grave injustice in connection with the development of such undertakings as I have mentioned. It would be a sheer act of justice to those developing Trafford Park and the Ship Canal to accept this Amendment. I know the Ship Canal will be exempt from the duty, because the Bill provides that statutory companies are to be exempt. Though the Trafford Park Company is not a statutory company, the right hon. Gentleman ought to give it the fair treatment which he is giving to statutory companies.
  Mr. A. J. KING: I beg to second the Amendment, and in doing so I need hardly say that I do not take this course in any hostile spirit to the Government. I have been a loyal though passive supporter of the Government for the last five months, and I think it is not always fully realised what a strain upon one's loyalty this long-continued passivity implies. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Renwick) has stated his case very fully, and not many words will be required from me. This is clearly a case which is primarily interesting to particular companies of which we may know something. I disclaim any personal interest in this matter. I am not interested as a shareholder or in any other way. The facts have been represented to me, and it seems to me it is a fair case for making a concession. It is one of the hardships which we acknowledge are inevitable, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has constantly proclaimed his desire to meet, and which on the whole he has made strenuous and unfailing efforts to meet. There is no doubt that the Trafford Park Company, to which the hon. Member opposite referred, is more or less a concern carrying on work in the public interest. The Manchester Ship Canal has involved the community of that city and neighbour-
  492
  hood in an enormous expenditure, by which the city and neighbourhood have greatly benefited, but the shareholders have received no return whatever. They were unable to find the means to develop this land, and it was taken up by this company. I am only sorry that this Finance Bill was not passed years ago, for if it had been in force the Exchequer would have received a great deal of money from the Increment Duty. When the Ship Canal was made this land was sold for a few pounds an acre. It was afterwards disposed of to Mr. Hooley for £320 an acre, and he sold it to this company for £760 an acre. That was a nice increment on which duty has been lost. This company have paid the full value that has accrued to the land through the construction of the Ship Canal. They do not complain of having to pay on further increment value due to exertions not their own. What this company asks is that the Clause as first introduced should operate. When the Clause was originally proposed there was no restriction as to the kind of expenditure to be allowed for the £100. An hon. Member moved an Amendment restricting the expenditure, and that Amendment was accepted. What we ask is that that restriction shall be done away with, and that the company shall be granted credit for the expenditure over a period of years. They claim that this land cannot be developed all at once, and that being so, they ask to be excused from this tax in the way I have indicated. Unless the Amendment is accepted the company will have to pay the Undeveloped Land Tax, which will amount to about £1,200 a year. I think the case is clear, and I will leave it to the judgment of the House.
  5.0. P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No one listening to the speech of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment would have realised that any credit was given to this company for the expenditure which they may incur upon railways, sidings, canals, jetties, or tramways. One would imagine that they were taxed in respect of values created by the expenditure which they had incurred in respect of those undertakings. The hon. Member omitted that altogether. He said that there was a deduction in respect of all this expenditure, but that by some process, which he did not explain, it was to be added on afterwards. I do not understand that at all. It is not to be added on at all. It is to be deducted. But the position is really this: If there is any expenditure in respect of either

  493
  jetties, railways, tramways, or quays, with a view to developing any land, the company get full credit not merely for every penny which they spend, but for all values which they create by that means. It is fair that the House should know that.
  Mr. RENWICK: Is that under Clause
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes.
  Mr. RENWICK: That is quite different.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It should have been stated. It makes a very considerable difference, because the point he made is that the value in this case is created by the enormous expenditure by this company, and the whole of the value that is created by them is credited. Does the hon. Gentleman contradict?
  Mr. RENWICK: I only wish to point out that the one is a reduction and the other is an exemption.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman shook his head when I made the statement. That implies that he is challenging the statement which I am making. Whatever value is created by the expenditure of this company is not taxed at all. They are only taxed upon the balance which remains after deducting fully, and giving full credit not merely for their expenditure, but for every value which they create by the expenditure, which is a very different thing. For instance, this might have been purely waste land. I believe it was. A good deal of money has been spent by the Trafford Park Company, but what did it really lead to? And this illustrates the evil of concentrating upon merely one company without taking into account what the general effect of an Amendment like this would be. Here they got, I understand, a piece of waste land, which they have developed. They have spent some money upon roads and upon sewers, and they have spent a good deal of money upon railways, quays, and tramways; and, in addition to that, they have spent a good deal of money upon advertisements. All the value which they create by that expenditure is deducted out of the land before they are ever taxed. Now I am told they ought to get complete exemption in respect of this expenditure; not merely that they ought to get full credit for it, but that simply because they have spent it they ought to be completely exempted.
  Mr. RENWICK: The same as the builders.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That shows the danger of making concessions. If you make this concession I have not the faintest doubt that arguments based upon it would be advanced in favour of some other cases. We made the concession to builders that where they spent money and actually destroyed the land for agricultural purposes they ought not to be charged, for some time, as if the land could be used for any other purposes. That concession is now used as a lever for the purpose of obtaining a much more formidable concession, which I think would mean the destruction in a good many cases of the whole tax. Let the House take one or two cases. There are cases where landowners have invested in railways in their district. Those railways pay. That makes no difference to the Amendment. They have invested in docks, and those docks pay; but that makes no difference here. The mere fact that they pay does not make the slightest difference. That is the real distinction between a road and a river. A railway is something which is laid down with a view to producing an income—a thing which is supposed to pay by itself.
  Mr. RENWICK: Not a siding.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: A siding is part of the machinery of a railway. When a dock or a jetty or something which is expected to pay is made there are tolls charged in respect of it. But when you come to a road nobody ever pretends to charge a toll in respect of the use of a road. I am perfectly certain there is no case where a company not merely lays down a railway, but undertakes for all time to maintain it without making any charge and without expecting any return. It is part of the investment of a company. They may do it, it is perfectly true, with a view of developing the estate, but they do it just as much with the expectation of a return in respect of the railway itself as with the idea of spending money upon building on the land. We say if you create any value out of that expenditure we give you credit for it. But there is no reason why that expenditure should entitle you to complete exemption beyond that in respect of the whole land. Otherwise you might get, for instance, the whole of the land in the neighbourhood of Cardiff completely exempted from taxation. That is the most valuable building land in that neighbourhood. The owner of that land may say, "Have I not invested money in

  495
  docks, and invested money quite recently in a railway?" and if an Amendment of this kind were carried all he would have to do would be to spread the whole of that sum over the entire area of his Cardiff property, and if he could show that the expenditure on the railway amounted to £100 per acre in respect of the whole of the land he would be exempted altogether. That is a case which I know, and I am certain that there are several other cases in the country. It shows, after all, that this is an attempt to destroy the tax. It is only one of those Amendments which are being moved with that idea. First of all, we are told that we must exempt all land which is cultivated for agriculture, though it is valuable building land. Then there is another Amendment to exempt something else. And then there is another Amendment to exempt any land you have where it is being let by a landowner to a railway, though he may be receiving 3 or 4 per cent. in respect of his investment. If these Amendments were accepted the result would be that there would be no land left at all for you to tax. Of course, that Trafford Park—because this is purely a Trafford Park case——
  Mr. RENWICK: No.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It has been worked up by the Trafford Park Company. They have circularised in respect of it. And not merely that, but it is their Amendment. Suppose you concede their case. You would let in—or rather you would let out—areas which hon. Members have not given a thought to, while there is no real claim on the part of the landowner, because he invests in money for purely reproductive purposes. How can it be said that there is any injustice here? I say that under Clause 25 you are covering the whole of the case, and I understood that my hon. Friend was perfectly satisfied with the explanation given on the subject. I want the House fully to realise that all the money spent by these gentlemen on railways, jetties, embankments, or advertisements, which I believe are very considerable, or for any other purpose which has increased the value of the land, are all deducted before you begin to tax, and if they show that they have practically created the whole of that value of the land themselves by these means they pay no tax. Their representations as to the amounts they would be called upon to pay are perfectly ludicrous. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, who
  496
  is an expert on these matters, knows perfectly well how it would work out, and I am glad to have his corroboration of the statement which I make. I have gone into the figures, and I say that they are perfectly grotesque. They get very large reductions on all the expenditure on their land. They will only be paying on the balance, the mere prairie land. They will pay upon that one halfpenny in the pound, which would be one-480th part of what remains after all these deductions. And the sum, instead of being the substantial sum it is represented to be, would be exceedingly minute, and they would be paying nothing in respect of the value which they create; but the value which my hon. Friend refers to was created by the expenditure of the ratepayers of Lancashire.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether any Member of the House thinks that the right hon. Gentleman has satisfactorily disposed of the case we have made. If hon. Gentlemen have followed him with some knowledge of the Bill—and I have to presume they have some knowledge of the Bill, for without it they might not see the whole effect of his statement—I think they will see that he has pretty effectively destroyed the case for his own tax. What is the answer to the Amendment? It is not an answer on the merits. It is that if he accepted the Amendment he would exclude so much land from taxation that the tax would be destroyed. That shows what a very bad tax it is, and it shows as clearly as anything could show that he is taxing what he is professing not to tax. He says that this is a Trafford Park Amendment. That is scarcely consistent with his statement a moment before that it applied not merely to Trafford Park but to many other cases. I heartily agree with that statement. It applies, he said, to Cardiff, and he stated that if he accepted this Amendment it would be possible for an owner to say that he had created a building value which he wanted to tax, but because the owner had created that building value it would be exempt, and then he would have no tax.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I want to state exactly what I did say. As a matter of fact, if he can prove that he created the value he would not be taxed now. On the contrary, what I said was if he could prove that he had spent £100 an acre he would be exempted from the whole tax. If he can prove that by his railway he

  497
  has created the value he will not be taxed now.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that there are hundreds of cases where the value has been so created, where the Government could not prove that it had not been so created, and where the difference between tax or no tax depends upon the party on whom you put the onus of proof. Instead of putting the onus on the Government to show that the value was socially created, you place the onus upon the individual owner to show that he can trace the value back to a particular investment of capital which he had made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on this occasion has done a great deal more than the hon. Member behind him or my hon. Friend to confuse the issue. If he remembers the discussion in Committee he will recollect that he took me to task for references to matters which would be better dealt with under Clause 35. In every other sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's speech there appeared Clause 25. Really Clause 25 has nothing whatever to do with the matter, and the exposition of the case by the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division (Mr. A. J. King) was a much more correct exposition of the Bill than that given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Take the case of the Trafford Park Company. They paid £750 for the land before they spent a penny upon it. They have added to its value anything you like per acre. I have not the least idea of the figure. Perhaps they have added £250 per acre by their expenditure. The present value of the land would then be £1,000, but from that £1,000 you would deduct the value created by their expenditure under Clause 25. Where does that bring you back to? It brings you back to the £750 stated by the hon. Member. He is perfectly right. You first take the value as it exists to-day, that is the original value, plus the additional value given by the expenditure; then you take from that the additional value created by the expenditure of the company, and you come back to the £750, correctly stated by the hon. Member. It was not, I think, actually denied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was covered by him in a confused cloud of verbiage which had nothing to do with the case. You get back to the £750 per acre, and on that £750 per acre they have got to pay the ½d. tax. Why should not the builder who has spent £100 per acre on the development of the land,
  498
  and the laying out of roads, pay the tax as long as the development is not completed? You may say there is no reason at all if you like. But the Government do not take that view. They say there is a reason, and they put down an Amendment which provider that if you spend £100 an acre on roads you are exempt, but if you spend it on water fronts, jetties, and railway sidings you are not exempt. It determines in which way you are to spend the money.
  If you want to build houses you spend the money on roads, but if you want, as in the case of Trafford Park, to put the money to the most economic and profitable use you construct water fronts, jetties, and railway sidings. The Government choose to say now that if you spend the money in one form you shall get credit, but if you spend it in an economic way, as in the case of Trafford Park, you get no credit at all. Is not that wholly illogical as either a possible or conceivable defence?
  The right hon. Gentleman said that this is a Trafford Park Amendment and that the Trafford Park Company have circularised Members. But the Trafford Park Company are not the only people who have circularised Members; many people do that; and the Trafford Park Company are not in any way entitled to less consideration on that account. But it is perfect nonsense to say that this is a Trafford Park Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is forgetting the history of this question. This is a Government Amendment. Everything that is in my hon. Friend's Amendment, and more besides, was in the Amendment which the Government offered to the Trafford Park people, and which they accepted. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer deny it? I will refer him to the Amendment which the Government subsequently placed on the Paper, and which would have relieved us of all this discussion if they had kept it in the form in which it appeared. The words of the Amendment were to the effect that where the owner of land or his predecessor in title have spent at the rate of at least £100 per acre for the purpose of developing the land, that land shall not be treated as undeveloped land. In that there is no qualification such as that which they now put in their Amendment. The Amendment as it originally stood covered the case of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and it covered a good deal more. That was the Amendment which they offered to the Trafford Park Company. My authority for saying that the Amend-

  499
  ment was offered to the company is that of the managing director of the Trafford Park Company, who at their meeting stated that they had had a conference with Mr. Masterman, who handed "to us a Clause which he stated to be one of the Government Amendments, in respect of which he said 'it has been most carefully considered, and although I do not think that we entirely meet you, I think you will agree that we have gone some way towards it.'"
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): May I make a personal explanation on that point? I had a discussion with the Trafford Park people, or their representatives. I showed them various Clauses on the Paper, and I asked them what they considered the effect of those Clauses would be on their estate. There was no offer to the Trafford Park Company of any sort or description, nor was the Amendment put down in connection with the Trafford Park Estate as the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not say it was so, but, as reported, the words of the hon. Gentleman were: "This has been most carefully considered, and although I do not think we entirely meet you, I think you will agree we have gone some way towards it."
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot say whether those were the actual words or not, but there was no offer made.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is really a very small matter whether the hon. Member showed them the Amendment and said, "This is the Government Amendment," or whether he said, "This is a Government Amendment, and goes a long way to meet you." That was the Amendment which the Government put upon the Paper, and if they had only stuck to it when it was satisfactory there would have been none of this trouble. But they would not carry the Amendment in the form they had put it on the Paper, as the Trafford Park people understood it, and as we Members of the House of Commons had seen it. To our astonishment and surprise the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that Amendment at about 4 o'clock in the morning, but first of all he amended it himself so as to limit the concession in point of time, and he then accepted, or shall I say he sought, from the hon. Member for Westmoreland a
  500
  further Amendment to limit it to roads and metalling—in the form in which it now stands. It is rather difficult to say what goes on sometimes in the House, but I should be astonished if the Government should say that this Amendment was the spontaneous idea of the hon. Member for Westmoreland. I think it originated from the Government, though it was fathered by the hon. Member for Westmoreland. The Government accepted the qualification and limitation of their own Amendment, and by so doing destroyed half the value of the concession that was made. Do not let us hear anything more about Trafford Park Amendments. All we want to do is to get the Amendment back into the form in which the Government brought it in. If they will stick to the Amendment which they originally put down I am quite certain my hon. Friend will withdraw his and accept the original Government form. What we object to is the alteration that they made, and my hon. Friend seeks to cancel some of the illeffects of that alteration. We shall support his Amendment rather than have the Government Clause as it stands, but we would sooner have the original Government Amendment.
  Mr. TUDOR WALTERS: I venture to suggest that in the Debate that has now taken place we are entirely confusing two different kinds of expenditure upon land. What we are dealing with now is the Undeveloped Land Tax, and the Government Amendment proposes to give exemption in the payment of the Undeveloped Land Tax in certain specific cases. The cases are these, where the land is actually being prepared for development, where road construction is taking place, and where certain works, which are essential to the development of the land for building, are being performed, works that have no other utility except to develop the land, works that produce no profit to the man who expends the money until the land is built upon and is developed; that is to say, while the man is taking all necessary steps to bring the land into the market for building you allow it exemption from the Undeveloped Land Tax. The man has ceased to hold up the land; he is proceeding to prepare it for development, and that is quite a clear and definite reason why you grant exemption. What does the Amendment ask? The Amendment says that because you are spending a large sum of money on a certain piece of land for all kinds of purposes, not necessarily to help it to be built upon, not necessarily to

  501
  bring it into the market, but for some general purpose for the increase of value, that, therefore, you are to exempt it.
  Take the case of tramways, for instance. Conceivably it might be to the interest of the Trafford Park Company to construct a tramway across the first hundred acres of their land for the development of something else at the far end of the estate. It might absolutely pay them never to sell that land for building at all across which the tramway passes, but to keep it for the purpose of obtaining revenue from the tramway or railway that went across the land. Can it then be suggested that those are works for the development of the land? They might equally be works that will retard the development of the land, and that will make 100 acres unavailable for building purposes. I venture to suggest that works of that description—docks, quays, railways, tramways—may in some cases be essential for the development, but in others will be absolutely unessential, and may even retard the development. By no process of argument can you say that the construction of a tramway or railway is part of the process of developing the land for building purposes. Besides, and this is a most important consideration, in the case where there is an allowance for the roads the road can return no revenue, while the tramway, the railway, the jetty, the quay, may, and often do, return a substantial result. You know what large sums of money are paid for wayleave. Are you going to suggest that in an estate, say, in the colliery district, where a tramway is made across the land for the purpose of bringing coal, say, to the dock, that because that tramway is made across the land by the owner of the land, who receives a substantial wayleave for bringing in the coal, that because the owner has spent his money in constructing that tramway he is to pay no Land Tax? The thing is absurd.
  This thing that has originated in Trafford Park is capable of extensive application. You cannot say in some other cases where a tramway or a railway is producing a large revenue that because of that the land ought to be exempt. You cannot distinguish between vice and virtue in taxation of this kind; you cannot say that the owners of the Trafford Park estate are eminently virtuous and high-minded people without any regard to profit, and that they are developing the estate so that Manchester may benefit, and that, therefore,
  502
  they ought to be exempt, whereas some other district that did lay down its tramways for personal profit shall not be exempt. The whole scheme of this taxation is not to tax the individual, but to follow certain parcels of land, to follow the piece of land, and tax that land. You can do that whether it is owned by a virtuous duke or a wicked Labour Member. In either case you must follow the land. You must lay down a principle that shall be applied to all similar land, and unless you do that you involve it in hopeless confusion. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) said as to the money you expended upon the development of the land when you came to deduct that you got back to the original £750. May I submit that is not an entirely accurate statement. It does not follow that the land is worth £750 because £750 is the price paid for it. When the valuer proceeds to value the Trafford Park Estate, plus the expenditure thereon, he will take its present value, what its selling price in the market is, and he will deduct from that not only the expenditure upon it but the value that expenditure has given to land, and that conceivably may bring the net figure considerably below £750, the price paid for it. You must get your land fixed at the market value——
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This is very important. In the deductions you do not take account at all of the money spent, you only take account of the value created. You may have spent £1,000 and only created £100 of value. You do not get credit for £1,000 but only for £100. You may have spent £100 and created £1,000 of value. You do not get credit for £100 but for £1,000. It has nothing to do with the amount of money spent but with the value created. How can you arrive at the value created? Surely that must be the difference between the value now, after the expenditure has been incurred, and what was the value before that expenditure.
  Mr. TUDOR WALTERS: That does not follow. You had a piece of land in Trafford Park and certain roads were constructed upon it. The present value is easily ascertained by the price in the market. Then the value, which, say, now is 10s. per yard, may, if the valuer divested it of the roads and other expenditure, be reduced to, say, 6s., or 5s., or 4s. per yard. That is a process that he can arrive at without knowing exactly what the man spent or without knowing what it cost the

  503
  man before he spent anything on it. Therefore I say that for the right hon. Gentleman to argue that because £250 per acre was spent on the land that £250 is allowed off the value, and that therefore you necessarily get back to the £750 for the Undeveloped Land Tax is not correct. If that land is worth £1,000 per acre, and it is proved to the valuer that after deducting the works that have been performed on it it is now only worth £500, then it is on £500 the tax will be paid, and not on £750.
  I should like to point out in connection with that £750 that it does not follow that because £750 was the price paid that therefore there is any injustice in taxing that, because the House will remember that the increase of value from £300 to £750 was created by the Manchester Ship Canal, which is the expenditure of public money. Therefore what this Amendment really asks for is this, that the Trafford Park Company shall be allowed credit for the expenditure of the Manchester Ship Canal that has increased the value of their lands, and that in addition they shall be allowed to deduct, before arriving at any amount, the whole amount of their expenditure, and in addition to that, while that land is increasing in value, and while the demand is continuing to take place, that they shall be exempt from the Undeveloped Land Tax. This seems to me to be just the kind of Amendment that will deprive the Exchequer of any kind of revenue from this tax at all. If you are going to take an isolated case like that of the Trafford Park Company, and lay down general principles of exemption, of course you will sweep away the entire proceeds of the tax. It seems to me the Amendment suggested by the Government is fair and reasonable, because it is an allowance, and an exemption from the Undeveloped Land Tax given on outlay of money essential to that development. The other suggestion seems to me to be entirely unjust and unfair, because it proposes to include the expenditure of money which may return a profit to the men who expended it, and which may or may not be an essential part of the development of the estate.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down speaks, I need hardly tell the House, with great authority upon all questions of land value. I confess I listened with very great surprise to the speech which he has just de-
  504
  livered. In the first place I observe that he has misunderstood the Bill as it now stands with the Government Amendments. What is his main criticism upon the Amendment of my hon. Friend? His main criticism is this, that my hon. Friend asks for an allowance to be made in respect of expenditure not made for the development of the land, but for some other independent and collateral purpose. That is not so, because we have already passed an Amendment which he will find on the Paper on page 24, and which was moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which governs, I understand, the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. The words of that Amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are these: "With a view to the land being developed or used as aforesaid." Therefore, my hon. Friend's Amendment only touches that kind of expenditure which, in the language of the Government, has been made "with a view to the land being developed or used as aforesaid," and the whole of that part of the hon. Gentleman's argument which deals with collateral expenditure bringing in independent revenue, and used for some wholly independent purpose, absolutely falls to the ground, and has nothing whatever to do with it. Every atom of expenditure which my hon. Friend's Amendment deals with is expenditure intended to develop the land for purposes "as aforesaid."
  Therefore the whole question is reduced, is it not, to the one very plain issue: Why are you going to distinguish between two classes of expenditure, both of which have been used to develop the land for the purposes "as aforesaid"? To that question I venture to say the hon. Gentleman will not tell me he has made the smallest reply at all in the whole of the interesting speech he has delivered. He never touched it, he never dwelt upon it. Is it not quite obvious that in a case like the Trafford Park estate to build, not sea fronts, but water fronts, jetties, and all the rest of it, is entirely and directly intended by the company to develop the estate for the purposes "as aforesaid." It is just as useful as if the money were spent on kerbs, metalling, or on roads, and yet the Government choose arbitrarily to come forward and draw this distinction between two kinds of expenditure, both of which are intended to subserve the same public objects. There were other points in the hon. Gentleman's speech which I think were very much open to criticism and comment,

  505
  but I do not wish to detain the House, and I will not dwell upon them. I will ask the House to turn its mind from the narrow issue to the broader issue raised by the Amendment. The narrow issue is the amazing course the Government have taken in putting down an Amendment, correcting it, getting somebody else still further to correct it, thus disappointing the hopes which, rightly or wrongly—certainly I am not accusing them of breach of faith—have been raised in the minds of the Trafford Park Estate owners and other owners who are carrying out in connection with their land great works of development which do not happen to consist of drains or kerbs. I put that controversy between us and the Government on one side, and I ask the House to consider what is the policy now demonstrated to underlie the whole of this part of the tax. The Government have claimed throughout that this Undeveloped Land Tax is a tax incident purely upon that which is not only not enterprise, but is the converse, the negation, the absence of enterprise. This has been claimed to be a tax upon land the owners of which neither do anything with it themselves nor allow others to do anything with it. That is the whole justification of the tax. That is the claim on which the whole policy is based. It now stands plainly confessed that the men who will suffer from this are not merely such owners, if such owners there be, who fall under the description I have just
  given, but people who are spending large sums of money on railways, jetties, harbours, and all those things that you want money spent upon in this country if you are going to develop its industries. This tax, obviously to all the world who take the trouble to understand it, is a tax upon some of the most important industrial enterprises in which the country can possibly engage. It is manifestly no longer an Undeveloped Land Tax; it is a tax on the development of land. Who henceforth is going to enter into a transaction like that of the Trafford Park Estate? Who, with this kind of legislation in their eyes, are going to get the public to invest their money in that kind of development? This is a direct and plain discouragement of a most useful form of enterprise. It is a toll upon the expenditure of capital for public purposes. For that reason, and that reason alone, I think the Government are most ill-advised, from their own point of view, not to have adhered to the policy which, in some lapse into reason and moderation, they accepted at an earlier stage of our proceedings, but from which, terrified at their own moderation, they ran away in the small hours of the morning, leaving the Bill very little better than it was before the Amendment was accepted.
  Question put: "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 89; Noes 195.

  Division No. 822.]

  AYES.

  [5.50 p.m.

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Percy, Earl

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, J.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Renton, Leslie

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bertram, Julius

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Stanier, Beville

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Heimsley, Viscount

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cave, George

  Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Chance, Frederick William

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Keswick, William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Clark, George Smith

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cox, Harold

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Whitbread, S. Howard

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Moore, William

  Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Davies, David (Montgomery, Co.)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Remnant and Mr. G. D. Faber.

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Foster, P. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  NOES.

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Guiland, John W.

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Radford, G. H.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Astbury, John Meir

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Rees, J. D.

  Barker, Sir John

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Barnes, G. N.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Beale, W. P.

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Robinson, S.

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Hodge, John

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Brace, William

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Sears, J. E.

  Branch, James

  Jackson, R. S.

  Seely, Colonel

  Brigg, John

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Shackleton, David James

  Brooke, Stopford

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Snowden, P.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cameron, Robert

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Lupton, Arnold

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Clough, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Tomkinson, James

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Mackarness, Frederick C.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Crossley, William J.

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

  Walters, John Tudor

  Curran, Peter Francis

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Massie, J.

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Weir, James (Galloway)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Morse, L. L.

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

  Elibank, Master of

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Erskine, David C.

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Essex, R. W.

  Myer, Horatio

  Wiles, Thomas

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Napier, T. B.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Nolan, Joseph

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Falconer, J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  O'Grady, J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wood, T. McKinnon

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  O'Malley, William

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Gibson, J. P.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

  Mr. COX Mr. COX moved, in paragraph (b), after the word "sewers," to insert the words "or on mains."
  There is no reason why a man should be credited with his expenditure on laying sewers and not also with his expenditure on laying mains. It means the money spent on laying gas, water, and electric mains, before an estate is developed; therefore I think it is purely a verbal point.
  Mr. T. H. W. IDRIS Mr. T. H. W. IDRIS formally seconded the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I regret that my hon. Friend did not give me even a moment's notice of this Amendment. It is obviously impossible to accept an Amendment of this sort when I have had no time to consult anybody as to what its effect would be. My own opinion is that the word "sewer" would cover main drains

  509
  at any rate. Water, electric, and gas mains may be reproductive, and they are certainly not in the same position as sewers.
  Mr. COX: I must apologise for not giving notice, but I really thought the point was a purely verbal one.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.): In the great majority of these cases these services would be rendered by the companies or corporations that were going to supply the gas, water, or electricity. I cannot recall a case where the owners of the land who were developing it were called upon to pay for the gas mains.
  Amendment negatived.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDhad an Amendment on the Paper, in paragraph (b), after the word "land" ["that land shall for the purpose of this Section"], to insert the words "and any part of the land dedicated to open spaces."
  After what has taken place this afternoon I have no hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will listen favourably to this Amendment, and I do not propose to move it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in paragraph (b), after the word "shall" ["that land shall for the purposes of this Section"], to insert the words "to the extent of one acre for every complete hundred pounds of that expenditure."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I want to raise on this Amendment a point in regard to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave me something approaching a pledge in Committee—at any rate a pledge for favourable consideration. The point was, what exactly should the £100 per acre be charged on—on buildable land, land which could be covered by buildings or is intended to be covered with buildings, or on land which was to be used for other similar purposes? I raised the question specially with reference to garden cities, and quoted the cases like Bournville. Here at the meeting of roads, instead of drawing the roads to a right angle and putting the greatest number of buildings on the ground, the roads are sloped away, and little open spaces left in the centre of cross-roads, and railed off, and shrubs or trees are planted. I am sorry to say that I have brought the wrong number of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I remember.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have not the occasion on which the thing was said, but I have the reference which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham. The Chancellor said: "That deals rather with the place.…" In reference to the Amendment of the Member for West Derby the Chancellor said that he thought the hon. Gentleman had made out a case, and promised to consider it. "That is all I promise," he said; "I should not like to have any misconception."
  The Chancellor thinks he has dealt with; the matter. I do not see any Amendment dealing with it. If it could possibly be dealt with at this point, it might be by inserting the word "building" before "land," so as to make the £100 exempt such land as that referred to.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I thought I had covered it. I cannot be quite sure that these words do not cover it. There is an Amendment on the Paper, the last on the page. I have there considered the point put by the right hon. Gentleman. I think it ought to be covered. I have done my very best to do so. The latter part of the Amendment, I think, meets the case: "the part of the land to be treated as land developed, or used as aforesaid, shall be determined by the Commissioners." That means that you can spread the £100 expenditure over, and not merely confine it. I am told that that covers that point.
  Amendment made.
  Further Amendments made: In paragraph (b), to leave out the words "undeveloped land" ["as undeveloped land although it is"], and to insert instead thereof the words "land so developed or used."
  In the same paragraph: To leave out the words from "being" ["being built upon or used for any business trade or industry other than agriculture but"], and to insert thereof the words "actually so developed or used."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in the same paragraph, to leave out from the word "no" ["no sum shall be taken"] to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words "expenditure shall be taken into account if ten years have elapsed since the date of the expenditure, or if after the date of the expenditure the land having

  511
  been developed reverts to the condition of undeveloped land, and in a case where the amount of the expenditure does not cover the whole of the land included in the scheme of land development the part of the land to be treated as land developed or used as aforesaid shall be determined by the Commissioners."
  Mr. RENWICK: I just wish to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The purport of this Amendment is to limit the allowance of expenditure to 10 years. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of accepting 20 years instead of 10 years. I have an Amendment down to that effect later, and I am not sure whether it will be in order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It will be in order.
  Mr. RENWICK: Can I move the Amendment now?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.
  Mr. RENWICK: Then I beg to move, after the word "if" ["if ten years have elapsed"], to insert the words "where it has been incurred before the passing of this Act twenty years have elapsed since the date of the expenditure, or if where it has been incurred after the passing of this Act."
  In the case of Trafford Park, it is 15 years since that land was acquired. It is not only that park, but other cases that are concerned. From the moment these are acquired the expenditure upon them commences by building retaining walls, quays, and so on. The thing applies to a greater number of cases than Trafford Park. In nearly all cases of riversides, and especially where there is a tide, there is the necessity of retaining walls, jetties, and so on. It is absolutely necessary to make that expenditure. Therefore I think it will be very unfair to limit this to 10 years. If you accept 20 instead, you meet many cases of hardship. I do not think the amount in these cases will be very large.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I have an Amendment down on the Paper to make the period 50 years instead of 10. But I am bound to say that I put that down on my first reading of the Clause, as I thought this Sub-section would govern the Sub-section in Section 25. I think I am now correct in saying that that
  512
  deals with an entirely different matter. Will the Chancellor say whether this Subsection in any way governs the Subsection in Clause 25?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Oh no, it is a totally different thing.
  Sir S. SCOTT: Under those circumstances I think the period I put down was somewhat unreasonable. But I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the very reasonable proposal of my hon. Friend. We have already heard of the Trafford Park estate; that during 15 years it paid no dividend whatever, and at the end of the 15 years only 1½ per cent. It is not only the Trafford Park estate, but many other estates in the country which will be burdened if only 10 years be allowed them for their development. I know many private estates myself. In the development of an estate you first have to make a road—very often a lengthy road—in order to open up the communication, and anyone who invests their capital in this way knows perfectly well that they will have no chance of getting a return for the money spent on a large portion of that road for considerably more than 10 years—even if then.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment was under the impression, I think, that my Amendment applied to jetties and sea walls. Well, it does not. It purely applies to roads and kerbs, and the arguments which he advanced are clearly inapplicable, because there is no necessity to renew these roads and kerbs every five or ten years. This Clause does not apply to jetties. The whole point is this: not whether you are going to give credit for 10 or 20 years for the expenditure on a road, but whether the specified exemption is to go beyond 10 years. Because after that the builder or the estate owner can stall deduct the expenditure which he has made in respect to the roads and kerbs. I have seen a good many builders on the matter, and they were of opinion that a period of 10 years was a very fair period for exemption, for after all there are very few cuttings-up of land 10 years in advance of its possible development. It may be a man has held up land purely for speculative purposes, and if you extend the exemption beyond 10 years that will be an encouragement to the speculator to hold out for high prices. That is exactly what we want to discourage. Although I am very anxious

  513
  to meet hon. Members, who have put this Amendment forward very reasonably and very temperately, I do not think I shall be justified in accepting it. Criticisms have been made from the other point of view that this exemption is much too wide. Undoubtedly it will lose a great deal of revenue. If we are to exempt beyond the period stated the revenue will be very seriously affected.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The Clause to which this Amendment refers is not a clause really dealing with deductions. It is a clause that deals, as I understand it, with entire exemption. And land is not to be taxed as undeveloped land if built upon, or if £100 per acre have been spent upon it towards building houses or cottages. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it quite clear in the course of this Debate up till now that building factories upon land is not developing it; putting a railway upon land is not developing it. The only development of which the right hon. Gentleman takes any account is that of building cottages, and the only expenditure of £100 an acre that he is going to consider must be strictly upon roads in connection with such cottages. It is obvious, of course, that the Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend with the idea that other kinds of buildings might reasonably be considered as development, and that there are such things as roads and walls, and so on, the benefit of which is not exhausted in ten years. And, therefore, I think it would be a reasonable thing to prolong the periods beyond ten years. Perhaps, even although this is not developing land according to the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think it will be within the knowledge of every Member of this House that there are plenty of pieces of land that have had roads made, and on which houses were started to be built upwards of ten years ago where yet a considerable portion is unfinished. I could take the right hon. Gentleman to half a dozen such places within five or six miles of this House. What is the attitude the right hon. Gentleman takes up? He says that after ten years the benefit is no longer to be taken into account, and although you spend £100 per acre upon it, yet because you have lost your market he is going to come down upon you and take away some more of your money. It seems to me that even upon the extraordinary position taken up by the Government as to what developed land is, there is no answer
  514
  to the Amendment put forward. If a reasonable effort is made and a reasonable sum has been spent there is no excuse for imposing this tax if it is a penal tax in such circumstances. I think if exemption is allowed up to ten years it ought to be allowed to the extremely reasonable period which is proposed in the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Question put that the following words be omitted from paragraph (b), "no sums shall be taken into account after ten years have elapsed since the time when the sums were spent."
  Amendment made.
  Question proposed that the following words be there inserted: "expenditure shall be taken into account if ten years have elapsed since the date of the expenditure, or if after the date of the expenditure the land having been developed reverts to the condition of undeveloped land, and in a case where the amount of the expenditure does not cover the whole of the land included in the scheme of land development, the part of the land to be treated as land developed or used as aforesaid shall be determined by the Commissioners."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This is the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to just now as meeting my point. I see it gives a discretion to the Commissioners to act in the way I desire, but it does not impose upon them any obligation to do so. I think they would do so, but I also think that it would be desirable that they should do so, and it is in expectation of the full consideration which the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that I expressed the hope that the Government will be prepared to add some words carrying out that view.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We quite agree the right hon. Gentleman had that promise from us in a former Debate. We thought we met it by the words put in, "determined by the Commissioners." But the right hon. Gentleman desires further protection, and I shall therefore propose to add at the end "as being land with the view to the development or use of which as aforesaid the expenditure has in the main been incurred."
  Amendment made.

  CLAUSE 17.—(Exemptions from Undeveloped Land Duty, and Allowances.)
  (1) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land where the site value of the land does not exceed fifty pounds per acre.
  (2) In the case of agricultural land of which the site value exceeds fifty pounds per acre, Undeveloped Land Duty shall only be charged on the amount by which the site value of the land exceeds the value of the land for agricultural purposes.
  (3) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged—

  (a) On the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces which are open to the public as of right; or

  (b) On the site value of any woodlands, parks, gardens, or open spaces, reasonable access to which is enjoyed by the public or by the inhabitants of the locality where in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality; or

  (c) On the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act, for the development of the area of which the land forms part, and that it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, or in view of the character of the surroundings or neighbourhood, that the land should be so kept free from buildings; or

  (d) On the site value of any land which is used for the purpose of games or other recreation where the Commissioners are satisfied that the use of the land is for the benefit of the public or of the inhabitants of the locality, and that the land is so used under some agreement with the owner which, as originally made, could not be determined for a period of at least five years.

  The opinion of the Commissioners as to matters arising under this Sub-section shall be final and not subject to any appeal.
  (4) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on any land not exceeding an acre in extent valued together with a dwelling-house for the purpose of Inhabited House Duty, or on the site value of any land being gardens or pleasure grounds occupied with a dwelling-house
  516
  which do not exceed five acres in extent when the site value of the gardens and pleasure grounds together with the site value of the dwelling-house does not exceed twenty times the annual value of the gardens, pleasure grounds, and dwelling-house as adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule A.
  (5) Where agricultural land is at the time of the passing of this Act held under a tenancy originally created by a lease or agreement made or entered into before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the land during the original term of that lease or agreement while the tenancy continues thereunder, but the exemption under this provision shall not apply after the period at which the tenancy of the land can be discontinued at the option of the landlord.
  Mr. R. L. EVERETT Mr. R. L. EVERETT moved, in Subsection (1), to leave out "fifty" ["Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land where the site value of the land does not exceed fifty pounds per acre"], in order to insert instead thereof the words "one hundred."
  This Undeveloped Land Duty is a very remarkable one; it is the greatest innovation of all the Land Taxes proposed, and it excites a great deal of apprehension in the minds of many. It is quite exceptional and unprecedented in its character. It is a tax not upon annual value, as all other rates and taxes to which we are accustomed are, but it is a tax upon capital value, and it differs from all the other Land Taxes in that it is an annual charge. It is not a charge once and for all as the Increment Taxes, but an annual charge upon capital value. It is a tax laid on without there being any money in hand out of which to pay it. The Increment Tax merely takes a portion of the amount that comes to the owner of the land upon which the tax is charged, and so with the Reversion Tax, but in this case the tax is to be laid on annually on individuals who are receiving nothing and have not the wherewithal to find the money unless they sell the land or draw it from some other source. A tax having these distinguishing peculiarities naturally excites a good deal of apprehension in the minds of those whose property is about to become subjected to it for the first time. I imagined on first looking at this tax, that the £50 exemption was intended to exempt agricultural land. But there is agricultural land

  517
  which runs up to the value of £100 and therefore I would prefer the figure £100 to £50; but when I come to look closely to Sub-section (2) one sees that under the provisions of that Sub-section the whole agricultural value of agricultural land is exempt even if it exceeds £50. Sub-section (2) says: "In the case of agricultural land of which the site value exceeds fifty pounds per acre Undeveloped Land Duty shall only be charged on the amount by which the site value of the land exceeds the value of the land for agricultural purposes." That which we tried to have introduced in regard to Increment Value Duty is actually introduced here. We thank the Government for that, and we are very glad to see it inserted here, but to the ordinary man the mysteries of this Bill are so intricate that he is trembling with apprehension in regard to his liability owing to this Undeveloped Land Duty, and in order to allay the fears of the agricultural community I hope the Chancellor will accept this Amendment. If he does so he will make it perfectly clear to the mind of the ordinary man that there is no fear he will be charged Undeveloped Land Duty upon his agricultural land. This concession will be gratifying and reassuring to those who are at present under some apprehension in regard to this new tax, and will represent to them in such a clear and plain way that a plain man can follow what the position really is, and as regards agricultural land it will not cost the Treasury a halfpenny.
  Sir FRANCIS CHANNING: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: My hon. Friend is really one of the most insatiable men I ever had the pleasure to encounter. First of all, he agrees to an Amendment. It was discussed and agreed to, and now he dismisses it as insufficient. It was pointed out, when it was discussed, that there was agricultural land worth more than £100 an acre, and therefore the figure £100 would not exempt all agricultural land. An Amendment was agreed upon specifically exempting agricultural land from increment and exempting the whole of the agricultural land, even if it were worth more than £100 an acre, from the Undeveloped Land Tax. My hon. Friend agreed to that, but now he wants the whole thing. He wants the whole thing, and he wants this as well. What happens? He says this proposal is in the interest of agriculture. May I point out that agricultural value is completely exempted from taxation. We allowed an Amendment which satisfied the hon. Gentleman,
  518
  and he said it was something he could understand and comprehend. He laid down that agricultural land should not be taxed. We put in that Amendment, but now the hon. Member says, "Oh, we cannot understand £50, but £100 we can understand." What about the farmer who has land worth for agricultural purposes more than £100, and there is plenty of land of that kind? There are special properties in the East of Scotland for growing potatoes which are worth more than £100 an acre. I know my hon. Friend is not interested in that kind of land, but he is interested in land worth under £100 an acre. I think he is taking too narrow a view of his function as a protector of the farmer. We want to protect agriculture whatever the value is. The hon. Member says that if a farmer only makes the land worth £100 an acre we should protect him, but the moment by intensive culture the farmer makes the land worth more than £100 an acre my hon. Friend has no concern for him. The Government want to protect them all, and the more value a man puts into his land agriculturally the greater protection he deserves, and the greater protection he gets. This miserable expedient of £100 which the hon. Member has devised in the interests of agriculture does not protect agriculture at all, although it protects a certain value. I know of land which is not worth more than 1s. an acre or 2s. for agricultural purposes, but for building purposes it is worth £200 or £300 an acre. We want to protect the case of building land and not of agricultural land. Do not let the hon. Member pretend that this proposal is in the interest of agriculture, because it is nothing of the kind.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Amendment made in Sub-section (3), paragraph (b), after the word "locality" ["the inhabitants of the locality"], to insert the words "including access regularly enjoyed by any of the naval or military forces of the Crown for the purpose of training or exercise."
  Drafting Amendments made.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS Mr. WALTER GUINNESS moved, in Sub-section (3), paragraph (b), after the word "benefit" ["of benefit to the public"], to insert the words "or which, although the public have no access thereto, are of benefit to the health and well-being of the inhabitants of the locality, and should in the public interest remain unbuilt upon, or."
  There are about 400 open spaces in London, and only about 50 of them are included in the Act passed at the instance of the London County Council two or three years ago under which the owners of those open spaces gave up their rights to build. There are a number of squares which will not be exempt from the Undeveloped Land Tax.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, they will.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I suppose they can only be exempted under Subsection (c), which exempts "any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act." It will be difficult in the case of London squares to show that they are being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite schemes. I do not think those conditions can be applied in the case of London squares. If they have been laid out in accordance with a definite scheme it will be impossible for the freeholder to show that, and even if he can show it he has only to be exempt from the Undeveloped Land Duty if he foregoes his right to build for all future time, except with the permission of the Local Government Board. Of course, that permission will never be given, and it simply means that he will have to take his choice between paying the Undeveloped Land Duty or giving up the right to build altogether. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that squares will not be exempted except under those conditions, which I think are rather unreasonable.
  These open spaces are of very great value for letting in light and air in crowded districts, and we should do all we can to keep them. I think it is too much to expect owners to give up the right of building for all futurity. It is a great advantage to the public that those squares should be kept open, and I think they should be exempted from this tax while they remain open to the public. The Secretary for War stated that this tax would encourage the freeholder to throw open squares to the children. I do not think the freeholder has any power to do so, because that power is generally left in the hands of the leaseholder. Consequently, the freeholder will have to go on paying this tax with no power to throw the square open to the public, and he will not be exempt from this tax. It is far
  520
  more likely that the effect of this proposal, instead of stimulating people to throw open squares to the children, will not have the effect anticipated by the Government. I think if landowners are willing to forego building on land by laying it out as a garden it is a matter for which we should be grateful. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept this Amendment the matter will be quite safe, because the Clause provides that the Commissioners are to have the final decision as to whether it is for the benefit of the health and well-being of the locality that the land shall be kept as an open space and exempted. I think the Commissioners might well be entrusted not to exempt undeveloped land unless it is for the benefit of the nation.
  Sir W. BULL: I desire to second this Amendment. There are a number of fields round London which are neither squares nor undeveloped land. As London increases in size farms assume a sort of half-and-half character. The farmers find that they cannot deal effectively with the land for agricultural purposes because there are too many children about who run over the fields. A well-known gentleman in London has discovered a way of meeting the want of playgrounds for cricket and football, and he has made an arrangement with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners whereby a rent is paid which is something more than the agricultural rent, and something less than the building rent, for the use of certain fields round London for the convenience of various clubs. The scheme has worked well for a long number of years. The land is let for sport, subject to three, six, or nine months' notice, and now a vast number of these fields, the acreage of which runs into thousands all round the fringe of London, are held by this man and by various clubs and institutions for the purpose of games, and games alone. Often an acre is cut up into three or four football grounds, and they extend the whole distance around London, more particularly in the West and the North-West and in my own Constituency. I want to know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give any encouragement to that state of things. It is clear that land, when it ceases to be occupied as a farm, is, so to speak, undeveloped land and nearly ripe for building; but there is a hiatus between it being agricultural and building land of two, three, and sometimes even four years. It is here where the land comes in very useful as playing fields for the London clubs. The owner fences it in so that the

  521
  children cannot damage it, and he lets it out to the clubs. He gets a rent, but it adds greatly to the amenities of the city, and encourages healthy exercise amongst the inhabitants. I, therefore, want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether he cannot give some encouragement to the very useful class of the community who are supplying these fields. It is a business which has grown in the last 10 or 15 years, and is very well recognised and acts very fairly. Now and again the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or some large landlord round London will give notice, and the result is the playing field manufacturer is driven further and further away. I am afraid this Undeveloped Land Tax will have a very deleterious effect upon this trade. This amount of tax will just prevent the playing field proprietor from letting his fields at anything like a price which some of the poorer clubs are able to pay. At the present moment he makes a reasonable profit, but I am afraid this tax will just make the difference between profit and loss, and hundreds of clubs round about London will suffer. Therefore, I earnestly ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this case to see if he can meet it in any way.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment was apprehensive that the tax might have an adverse effect upon London squares. That is certainly not the intention of the framers of the Bill. The squares are, I venture to say, a peculiar and, perhaps, unique beauty of London, and there is no desire at all to place on spaces, which are so beneficial, any kind of burden which might interfere with the benefit they confer. There are certainly two, and I think it may be said three, guarantees against the taxation of London squares in the Bill as it now stands. There is, first of all, the provision as to a definite scheme in Clause 17, paragraph (c), which I think clearly protects them:—
  "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act, for the development of the area of which the land forms part."
  No one can look at the London squares without seeing that their condition exactly conforms with what is laid down there, so
  522
  that that paragraph covers them. It also covers the other case mentioned by the hon. Member. He referred to something I said in Committee when I was dealing with garden cities. It no doubt also covers that case expressly as it covers the squares. In a garden city parcels of land are left under agricultural user, but they are part of a definite building scheme. The words cover that. It puts parcels of land of that kind under practically the same protective conditions as London squares, and I think I may also with some degree of confidence say that they would be protected by the provision as to five acres occupied with a house or attached to a house. I quite imagine that some argument may be raised on this point, but although it was not drafted with that intention, I think it has that effect. Hon. Members will bear in mind, with regard to any ambiguity which arises on the language in this Clause, that it will always be construed against the State if it is necessary to have recourse to the courts. If it is open to a construction favourable to the subject, the courts adopt it. The third guarantee is afforded by Clause 25, Sub-section (3), defining the total value of land. It says:—
  "The total value of land means the gross value, after deducting the amount by which the gross value would be diminished if the land were sold subject to any fixed charges," and so on, "and subject to any covenant or agreement restricting the use of the land entered into or made before the thirtieth day of April, 1909."
  Now, of course, these squares are all subject to restrictive covenants.
  "And to any covenant or agreement restricting the use of the land entered into or made on or after that date if, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the restraint imposed by the covenant or agreement so entered into or made was, when imposed, desirable in the interests of the public, or in view of the character and surroundings of the neighbourhood."
  I do not think we need have any apprehension about the London squares; I do not think it is in the least degree likely, but if it were found they have not been sufficiently protected, it is the intention and desire of the Government, and they would do so immediately, but I think they are amply protected by the various clauses to which I have referred.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The Clause gives an exemption in the case of parks, open spaces, and so on, where the property is open to the public. Therefore, supposing there is an open space over which the public, as a public, have no right, it would not come within the exception. The open spaces particularised in the Amendment are clearly desirable in the interests of the public, although the public itself has no right to enter upon them and walk over them. London squares and very valuable pieces of land where our young people are able to go and enjoy such games as cricket or football ought not to have this duty imposed upon them. It would have the effect of immediately causing them to be built upon, so as to avoid this duty. Is it the most desirable thing that cottages and houses should be built upon every bit of land in the country? Is it not desirable, proper, and essential that plenty of pieces of land which to-day the public have no right to walk over, but which are valuable lungs of our cities, and valuable for a number of purposes in the interests of the community, should be left without buildings upon them? The Amendment is a very reasonable one, and the Attorney-General, in reply, referred us to three places in the Bill where, if we are sufficiently ingenious, we may perhaps be able to find that the case is covered. He says he will not put it in so many words, which will make it clear that the case is covered, but perhaps, if we look at these three places, we shall find it is covered. He refers us, first of all, to paragraph (c) of Sub-section (3) of this Clause, and he says the case of the London squares and of these very important pieces of land on the outskirts of London used for games is met by these words:—
  "Where the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme for the development of the area of which the land forms part."
  7.0 P.M.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman says that is a reply, but we look a little bit further down the Amendment Paper, and we find that if anybody avails himself of that privilege he forfeits the right for ever to build upon his land, unless the Local Government Board choose to give him permission. I venture to put it to the House, as a matter of common-sense, whether the owners of any open spaces in London would be prepared to give up for ever under any conditions, however the state of affairs may alter, the right to build upon their land simply to secure exemption from
  524
  a comparatively small, but to-day a very annoying, tax? It is obvious, therefore, that the exemption referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman is one which would not be effective and of which the owners of these spaces under no circumstances could possibly be induced to avail themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman next referred us to Section 17, Sub-section (4), as printed on the White Paper. He said we should find the case would come in under that Clause where there is an exemption of dwelling-houses with five acres of land. I do not know how you can call a London square a piece of land round the house or how you can say it is occupied with a house. A London square, instead of being round the house, is a piece of land round which there are houses, I do not think it could be reasonably argued that a London square is land round a house, but, even if it could be so reasonably argued, is that any reason why this Amendment, in plain and unequivocal language, should not be accepted? Nothing of the kind. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman said if you are not satisfied with these explanations I must refer you to some Clause—Clause 25, I think—and you will find that if the land is subject to restrictive covenants the Commissioners may look to see whether they are benefical, and, if so, then it is to be free. I really think this is a case where we ought to protest. If it is desirable that London squares should be exempted from this duty—and everybody will agree that it is—indeed the Government itself have practically admitted it—and if it is desirable to increase the land to which thousands of young men may go out to play football and cricket, then these lands should be relieved from that duty while so occupied. I think every Member of this House will agree with that. Why not say so in so many words? Why not make it clear that these pieces of land are to be exempted? After the months we have spent on this matter in Committee to come up here now and see these further Amendments, and to be met with a refusal on the part of the Government to do something which they admit that they ought to do themselves, namely, to exempt these pieces of land from taxation—when we are met with their refusal, and when their only answer is to refer us to three complicated sections which, in my opinion, do not meet the case, I think it is time we complained. It is not the way in which the Government should deal with a matter of this kind.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will not add anything to what has been said by my hon. Friend on the subject of London squares and places of that kind, but I should like to get some information from the Government as to the position of gardens. I have in mind a case with which I am familiar, where there is a very considerable garden attached to the residence of a gentleman in the neighbourhood of one of our big towns and which is, indeed, actually surrounded by small houses owing to the growth of the town. Now the public have no access to the place as of right, and the only exemption that could possibly be claimed is an exemption on the ground that they enjoy reasonable access. What has happened in this case is that the owner of the house has been in the habit, not of allowing anybody to come who chooses, but to freely give permission to anyone in the nature of a responsible party to enjoy the amenities of the ground and to spend an afternoon there during the summer months when he and his family are not in residence. Is that reasonable access within the meaning of the Sub-section? Such a case as that, I think, would be covered by the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I do not know quite what the Commissioners might determine. Commissioners sitting in London would not be acquainted with the locality, but I would undertake to say the local authority would claim that this was an open space to which the public had access, although not of right, and that it was a general access, although only an occasional access. It certainly would be desirable that that garden should be allowed to remain in its present condition as long as possible. It would possess a considerable building value, but I would urge that it would not be to the public interest to force the owner to build upon it as long as he can afford not to do so. Now such a case as that I think would be covered by the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but I fear that, if it were left to be dealt with on a strictly legal interpretation of the words contained in the Bill, it would not be dealt with in the interests of the locality.
  Sir W. ROBSON: As the right hon. Gentleman has put a question which turns on interpretation, with the permission of the House, I may be allowed to answer. Although we have to consider what is reasonable access, I do not think we are called upon to define it. The point is whether it is possible to substitute any other phraseology. I think if the right hon.
  526
  Gentleman were faced with our task he would find, on the whole, that the words we have used are the most beneficial to the subject. I am not going to bind the Commissioners in any way as to the manner in which they shall construe the words. I can only suggest to them facts which must be taken into consideration when dealing with the word "reasonable." In itself it is a difficult and dangerous word to use in a Statute. But one of the facts which the Commissioners would take into account would be the financial benefit which is, so to speak, the equivalent of the Act. If hon. Members will consider they will see that the financial benefit is very small. Take, for instance, the case put forward by the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke—the case of a large garden surrounded by a town. Say the garden extends to ten acres. It is subject to a building value—a site value. That value, of course, is not by any means as great as the sum for which it may be finally sold. You have also to take into account the cost of development, and I have been told that for making roads and drains in developing land the cost works out at something like £500 per acre. Take the value of the land at £1,000 per acre. You have 10 acres. The duty is only £2 per acre on the capital value, and, therefore, it amounts to but £20. The Commissioners will obviously balance that £20 against the fact that the garden is open to the public, and I, therefore, think they would treat the case put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in a very favourable manner. They will always grant favourable consideration to that kind of access which is granted by the generous country proprietor to neighbours whose good opinion he desires to retain.
  Lord BALCARRES: We might have drawn a little more comfort from the remarks of the Attorney-General if the decisions of the Commissioners were subject to appeal in the courts of law. But they are not, and when the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that this is not a matter on which any difficulty is likely to arise I think we are justified in doubting the assertion. He starts with the old story that the tax only amounts to £2 on an acre worth £1,000. But we have to bear in mind that the Lord Advocate has informed us that this is only the beginning, and that it may be very considerably increased. The particular point I wish to mention is one raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, which has received no attention whatever from the Attorney-General. The hon. and learned

  527
  Gentleman made a long defence of the exemption of London squares, but there he stopped. He gave us three Sub-sections in the Bill which might, by implication, save the London squares, and he also suggested that if the interpretation given to those Sub-sections did not prove satisfactory an amending Bill might be introduced later on. London squares and squares in Manchester and Liverpool are emphatically open spaces which ought to be preserved undeveloped for building purposes, in the interests of the whole community. Personally I have no right to walk through Berkeley-square or over the grass plots opposite the Members' entrance to this House, but, as a member of the public, I should be aggrieved, and justly aggrieved, if these places were built upon. Our playing fields, in that sense, are even more important than these squares. London possesses a great chain of central parks incomparable in Europe. The parks of Paris are fine, but you have to go 10 miles to reach them, but so far as London is concerned, even if all the squares were built over, you would still possess the lungs of four or five great central parks. But when you come to deal with suburban open spaces a different state of things arises. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Westminster are both very much interested in this question of recreation grounds for fluctuating clubs, and they have put forward a case to which the Government have attempted no reply. Lord's Cricket Ground and Kennington Oval, I admit, are protected. They are institutions which have funds at their disposal, together with an enormous potential income in the shape of gate-money. They are bodies corporate which are capable of entering into legal agreements by which they can secure exemption. But recreation grounds and open spaces on the fringes of our great towns, not merely near London, but in Lancashire and elsewhere, are not protected under the three Sub-sections to which reference has been made, and we ask, in plain and definite language, that they should be so protected. Our appeal has been refused. I want to point out to the Attorney-General what I am convinced will happen. At the present moment in London alone there are literally thousands of clubs which depend for their very existence upon the temporary use of land. I happen to know of the cases, and there are thousands of these clubs, and I was going to say nine out of ten of them,
  528
  but that would be an exaggeration, but in the large majority of cases they are what may be called fluctuating clubs—clubs depending upon the individual energy of the secretary or captain of the year, who organise the club, which is for that period a well-equipped and well-managed institution. These clubs enjoy the benefit of some of those open spaces organised by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) and mentioned by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir William Bull), and for a year or two years they exist. They may then dissolve and be re-formed in other names, and go to other parts of the suburbs. I know in central London a club that lasted for two or three years, and one year it played at Streatham, the next at Hampstead, and the next beyond the Great Western Railway terminus.
  These clubs are now protected, but as soon as you put in the three Sub-sections in this Bill and pass the subsequent Amendment which governs those Sub-sections, I believe that the whole of the land devoted to this purpose is doomed. Nobody can afford in the case of land of this character to hold it up, so to speak, in order to be of service to these small clubs, which pay ridiculously small rents for the recreation they receive. There is no right of access; it is against the interests of the club that there should be, because as soon as there is the cricket pitch gets cut up. It is also against the interests of the proprietor that unrestricted access should be given, because that will create rights of way over what will ultimately be developed into building property. I suppose the learned Attorney-General will, as usual, find refuge in the reasonableness of the Commissioners. Personally, I do not trust to the reasonableness of officials whose business it is to collect the maximum amount of tax. I do not know if the learned Attorney-General in his official capacity has to assert the reasonableness of the Income Tax Commissioners, but by every post Members of this House are receiving the most embittered and envenomed complaints against the action of those gentlemen whom we may be told on another clause of the Bill are reasonable gentlemen. I do not at all trust anything short of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend to ensure that these lands will be exempt from the tax. The hon. and learned Member, speaking about a particular garden that was mentioned, said that a garden of 10 acres was a very big thing, and was rare. That may be true, but it must be remembered that the word

  529
  "garden" covers much more than the space occupied by flower-beds. It means what in Scotland we call the "policy" as well. I know case after case, and if any hon. Member cares to know the cases I will give him the names, where acres and acres of ground are open day by day to the public within the area of the municipal boundaries, which, if closed tomorrow, would no doubt under this clause be subject to the taxation.
  This clause has to be read in conjunction with the Amendment following it. I am not going to deal with it except to point this out, that under the Amendment the next but two on the Paper, in the event of an owner giving reasonable access to the public to enjoy the amenities of his estate or of his garden, he will never be allowed to build upon it without the permission of the Local Government Board. That is to say, that these playing fields outside London to-day used for the enjoyment of the public and contributing greatly to the health, comfort, and amusement of the public, will be closed forthwith because the owners will never be able
  to admit for one minute that their right of building over that ground in the future shall be subject to the goodwill of the Local Government Board. Everybody knows that it takes six months to get an answer out of the Local Government Board, and when you are developing an estate that you should have to wait not only for the reasonable opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue but also for the reasonable opinion of the surveyors of the Local Government Board is so grotesque that people owning these estates will not submit themselves to the long delays, correspondence, worry and trouble which such a process would involve. I think myself that the proposal is very dangerous indeed. I have assured myself that dozens of these open spaces are doomed in consequence of the refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment, and if my hon. Friend proceeds to a division I shall support him with the very greatest satisfaction.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 181.

  Division No. 823.]

  AYES.

  [7.25 p.m.

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Renwick, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cave, George

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

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

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanier, Beville

  Chance, Frederick William

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Starkey, John R.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Valentia, Viscount

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Verney, F. W.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Younger, George

  Foster, P. S.

  Percy, Earl

  Gardner, Ernest

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir W. Bull and Mr. Burdett-Coutts.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Gordon, J.

  NOES.

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

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Agnew, George William

  Bennett, E. N.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cameron, Robert

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Astbury, John Meir

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Brace, William

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Brigg, John

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Bright, J. A.

  Clough, William

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Beale, W. P.

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Crossley, William J.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Robinson, S.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Erskine, David C.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Essex, R. W.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Sears, J. E.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Seely, Colonel

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Falconer, James

  Maclean, Donald

  Snowden, P.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  M'Callum, John M.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fullerton, Hugh

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Ginnell, L.

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

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Tomkinson, James

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Toulmin, George

  Glover, Thomas

  Marnham, F. J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Massie, J.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Vivian, Henry

  Grove, Archibald

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Walsh, Stephen

  Guiland, John W.

  Morse, L. L.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Myer, Horatio

  Watt, Henry A.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Napier, T. B.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire)

  Nuttall, Harry

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  O'Malley, William

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

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

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rainy, A. Rolland

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hodge, John

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Rees, J. D.

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

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Richards, Thomas W. (Monmouth)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Amendments made: In paragraph (c), to leave out the word "that" ["and that it is reasonably necessary"] and to insert instead thereof the words "where in the opinion of the Commissioners."
  In paragraph (d), after the word "is" ["On the site value of any land which is used"], to insert the words "bonâ fide."
  In same paragraph, to leave out the words "that the use of the land is for the benefit of the public or of the inhabitants of the locality and."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, at the end of paragraph (d), to insert the words "or where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, other circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be so used.
  "Where any land kept free from buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme has received the benefit of an exemption from Undeveloped Land Duty by virtue of this Section, that land shall not be built upon unless the Local Government Board
  532
  give their consent, on being satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of the public that the restriction on building should be removed; and any such consent may be given subject to such conditions as to the mode in which the land is to be built upon as the Local Government Board think desirable under the circumstances."
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: The first words in this Amendment—"or where, in the opinion of the Commissioners other circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be so used"—are in no sense a protection, as the Under-Secretary for the Home Department last night argued they were, to that large class of clubs on whose behalf I spoke. The Under-Secretary represented last night that these words with regard to future use are a sufficient protection to all clubs, including the large class of clubs which cannot make a five years' agreement, and which have not a sufficient corporate existence, continuity, or authority to

  533
  enable an agreement to be made with them, but which at the same time represent and include a vast number of the youth and growing manhood of the poor of London and other great towns. My point is that with the condition of a five-years' agreement, which secures the exemption without any doubt, all the owners of the land, in order to secure the exemption, will let their land to the clubs that can enter into a five-years' agreement. They will not be willing to rely upon the uncertain exemption granted by the first words of this Amendment referring to the future and leaving it to the opinion of the Commissioners whether the future use will be the same. That is a very doubtful quantity, and it is a method of securing the exemption which is very much less certain, so to speak, than the method of the five-years' agreement. Therefore, it is quite obvious that all owners of land, if they wish to secure this exemption, will let their land to clubs which can sign a five-years' agreement. Then what becomes of all the other clubs which cannot sign such an agreement? If the land is, as it certainly will be, monopolised, to secure this exemption, by the clubs which can sign a five-years' agreement, what becomes of all the other clubs which cannot sign? I see a real difficulty which may not have presented itself to the Under-Secretary's mind, in the much greater value and certainty that is embodied in the five-years' agreement condition than in the condition affecting the future.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I quite agree that the hon. Gentleman and myself are both working in this matter in perfect unison so far as the end we desire, and he, of all Members, has a right to speak for these particular clubs. The question was discussed last night in connection with the increment value exemption, and I pointed out that we had tried to meet the case of the poorer sporting public, with which he and I are most concerned, by an Amendment which was framed in connection with those who claimed to represent those particular interests. The original Bill, as it stood, limited the exemption to leases which at the beginning were not less than five years in length. That does not mean that the exemption would not be enjoyed, even though the lease had only two years or one year to run, but it had to be a five-years' lease. The hon. Gentleman very rightly states that a five years' lease is absurd to talk about in connection with large numbers of the poorer boys and work-
  534
  ing people in the neighbourhood of big towns, therefore we tried to devise some alternative for those who could not take these leases, and the alternative we devised was, in our opinion, in about as wide words as we could possibly give: "Where in the opinion of the Commissioners other circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be so used." That means, for example, this: There is a considerable amount of land in the neighbourhood of London which is not going to be used as building land for the next five or ten years, but which is being held up for ripening—land such as you can see from the London and South-Western Railway on the journey to Portsmouth, where you pass through a whole stratum of football field grounds which are in that condition. The owners do not design to build for a considerable time, and many of them are philanthropists enough to allow, almost at nominal rents, poor boys and working men to play on their ground. We wish to recognise that public service. They would pay a substantial allowance as Undeveloped Land Duty under the Bill without this exemption, but they can show, and they have no difficulty in showing, to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, in the words of our Amendment, that "circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be so used."
  On the other hand we have to consider the difficulty from another point of view. There is some land which is on the verge of building land, which will be built upon in six months or a year. That land is often let or given over to working class clubs, but it is really land which is ripe for building, and the fact that it had to pay this tax would not make very much difference whether the land was going to be built upon or not. I do not think, under these circumstances, that the working class clubs and the boys' clubs which now use it would gain any more by the land being exempt from taxation. But there is a very serious danger that land in that condition might escape the Undeveloped Land Tax through clubs being created just to occupy the land during that time, and to be turned out within a very few months. That is not the intention of the exemption. Practically, if we made the exemption very much wider, it would not be difficult for a very considerable amount of the most valuable building land, which the owners intend to build upon in a very short time, to escape the tax while allowing working class clubs to play upon it. I

  535
  offered the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) a suggestion yesterday as to finding any wider form of words which we could adopt within the margin that we desire and free from the danger which we fear. The hon. Gentleman has not repeated the Amendment which he made last night. He realises that it would be no use. The fact that ground was played on five years before would be no guarantee that it would be played on for the next five years. We are not concerned with the past. We are concerned with the future. We have been in communication with the representatives of those clubs which are particularly interested, and they think that we have gone as far as possible in the circumstances.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No one will question the desire of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) to protect the class of clubs for which my hon. Friend (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) has pleaded, but I am bound to say that I think it is impossible to defend the wording of the Clause if you are going to impose this tax and at the same time protect those clubs. The hon. Member in dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend used an argument which struck me as one of considerable force. Supposing the owner of land makes up his mind that he is not going to build upon the land for at least five years, he is then able to find a club with whom he can make a five years' agreement. That will not be one of those poor boys' clubs. It may be a club of comparatively well-to-do people. You put every temptation in the way of the landlord to seek out the well-to-do club, and to refuse the poor boys' club, because if he takes the well-to-do club he can sign a five years' agreement and snap his fingers at the Commissioners. But if he takes a poor boys' club he cannot sign a five years' agreement. What is his position then? He goes to the Commissioners and he has to prove to them that it is likely that the land will continue to be used for the purpose of games or other recreation. Do these words give any protection to such a case as my hon. Friend has spoken of, or even in such a case as the Under-Secretary for the Home Department referred to? Take those lands he spoke of on the London and South-Western Railway. He described them as lands with considerable site value at this moment, but not ripe for building. I did not know that the Government recognised that there was such a thing as land
  536
  with considerable site value not ripe for building. I understood that their view was that where you had building site value you ought to put a building on the site. That was the argument hitherto. Now the hon. Gentleman recognises that there is land with building site value which is not ripe for building, and which may not be built upon for five or 10 years.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I said appreciable site value.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the adjective used by the hon. Gentleman was considerable. Clearly there is such land, and the tax would be considerable if levied. According to the hon. Gentleman's statement, which is in accordance with our knowledge of that class of land throughout the country—I have no knowledge of the particular land to which he referred—that land is intended to be built upon. It will not continue indefinitely in this position. Are not the Commissioners entitled and bound to see that it is probable that it will continue indefinitely to be so used? The hon. Gentleman, speaking, not with the responsibility of the Commissioners, and not binding the Commissioners, says, "If you can show that the land is likely to be so used for five or ten years it will be exempt from duty under this Bill." I see no words in the Bill to support that view, and I think he must put in some words if he is going to protect at all the class of clubs which we on both sides of the House desire to protect. I naturally go to Birmingham for my illustrations. I see on every bit of land flat enough for the purpose of games, sometimes within and sometimes without the city boundaries, football clubs, cricket clubs, or lawn tennis clubs. The better-to-do ones which can afford to spend a good deal of money on levelling do not do that without an agreement for five years at least, and probably for more. But there is a great deal of land which is not let in that way. It is let from year to year to a club which exists only for a year, because the Member for the division or—[An HON. MEMBER: "A candidate for election"]—a candidate does not find money in sufficient quantity to keep it in existence. That is really the class of clubs with which we are familiar, and which probably expect from most of us 5s., 10s., and sometimes £1, a year. These clubs are very seldom in a flourishing condition. At the best they can only make ends meet. They are not in a position to enter into a five years' agreement or to take any responsibility. They

  537
  could not give any guarantee. They are not people of substance whose signature would be worth having. These are the people we wish to protect, and I submit that they are not protected at all. Not only have you not protected them, but you will compel the owner of the land, if he is mindful of his interest, or if the amount of the tax is a matter of moment to him at all, where he can get a five years' agreement, to choose the other kind of club in preference. The hon. Gentleman says, "Will you find words?" I will find words at once, but I do not expect that he will accept them. What I really think is that we have a right to ask the Government to make some effort to find words. I can find words so far as the clubs are concerned, but my words might not meet the ease so far as the revenue is concerned. I beg to move, after the word "used," at the end of the first paragraph of the Amendment, to insert the words "for the year of the assessment." The Amendment would then read, "or where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, other circumstances render it possible that the land will continue to be so used for the year of the assessment." That will protect the clubs, and I leave it to the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity to put in any other words which may be necessary to protect the revenue.
  Amendment to Amendment proposed, "That the words for the year of the assessment' be inserted at the end of the first paragraph."
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson): I confess that this Amendment, and indeed the whole Clause as now proposed by the Government, might very well fill those solicitous about the Revenue with considerable apprehension. I cannot help expressing my surprise that the Clause, as now Amended by the Government, should not be found satisfactory by those who are solicitous about other things than the Revenue in connection with this tax. The Clause provides that Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged upon any land which in the opinion of the Commissioners, is likely to be used for the purpose of games or other recreation. Think of the immense opening that gives—I will not say for evasion, because it will not be evasion—but what an opening it gives for the adoption of means by which the tax shall not attach. How easy it will be for a landowner to put his land under conditions to which the tax shall not apply. It might be called evasion by those who would consider it wrong to try to escape the tax,
  538
  but it would be a perfectly legitimate device to adopt. How is he to adopt it? The right hon. Gentleman says that the proposal of the Government will favour the club that can make an agreement, and not the club that cannot. As the Amendment stands, it will very likely give rise to this operation. The owner of undeveloped land may say, "I would rather not sell this land for building purposes at present. I desire to hold it up a little longer. It will not cost me very much to hold it up, for I see that the framers of the Finance Act of 1909 have kindly provided me with a means by which I can hold it up. All I have to do is to allow the use of the land for sporting purposes to people who may not be good enough to enter into an agreement, but who can play cricket and other games, and who can disport themselves on my undeveloped land." The Government desire to make this tax as light as possible, and to ensure that it shall not fall upon land used by the class of clubs which have been referred to. That is what is done by this Amendment. It is one of the Amendments in which, I think, we have gone too far. If we really desire to collect our tax, we really ought not to go further. I am not sure that his words are necessary, but if they add anything to the width of this exemption I shall oppose them. I hope the Commissioners will not be restricted by the words, "the year of the assessment." I think that would admit the danger of evasion to a greater extent than at presents exists. It is well that the courts will not have to construe this Clause. I say the land is not to continue for ever to be used for games. It is to be so used for some considerable period.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Why not put that in the Bill?
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Member has a faculty for definition. He would make an Act of Parliament, to his own great misfortune, consist entirely of a series of paragraphs and sections dealing with individual cases. That is not by any means the way in which Acts of Parliament are framed.
  8.0 P.M.
  Where no time is imposed, and where time is important for the purposes of construction, a reasonable time is generally inferred. In cases of this kind, where discretion plays a large part, there must be considerable latitude allowed. There was another point raised—How are you to judge what is probable? This again is as to the facility with which the tax may be

  539
  escaped. In our construction there may he no agreement. Maybe the landowner cannot find any person with whom he could make the agreement. But if he convinces the Commissioners of the probability that the land would continue to be used in this way it will suffice. How is he to bring about that opinion in the minds of the Commissioners? It seems to me quite sufficient that he should write submitting to the Commissioners that he has every bonâ fide intention of allowing this land to be so used. If he writes saying "I am an honest man, a gentleman, a landowner, and I intend that the boys shall play their games of cricket on my land, and do it freely, and continue to do it for a considerable length of time," that will be quite sufficient to raise the probability on which the Commissioners would be justified in acting. Whichever way you look at this Clause you have got a Clause here of a dangerous latitude for the purpose of the Act. I am in favour of allowing as much discretion as possible when you are dealing with exemptions from fiscal burden. I think when you come to define clearly the scope of the exemption you will end by narrowing it. Therefore I am in favour of giving as much discretion as possible. Here we are giving quite enough, and certainly I shall not ask for the House to give more by one single syllable.
  Sir S. SCOTT: I quite agree that the practice of the present day is to make Acts of Parliament as obscure as possible, and I quite assent to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on this.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I hope my hon. Friend is not suggesting that I said that. My remarks must be more obscure than I thought they were if I gave rise to that impression.
  Sir S. SCOTT: My Noble Friend the Member for Chorley (Lord Balcarres) raised a very important point on the last Amendment which has not yet been touched upon. The Under-Secretary a few minutes ago referred to the case of a certain amount of land which was held by various owners—I think it was on the London and South Western Railway—and that in view of the public spirit of those owners in allowing boys' clubs to play their games there for nominal rents, the Government desired to recognise that. My question is this: If those owners of the land, when the time came for developing
  540
  that land, have to go to the Local Government Board to get their consent to build on that land, would such consent be given, and would they have to submit to such conditions as to the mode in which the land was to be built on?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think it would be for the convenience of the House that the Amendments should be got out of the way first. If I may, with the permission of the House, say so, I think that the Attorney-General has given a construction to the words of the Government Amendment which is more equitable than I anticipated, though it does not give all my Amendment asks for, and, therefore, I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The discussion has hitherto ranged upon one portion of the Amendment. Perhaps it is rather unfortunate that the two questions should have been put together as they deal with entirely different points. As they have gone past the question of the first two lines, which no doubt more materially affect the question that has been raised by previous figures, I am rather surprised that the Government have not yet given us a single explanation of the long Amendment which follows. The restriction which is applied to a concession which was given in the Committee stage is a very serious one, and it follows the somewhat bureaucratic lines which we have noticed accompany a great many of the Acts and Bills of the present Government. I think if these words are added as they appear in the Bill in connection with the two lines above it they will be a very good instance of the class of rule under which the Government desire this country to be. In one line the Local Government Board are to be the entire arbiters in connection with the matter. Two lines later we are told that the opinion of the Commissioners as to the same matter shall be final, and not subject to any appeal. So you have practically the Local Government Board and the Commissioners given the absolute power. There is no right of appeal whatsoever in connection with the matter which will come before both. Undoubtedly this puts the subject under very great disadvantages. It is a rather strong measure to put this restriction in at this stage when the concessions have been argued in the House.

  541
  I happen to be connected as trustee with a charity in London which owns a considerable amount of land and which has at the present time a very large amount of open spaces in connection with its estate. Those open spaces are under the exemption originally given in Committee, and, as explained to-night, have the advantage of Sub-section (c) a secure remission from the Undeveloped Land Duty. We find now that the Government propose to put a new restriction upon the manner in which all those owners of charities can in future use their estates. The leases are falling in. It is an undoubted fact that any definite scheme framed after the passing of this Act for the development of the land will, in all probability, take a different shape from the scheme which was adopted say 50 or 60 or 70 years ago, and very likely some of these open spaces will have to be built upon, while other open spaces may be set apart for the advantage of the estate in order to bring it up to more modern ideas and to develop it in accordance with requirements. We have now the fact that for all future time, so far as the individual initiative of the estate is concerned, they are bound by the absolute autocratic decision of the Local Government Board, which can, if it likes, put a complete stop to any scheme that the trustees of the charity might put forward, even though, in their opinion, it would be greatly to the advantage of the estate. It does seem to me that the restrictions certainly require some defence on the part of the Government, of which we have not heard a single word up to the present, and that they are a distinct going back on the exemptions granted in Committee. Therefore I would ask for some explanation.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the hon. Member's recollection of what happened in the Debate in Committee is not quite correct. The privilege given under Clause 17, Sub-section (c), was the privilege which was definitely given with this restriction. It was part of the same system which was the result of representations made specially by those who are interested in the development of garden cities.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Garden cities are not London squares.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This Amendment was on the Paper on the Committee stage of the Bill. The garden city people and all those who are trying to develop suburbs of cities with a larger amount of land than
  542
  is normally given with that development, submitted to us that they desired to build under a definite scheme, by which that larger amount of land was given, especially in the case of the first garden city, where a definite agricultural belt, which would have a considerable value, is left around the City, and is intended for all time to be left around the city and used for the purpose of agriculture and for the general amenities of the town, even though it may still increase in assessable value and Undeveloped Land Duty. Then my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he was quite willing to meet cases of that sort if there was some guarantee that they were banâ fide, and that these land developers did not merely leave this land vacant because they did not care about building on it at the time, but that the moment it had acquired a considerable building value they should then start building on it. Those interested in the matter stated that they were quite willing to accept the decision of the Local Government Board if and when such question should arise. The Local Government Board was principally brought in because in a very few months it is going to be the authority for town planning, and the garden suburb schemes, which will have to be dealt with are schemes of town planning which deal with the permanence of open spaces. But the Amendment is only a consequential Amendment to the one now in the Bill, and that would never have been put in the Bill if the other one was not present.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The hon. Gentleman was now dealing with the question of garden cities. This evening we were told that Sub-section (c)was being put in the Bill in order to protect London squares and open spaces. Therefore the Government are bound to see that this Amendment must apply to London squares and open spaces.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Incidentally, no doubt, my hon. Friend stated that there were three exemptions under which he thought the London squares could be exempted. But those who remember the discussion in the Committee will recollect that the question of London squares was not brought into this Clause, except with the recognition due under the Clause as a part of it, and the discussion was rather upon this permissive power of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: I was about to call attention, just as the hon. Member for Ashford spoke, to the fact that the Under-Secretary confined himself to the question of garden cities. The proviso he now seeks to incorporate into the Bill affects land which is used, destined to be used, or controlled by bodies quite different from those who are responsible for garden cities, and intended for different objects. I do not think that the defence he has made for the Amendment was really adequate to meet the case. Let me put before him a scheme which will be directly affected by the Amendment. I happen to know a property in the southeast of London where the owner was about to try an interesting experiment. In that part of the Metropolitan area it is becoming increasingly difficult for immense numbers of young and active men to find ground suitable for cricket, football, and other pursuits. The owner of the estate in question intended, after looking into the matter, if it was found financially feasible, to start a scheme by which there should be associated with a given number of houses a given area of land, which would be kept open for the recreation of the occupants of those houses. The Amendment you are now trying to put in the Bill will make that impossible. It is an experiment; it might succeed or it might not; but what owner is going to tie up five, six, seven, or eight acres of land in a neighbourhood which is rapidly developing if he is to be debarred at any future time, supposing his experiment failed, from building upon that land except with the sanction of and under the conditions imposed upon him by the Local Government Board? I am afraid that the scheme, which would have been an interesting experiment, would never be undertaken if a proposal of this nature be incorporated in the Bill, and in order that we may have an opportunity of expressing our opinion on it in the Division Lobby, I beg to move to omit the words of the second paragraph of the Amendment from "where" down to "circumstances." I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give me some comfort or satisfaction with reference to the scheme to which I have alluded, because I frankly say I fail to see how it is possible for any scheme such as that even to be considered if words of this kind are to be included in the Bill.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The words which are proposed to be left out have a very limited application. They in no way touch the exception with which we have just been dealing, that in regard to land which is used for games. This is an exception of a very wide and far-reaching character. These words which the hon. Gentleman moves to omit do not touch any case for which exemption is sought on the ground that under some definite scheme it is intended that land shall be left open. Of course, if the intention of the owner is not to leave the land open, but to treat it like other land, giving some user of it until the time he can get an adequate price for it as building land, then we do not by any means desire to give him exemption.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: This was a definite scheme. The land will be kept, not for general purposes, but kept for the use of the occupants of the houses which would be built all round it. That was the scheme, and the land would have been kept open for the purpose of recreation as part of that definite scheme.
  Sir W. ROBSON: In other words, the hon. Gentleman is really putting the case of the London squares. If the land is kept open for the amenity of the buildings then it would have exemption. I have already described no less than three grounds on which exemption can be obtained, two of them being independent of that relating to recreation. If, on the other hand, it is not intended to leave the land open for the amenity of adjacent houses, but is left open for some other reason for a time, being used for games—he might get exemption under games—but if the owner wishes to keep himself absolutely free to dispose of it, then he must take his chance, and I think he would take it very gladly. It is only to those who seek exemption that this provision applies. An owner may say that he did not want to claim exemption for his land, and that he wanted to build upon it, but if he seeks exemption with all the consequences, and if he does not want the consequences he must not seek the exemption. I should say in the case which the hon. Gentleman put the owner would not seek exemption. If he really desired that the land should be kept open for the amenity of adjacent buildings, then he would seek exemption, and would not object to the restriction imposed by the Local Government Board.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has not met

  545
  the point we desired to put. The difficulty is that a London square may be exempted because it is a part of a definite scheme. The Attorney-General said so in a previous speech.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Not necessarily.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The case of which I am speaking is a definite scheme, under which an estate is laid out in squares and streets, and when that is taken to the Commissioners I do not think there will be any doubt that it will be dealt with as a definite scheme. It will not be dealt with under the 5-acres Clause.
  Sir W. ROBSON: There is no need to appeal to the Commissioners.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I think it is pretty clear that these questions will be dealt with under a definite scheme. If they are, you are at once brought up by this Amendment which is now suggested by the Government, and, if it is a definite scheme, then the whole matter in all future dealings will have to go absolutely to the Local Government Board. The fact is that this Amendment has been brought up in connection with the special matter of garden cities and I hope that the Government will see their way to withdraw it.
  Lord BALCARRES: I wish to refer to one sentence in the speech of the Attorney-General which I think throws a good deal of light upon the attitude of the Government in this matter. My hon. Friend (Mr. H. W. Forster) has pointed out a particular case in which, according to his opinion, an experiment for making a playground for a particular group of houses may be destroyed. The Attorney-General again refers to the parts of the Bill which he thinks will protect that land from the contingency, but he said that under those conditions it will not be worth while making that ground a playground. I differ fundamentally from the Government upon that point, and from the view of the learned Attorney-General that it is not worth while doing so.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think I said so. Why should I say so? I was dealing with the particular case, and I said the owner might not think it worth his while. I did not say it would not be worth his while.
  Lord BALCARRES: I gathered that the Attorney-General said that the owner would not think it worth his while to proceed with his scheme I think he is
  546
  right in thinking that the owner will probably think so.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I never said so.
  Lord BALCARRES: I gathered the Attorney-General said that the owner under those conditions might not think it worth his while to apply for exemption, and that he might think it might be better to develop it as building estate instead of as a playground. I say frankly that it is deplorable that any owner of ground in the neighbourhood of a great town should be dissuaded even by the smallest tax from devoting the amount of land he can afford to open spaces and to recreation, The whole tendency of this Clause is going to be to prevent the accretion on the outskirts of our great towns of more of those open spaces which, in my opinion, are far more important for the benefit of the community than nine out of ten of the objects sought to be attained by Parliament. This Amendment is purely a garden city Amendment. I remember perfectly well the circumstances of its adumbration in the Committee stage. It was brought forth on behalf of the garden cities. It is drafted to meet the case of six or nine or perhaps a dozen garden cities now existing in this country. I am perfectly ready to admit that if the garden city movement is satisfied in this Amendment, then they are entitled to have it. My hon. Friend (Mr. Laurence Hardy) doubts that they are satisfied with it, but I have no information on that point. But the Government ought not, in meeting the grievances of the garden cities, prejudice the case of thousands of persons who may be doing work analagous to that of the garden cities by trying to develop their urban property, and, incidentally, not securing 5 per cent. in doing so.
  What is a definite scheme? That has not been defined in any way. The Attorney-General rallied my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford) for asking for a definition. I do not think it lies in the mouth of the Attorney-General to attack my hon. Friend, considering that the Government have accepted his arguments in upwards of 40 causes by accepting the Amendments he has put on the Paper to the Finance Bill. Personally, I think a definition is, on the whole, a rather useful thing. About 15 or 20 of these Clauses are so nebulous and obscure that, in the absence of a definition, their true incidence can only be certified by the law courts years hence. A garden city has

  547
  got a so-called definite scheme, but there are hundreds of people who are developing their property without a definite cut-and-dry scheme which they could submit to the Commissioners, but who, none the less, are paying great attention to the amenity of the open space movement of the country, partly in their own interest, largely in the interest of the community who live in those neighbourhoods.
  I know a particular case I will quote to the Attorney-General of a great town which leads to another urban area, and from that area to a third, a great long line of closely populated inhabitants, and at the end of one of these parts there happens to be three or four pasture fields. Those pasture fields could be built upon, and they could bring a very large sum if placed in the market, but they are kept as open grass fields in a great industrial district in the North, on a long road closely hedged in on either side with houses and factories. The very fact of those fields—open, fresh, green, and clear—is a benefit to the community at large; but I do not think those fields come in under the amended Clause. I do not think those fields could be said to be kept free from building in pursuance of any definite scheme. They are not. There is no definite scheme by which they are left unbuilt upon. I say it would be a grievance to a hundred thousand people if those fields were built upon, and incidentally it would put thousands of pounds into the pocket of the proprietors. What is going to be the effect of this Amendment on those fields? If the man claims exemption, he has got to show that there is a definite scheme, but he has not got a definite scheme, and, therefore, he cannot claim exemption. But it is quite possible there may be similar cases where there is a scheme, and where he could say he proposes ultimately to do this, that, or the other, and satisfy the Commissioners there is a scheme, and on those grounds he could perhaps certainly secure exemption. But having once secured exemption, should it become necessary in the interest of the community that the land should be built upon, or in the interest of his own finances that the land should be realised, he has got to go to the Local Government Board for permission.
  I may point out to the Ministers in charge of the Bill that this is a question of the control of the central department. In the four speeches we have had this
  548
  point has not been referred to once, except in connection with the garden city. I state my view that the latter part of this Amendment is really an intolerable hardship. What happens? If a man has got his scheme he secures exemption, and very properly; but then when circumstances alter, and when this belt of land round the garden city is to be used for the purpose of factories or residences, or in analogous cases all over the country, he has got to go to the Local Government Board to get their consent to have the land built upon, and he has got to satisfy the Local Government Board that it is desirable, in the interest of the public, that the building should take place. Having gone through those two processes, the Local Government Board may settle what kind of building he is to put on it, and they may settle what direction the roads are to take, and how much can be exempted from the actual building. I hold that that is a proposal so drastic and so far-reaching that some explanation from the Government is imperative. I do not know the history of the later words in this Clause; probably they have something to do with a rejected Clause of the Housing Bill in Committee. In my opinion the proposal is indefensible, because a Government Department, however useful it may be when acting in co-operation with a municipal authority in determining housing and town planning questions, is not an authority competent or sufficiently experienced to deal with the development of private estates. I object altogether to the proposal that the Local Government Board should settle anything and everything connected with the building on these estates. That is the meaning of these words. They can make their consent subject to such conditions as to the method in which the land is to be built upon as they think necessary. They may say that a garden must be put here, houses there, extra roads somewhere else, and they may require the design of the houses to be submitted to them. I say that that is carrying the passion for bureaucracy too far. The proposal has not been defended or even mentioned by the Minister in charge, and I think it is a subject on which, if the Treasury officials refuse to deal with it, we ought to have the advice of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. REES: I do not quite understand whether the scheme referred to in paragraph (e) of the Clause is the only definite scheme contemplated by the Amendment which the Government has placed before the House.

  549
  I do not see why it should be. Take, for instance, the extremely common case where inside a park there is a cricket ground to which people have reasonable, though perhaps not altogether unrestricted access. Suppose the owner of the park who uses a portion of it for this laudable purpose chose to make a scheme. Would it be competent for him to make a scheme for a limited period, and to say in consequence that that portion of his park should not be liable to Undeveloped Land Duty? I do not quite know how he could do it under paragraph (e), because it distinctly refers to a scheme "for the development of the area." Supposing he could do it—and it would certainly be advantageous that he should—if he made such a scheme for one, two, or three years, it is possible that subsequently he would not be able to vary that scheme without the Local Government Board being satisfied "that it is desirable in the interests of the public that the restriction on building should be removed." The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Balcarres) referred to the case of fields outside a town. I have frequently brought a particular case of that character before the House, but, having had no success, I will not reopen it; but I should like an answer from the Attorney-General as to the case I have mentioned.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott): I do not see what this has to do with the Amendment. The Amendment is to leave
  out certain words from the proposed Amendment, and so far as I have been able to follow the hon. Member he has not yet said anything which appears to apply to that.
  Mr. REES: I was dealing with the Government's Amendment: "Where any land kept free from buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme has received the benefit of an exemption," and so on.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question put by the hon. Member does not seem to me to have any reference to what is proposed by this new paragraph, namely, that if an exemption has been granted the Local Government Board must give their consent to building operations in the future.
  Mr. REES: Upon that point I put the question as to what must be the character of the scheme; whether the scheme must be one for the building development of the area; if not, whether such a scheme as I have suggested could be made; and if it could, whether such a scheme could not be determined without the leave of the Local Government Board obtained in the manner provided.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 39.

  Division No. 824.]

  AYES.

  [8.45 p.m.

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

  Crossley, William J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Agnew, George William

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

  Hodge, John

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Elibank, Master of

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Essex, R. W.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Idris, T. H. W.

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Falconer, J.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Brace, William

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Brigg, John

  Gibson, J. P.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bright, J. A.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Luttrall, Hugh Fownes

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Guiland, John W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Byles, Wm. Pollard

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Morse, L. L.

  Clough, William

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hedges, A. Paget

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

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Cowan, W. H.

  Herbert T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Napier, T. B.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Weir, James Galloway

  Nuttall, Harry

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Sears, J. E.

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Seely, Colonel

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Rees, J. D.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Toulmin, George

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

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips.

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Vivian, Henry

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Robinson, S.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Watt, Henry A.

  NOES.

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Renwick, George

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cave, George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Gordon, J.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: This Amendment of the Government is dividable into two parts——
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to speak again, but perhaps the House will give him permission?
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I shall feel obliged if the House will kindly allow me to say a word or two. I did not know I had lost my turn by seconding an Amendment on this Amendment. What I simply desire to say very very shortly is, that we do not complain at all of the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman, and also the hon. Gentleman beside him, have treated this subject. All that we do complain of is that our desires with regard to shaping the Bill have not been met. The hon. and learned Gentleman has explained to us very lucidly and with exceeding clearness what the Government idea is. Of course, some of us have a very good recollection of how this matter was dealt with in Committee. The whole of what is now complained of in this Amendment—now sought to be introduced—was before the Committee, and it was withdrawn at that time with the assurance that it would be carefully looked into and brought up again on Report. But the same thing has happened. What, however, I wish to point out with regard to
  552
  the first portion of this Amendment is this: That the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General has said that these words: "where in the opinion of the Commissioners other circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be so used" from either a legal or an Act of Parliament point of view—which is rather different from a legal point of view—means something altogether different from what the words themselves say. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to go with me past a field where some boys are playing cricket. He might say to me: "Is that land going to continue to remain unbuilt upon?" As I might be aware that within the next two or three years it would be built upon I should say "No." We are asked now to believe that under the circumstances the answer should be "Yes." Because the land is not going to be built upon immediately, because bricks are not carted on to the site, or something of that sort takes place, therefore that land is to be continued to be unbuilt upon! I should have thought the Government would have been only too willing to have made it quite clear that, at all events for some years, land might remain unbuilt upon. The second part of this Amendment we object to very strongly, because it takes away the whole benefit of paragraph (c). Nobody in the future will say: "Here is a definite

  553
  scheme; I am doing something in the interest of the community by leaving my land unbuilt upon." Nobody will venture to say that. Why? Because no owner of land will ever allow himself to be put entirely under the heel of the Local Government Board in respect to whether or how that land shall be built upon. For these two reasons we object to the first part of the Amendment. We object to it because it says something absolutely different to what it is intended to mean. Upon that point may I be allowed to say this in reply to the observation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that before I became a Member of this House I was engaged in drafting, not one Or two, but a good many Bills which have come before this House. I have been brought up as a conveyancer, a draftsman. It has been my business all my life to draft documents of different kinds. The object of draftsmen in doing so is always to avoid obscurity if it possibly can be done. That is the main object of the draftsman. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not always."] Well, it always was mine. When the hon. and learned Gentleman says to me "you have to construe these words 'continue to be so used' in a necessarily opposite sense from the words themselves," then I say it is unfortunate. And it is a great pity that, in the interest of lucidity and fairness, we cannot put in two or three words into this Amendment which would make it clear. We very strongly object to this Amendment, both as to its first and second part.
  Amendment made.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "The opinion of the Commissioners as to matters arising under this Sub-section shall be final and not subject to any appeal."
  When this matter was reached in Committee we were promised that it would be considered. I do not say that a promise was made that an appeal should be given, but that something possibly might be done. The Clause relating to appeals is Clause 33, and that Clause starts by saying, "except as expressly provided in this part of the Act any person aggrieved may appeal within such time and in such manner," and so on. In this Clause there is an express provision that there is to be no appeal. There are several points relating to exemption from this Undeveloped Land Duty in regard to which the opinion of the Commissioners is to be
  554
  final. The first is in regard to parks, gardens, or open spaces open to the public; the second is that it is open to the Commissioners to decide whether the land is being kept free of building in pursuance of a definite scheme; the third is where the Commissioners come to the conclusion that it is in the interest of the public or in view of the character or surroundings of the neighbourhood that the land should be kept free from buildings; the next is where the land is being bonâ fide used for the benefit of the public, and the fifth is where other circumstances render it probable that land is used under some agreement. The opinion of the Commissioners on all these matters shall be final and not subject to any appeal. I do think, if the Commissioners are to be relied upon as reasonable men to do their work, they would not object to an appeal.
  I have had a little experience in these matters and the Attorney-General has a great deal, and I think he will agree with me that courts where there is no appeal do not do their business any better than courts from whose jurisdiction an appeal does lie. When we are imposing a tax of this kind in the discretion of the Commissioners, I suggest it would be more satisfactory to the general community if there was even a reasonably restricted right of appeal. I do not want to suggest that the Commissioners are likely to be unreasonable people or to be vindictive, but we cannot disguise from ourselves the fact that the Commissioners are the people who will receive the tax, and to give them an unlimited and an uncontrolled discretion is, I think, carrying the thing a little too far. I think it is desirable, not merely in the interests of justice, but in order to allay any dissatisfaction, that an appeal should lie in these cases.
  Mr. STANIER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  9.0 P.M.
  Sir W. ROBSON: It is never a very gracious task, especially on the part of one who more or less represents the Bar of England in this House, to refuse a request that there should be a right of appeal. At the same time no one knows better than those accustomed to the atmosphere of courts how unsuited they are in regard to certain subjects. Let us take the subjects excluded from the right of appeal. Here we are dealing with exemptions from a general tax, and naturally and necessarily there must be a certain amount of discretion in considering whether or not there

  555
  shall be exemptions. What is the kind of discretion that is given here? Take, for instance, the occasion as to the opinion of the Commissioners whether or not circumstances render it probable that land will continue to be used for games. That is a matter which a man of business will decide, or which an official will decide, very much more satisfactorily than if you have it decided by calling witnesses on both sides and by having the opinion of the judge, who really will not have as good an opportunity of forming such an opinion as a Commissioner. Remember the decision of courts are arrived at, and are necessarily arrived at, under certain necessary disabilities. A judge cannot form an opinion in the same way as a man of business can by making the rounds and hearing what other people have to say. He is restricted as to the material upon which he has to form his opinion. Does anyone, looking at the matter dispassionately, think the Commissioner is not better able to arrive at a conclusion as to whether land is likely to be used to the advantage of the public than a judge? Take, again, the case of a restrictive covenant, or whether by some definite scheme it is well that a certain land shall be left free from building. These are purely questions of belief, not law. This is a question of the kind of information and opinion on which a man of business has to make up his mind twenty times a day.
  As to whether reasonable access is allowed, that again is a matter for the opinion of the Commissioners. I do not think it is a thing to which legal procedure lends itself happily or well, and therefore we have excluded these cases from the Bill. I am certain that in the working of the Act it is better for the subject that these matters should be left to the final determination of the Commissioners. As I am not permitted to speak again on this point, perhaps I may remind the House of the course this matter took in Committee. The point was discussed as to whether there should be an appeal or whether the opinion of the Commissioners or some other Board should be taken, and it was decided that this appeal should be excluded. Upon turning to the OFFICIAL REPORT, I find that the Secretary for War undertook that he would consider before the Report stage whether the Local Government Board should be the body for this work. Later in the Debate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Ex-
  556
  chequer said that the authority must be the same as was provided in Clause 11. A Division was taken as to whether or not there should be an appeal, with the result that the proposal for an appeal was negatived.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: During the Debate in Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) moved the deletion of these words, and the Secretary for War, who was in charge of the Bill on that night, at first refused altogether to entertain the idea. The Debate went on, and it turned on two distinct points. The first was as to who was to decide, and the second was as to whether there should be an appeal. The Secretary for War was certainly convinced on the first point, because he undertook to consider whether the Local Government Board was a suitable body, and he stated that if that was found to be the case an Amendment could be inserted on Report to that effect. The Secretary for War admitted that it was awkward that the judicial authority should be the taxing authority. The right hon. Gentleman was further pressed on the matter of appeal, and he said:—
  "I should like to take time to consider this point, and if the Amendment is withdrawn I undertake to consider with an open mind whether it is not possible to substitute the Local Government Board. I am at present averse to an appeal, but I will consider it."
  There were two questions, namely, the tribunal and the appeal, and the Minister for War, who was in charge of the Bill at that time promised to consider both points. The hon. Member for Kingston later on got up and said that in view of what the Government had said he would withdraw his Amendment. The Amendment was withdrawn on the distinct understanding that the Government would give the matter full consideration, and they promised to do so with an open mind. They had not given the matter full consideration, and they had not approached it with an open mind. But, apart from the history of the question, and speaking strictly on its merits, I think some of these matters are not fit subjects for an appeal to a law court, but it does not follow that there should not be an appeal in regard to them. Upon such questions as whether "access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality," or whether it is necessary in the interests of the public that the land should be kept free from buildings, I think neither the Commissioners nor the law court should decide,

  557
  but some other authority. Again upon such questions as to whether it would be an advantage to the locality that certain games should be played upon certain lands, I would much rather have the local authority as the tribunal in the first instance, and in case a dispute arose there might be an appeal to the Referees. I think on such matters a Referee appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institute would be a better tribunal than a judge sitting in the court or the Commissioners. On these grounds I think an appeal should be allowed. If you are going to allow a taxing authority to be the judge in their own case I think you are setting up a bad and a dangerous precedent. I hope the Government will see their way to make some modification upon this point. If they do not I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This is a difficult question upon which we can make up our minds as to what is in the best interests of the subject and justice and equity generally. I am very much disposed to agree that many of these questions are not suited for decision in a court of law according to the rules of evidence and all the other expensive paraphernalia attached to legal procedure. I suppose this is necessary when similar questions have to be decided by a court of law as between subject and subject, though not probably between the Crown and the subject. Such a question as whether reasonable access is given must frequently come before the courts. These questions are not quite as strange to the courts as might have been supposed from the way in which the Attorney-General treated the matter. Be that as it may, I quite agree with him that on the whole the questions with which we are now dealing are not questions of law, and, indeed some of them are scarcely questions of fact; they are matters of opinion, and I do not know that much good is ever obtained by taking a matter of opinion into a court of law. Certainly, as one of the subjects of the realm, I can honestly say that the last place in which I wish to find myself is a court of law in any capacity,
  whether as a plaintiff or otherwise. Under those circumstances, I am certainly not inclined to press the Government to give an appeal to a court of law upon all these questions, but at the same time Members of the Government have themselves felt there is a great inconvenience in allowing the taxing authority to be also judge in its own cause—to be allowed to assess the subject and also to say what benefit the subject shall hay from the exemptions. I venture to make a suggestion which I think might reconcile my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Watson Rutherford) and the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is aware that the appeal under Clause 33 is not an appeal direct to a court of law. It is an appeal to one of the Referees appointed in the manner determined by the Act. Thereafter, if the party feels aggrieved by the decision of the Referee, he may take his case to a court of law. What I suggest is that under the Sub-section with which we are now dealing there should be an appeal to the Referee, but no further. The Referee would give that kind of business decision which the Attorney-General and I wish to get. An appeal to him would not be subject to all the strict rules, the expense, and the unnecessary procedure of an appeal to a court of law, and at the same time it would meet the particular objection of my hon. Friend, that, as the Bill now stands, the Commissioners are judges in their own cause.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The right hon. Gentleman has put his point so persuasively that I am almost sorry I cannot accept his suggestion. After all, it would be substituting one opinion for another, though I quite agree it may be a less objectionable alternative than an appeal to a court of law. The proposal is one which has its attraction, and, if it were made in Committee, it is one we should say should be considered before Report, but at the present stage I am afraid I am not in the position to accept it.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'arising,' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 42.

  Division No. 825.]

  AYES.

  [9.20 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

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

  Agnew, George William

  Bennett, E. N.

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

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Berridge, T. W. D.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Cameron, Robert

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Brace, William

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Brigg, John

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Beale, W. P.

  Bright, J. A.

  Chevy, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Clough, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Robinson, S.

  Crossley, William J.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Essex, R. W.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Falconer, J.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Sears, J. E.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Maclean, Donald

  Seely, Colonel

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  M'Callum, John M.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

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

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Gibson, J. P.

  Mallett, Charles E.

  Tomkinson, James

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Toulmin, George

  Glover, Thomas

  Marnham, F. J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Massie, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Grove, Archibald

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Vivian, Henry

  Guiland, John W.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Walsh, Stephen

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morse, L. L.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Myer, Horatio

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Napier, T. B.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  O'Malley, William

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Higham, John Sharp

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Hodge, John

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Rees, J. D.

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

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  NOES.

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Renwick, George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Cave, George

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newdegate, F. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major Coates and Mr. Stanier.

  Gordon, J.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Drafting Amendments made.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (in the absence of Mr. Cox)Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (in the absence of Mr. Cox) moved in Sub-section (4), after the word "duty" ["Inhabited House Duty"] to insert the words "or where the tenants of two or more houses have joint user of a garden, on the site value of any land not exceeding one acre in extent for each such house."
  I am moving this in order to obtain from the Attorney-General the view of the Government as to the law on this point. The hon. Member for Preston proposes that you should give exemption to the land occupied jointly by a number of houses.
  560
  That seems to be a fair and reasonable proposition, and I should have thought it absolutely unnecessary to move it but for something the Attorney-General said earlier in the day. If I rightly understood him, his answer would be that that is already covered where there are several houses having a joint user of the garden. The point we wish to get at is whether the exemption will be granted for the land in the case of one house or whether it will be allotted to each house as if they had plots separately attached to them. I will formally move this Amendment in order to get the view of the Attorney-General.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think there is anything in the Bill which will cover the object aimed at by the hon. Member who put down this Amendment, neither do I see how the object would be definitely achieved under any Clause of the Bill. We have a garden of five acres exempt under the Bill, except under very exceptional circumstances; we also have the exemption of all squares, which are really gardens. There may be some cases outside which would be only covered by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston, but is it really necessary that we should make further provision for these? We have to consider that by opening the door we are losing income; we have lost a great deal already, more in my opinion than we ought. We have made substantial concessions, and I do not think we can afford to give anything more away in the shape of concessions. The substantial object aimed at by the hon. Member for Preston is already secured, and to accept this Amendment would be to open the door to further evasions which might have serious results.
  Mr. CAVE: This is a serious matter. The Attorney-General in effect has said that while one class of people who deserve to get off have got off, the Government cannot afford that other people who also deserve to get off should also get off. It very often happens that a number of houses originally on one estate have a common garden—it may be, 10 or 20 or more such houses have between them a garden of 10 or 20 acres. I do not see why houses in that position are not entitled to exemption on the same principle which exempts men with one acre of garden. Surely the case is similar. They have got an acre each of land, and they throw the gardens into one lot and use them together, and they are gardens of all the houses just the same, and no house has really more than the equivalent of one acre. It seems to me that the same principle which exempts the one acre to one house should exempt the 10 acres to 10 houses. I do not see any difference in principle, and I hope some more serious consideration will be given to the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. E. A. RIDSDALE: The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Cox) is not here, but he told me that the case he had in view was Gray's Inn, where I understand there is a piece of ground which is used by the occupants of a number of houses. I think
  562
  the hon. Member anticipates considerable hardship there, because they would not like to take exemption in the future as they would be precluded from dealing with the land unless they could obtain the consent of the Local Government Board, and that would fetter their action. It really does seem to be a hardship that combinations for the common good—I do not wish to use the word Socialism—should be interfered with.
  Mr. G. L. COURTHOPE: In reference to the argument that this Amendment was not necessary, as five acres were allowed, may I point out that, as I read the Bill, the house, stables, and so on all come into that five acres; and if there are 10, 15, or 20 houses using a common garden, there will be very little of that five acres left for garden. Therefore, I do not think that the argument which the learned Attorney-General used is of any value at all to those for whose benefit this Amendment has been moved. I think, therefore, we may wipe that out altogether where there are a number of houses. The space actually occupied by the houses and their yards, stables, outbuildings, and so on will be so great that there will be nothing left of the five acres, or, at all events, nothing appreciable for a garden. I do hope that as the learned Attorney-General brought forward that argument confidently thinking, that these joint users would have the whole of the five acres, and must now realise that they will not have it for a joint resort, he will reconsider the attitude he has taken up, and, if possible, accept the Amendment or something on the same lines.
  Mr. H. MYER: I know of one or two concrete cases in reference to this particular question, inasmuch as in my experience certain squares, with the houses attached to them, have fallen into the hands of the landlords, and the garden of five or six acres, part of which was taken over, was built over, and a large school or orphanage was erected. This ground originally belonged to the people of the houses, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Attorney-General will say that they will not allow these properties when they fall in to be built upon.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 156.

  Division No. 826.]

  AYES.

  [9.45 p.m.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Haddock, George B.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Renwick, George

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

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

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanier, Beville

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Foster, P. S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

  Gordon, J.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Lord Balcarres.

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

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

  Agnew, George William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Astbury, John Meir

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Rees, J. D.

  Beale, W. P.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

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

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Robinson, S.

  Brace, William

  Hodge, John

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Brigg, John

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bright, J. A.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jardine, Sir J.

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

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Sears, J. E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Seely, Colonel

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lupton, Arnold

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Tomkinson, James

  Clough, William

  Lynch, H. B.

  Toulmin, George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Verney, F. W.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Maclean, Donald

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Cowan, W. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Vivian, Henry

  Crossley, William J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

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

  Walsh, Stephen

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

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Essex, R. W.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Marnham, F. J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Falconer, J.

  Massie, J.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Micklem, Nathaniel

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

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Morse, L. L.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gibson, J. P.

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Myer, Horatio

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Glover, Thomas

  Napier, T. B.

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Grove, Archibald

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Guiland, John W.

  O'Grady, J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Malley, William

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Amendments made: In Sub-section (4), after the word "grounds" ["the site value of any land being gardens or pleasure grounds"], to insert the word "so."
  In the same Sub-section, to leave out the words "with a dwelling-house, which do not exceed five acres in extent."—[Sir W. Robson.]
  Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON moved, at the end of the same Sub-section, to insert the words:
  "Provided that the exemption under this provision shall not apply so as to exempt more than five acres, and where the land, gardens, or pleasure grounds occupied together with a dwelling-house exceed five acres in extent, those five acres shall be exempted which are determined by the Commissioners to be most adapted for use as gardens or pleasure grounds in connection with the dwelling-house.
  "Where the dwelling-house, gardens, and pleasure grounds are valued for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule A, together with other land, the total annual value shall be divided between the dwelling-house, gardens, and pleasure grounds, and the other land in such manner as the Commissioners may determine."
  Mr. RENWICK: I have read this Amendment with very great surprise, and I think the time has arrived when we ought to ask how the Commissioners are going to carry out the duties which are piled on them day after day. During the course of the Committee and Report stages all manner of duties have been imposed on them, but the height of absurdity is reached in regard to this Amendment. We find that where a garden or pleasure ground exceeds, together with the site of the house, five acres, the Commissioners are to be called in to go round the grounds and decide which five acres are to be exempt. I can imagine them going into the kitchen garden to examine the cabbages, leeks, and onions, and saying they are of opinion that instead of growing leeks and cabbages here they should be grown there. Could anything be more absurd? Then who are these Commissioners? The amount of work which is to be piled upon them will mean a great increase of their number. If they are to be increased are they to have the same status and the same salary? If not, to which county are the best Commissioners to be sent, and to which county are the inferior Commissioners to be sent? I cannot imagine anything more absurd than this proposal, and I am amazed that such an Amendment should be put down in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us some information in regard to how the Commissioners are going to carry out this extraordinary duty. I wish to treat it seriously, and not as a joke. Suppose I have a house and grounds of six acres, five acres have to be exempt according to the Bill. Have the Commissioners to come down to my place and personally
  566
  go round and tell me which portion of my garden is most suitable for cultivation? One can only learn after years of experience which portion of your grounds are most suitable for gardening. I do some gardening myself, and after years of experience I have discovered which portions of the ground are most suitable for vegetables and which for flowers, and so on. Here the Commissioners are simply to walk round and look at the grounds, without any experience, and say, "Grow your cabbages here and your roses there." The whole thing is absurd, and it shows that this Bill is piling up work for the Commissioners. It will mean such an enormous number of Commissioners and officials that we shall not be able to move about our own grounds.
  Sir W. ROBSON: It is not often that we have the pleasure of hearing one Member of the Opposition upon an Amendment put forward by another Member of the Opposition. I am sure it will interest the hon. Member to learn that the Amendment which he is so amazed to find in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one put down at the request of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman).
  Mr. RENWICK: That does not make it the less ridiculous.
  Sir W. ROBSON: If it is amazing it is still more amusing. The hon. Member was quite indignant that he should be laughed at when he said he was not speaking in a spirit of humour. That is exactly where his humour was most effective. We were much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford. The Clause as it originally stood was open to one, I will not say obvious, but very marked objection. The intention of the Clause was to give a more extensive exemption to garden land around houses, and it said that Undeveloped Land Duty should not be charged upon garden land connected with dwelling houses when it did not exceed five acres in extent. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford pointed out that you might have a garden ten acres in extent, and under those circumstances it would not be fair to refuse exemption to it. The wording of the Clause did cut out the exemption in cases of land of ten acres. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would redraft the words in a form that would make it clear that the owner of a ten-acre garden should at least have the exemption which was given to the owner of a five-acre garden. No real difficulty will arise as to the part to be exempted.

  567
  It is left to the discretion of the Commissioners, as we said at the time when the Amendment was promised. No one objected then, because hon. Members happened to know what they were talking about. They were not subject to that excess of indignation which seems to be felt by the hon. Member for Newcastle. It is a very rare case in which a garden will have to be apportioned in any such way, but if it has to be apportioned it is better that the Commissioners should do it.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There are two points on which I wish to ask information from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I gather that the allocation of the garden land for this purpose is to be in the discretion of the Commissioners. Is there any appeal from that discretion?
  Sir W. ROBSON: There is an appeal.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As to the other point, I notice that in the Amendment of the Government that where dwelling-houses are valued for the purpose of the Income Tax under Schedule A the total annual value shall be divided in certain proportions which the Amendment goes on to state. I want to know exactly what the Government mean by "total annual value." There are 13 or 14 descriptions of value in the Finance Bill, but among all these there is not one as to what is meant by total annual value. Before we accept this Amendment we ought to know what the Government mean by these words. I think it is an excellent Amendment provided there is an appeal from the determination of the Commissioners.
  Sir W. ROBSON: What is meant by the words total annual value is quite clear under Schedule A.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Then the definition ought to be in the Definition Clause.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The learned Attorney-General has attributed the origin of this Amendment to my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman). Whether he would exactly recognise his ideas in the form in which the Government have embodied them I am not quite certain. He is not here to answer for himself, but perhaps he is more usefully engaged in explaining the Budget to people who have less opportunity of knowing what it contains than we have had in this House. On a previous Amendment the Attorney-General used some language
  568
  which led me to suppose that he regarded a square as being, so to speak, a multiple garden attached to the houses in the square. Having spoken of the square in that way, one of the protections which he alleged the square would have was that it would be regarded as a common garden, each house having its own acre.
  Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON indicated dissent.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman said so, but I take it he did not. I do not know what meaning his reference to the subject had if it was not that. When I moved the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Preston I understood that the case was covered, but because I was not certain I moved the Amendment, and I got an assurance that it was not.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The case of the square of five acres would be covered, but I did not say that an acre should be allocated to each House.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is exactly what I want to do. I will give an example from my own Constituency on the boundaries of the borough of Birmingham, in the suburb of Moseley. There is a great deal of land which in the last few years has been developed for building. A large portion of pleasantly situated land has been developed for building villa houses, each having quite a, small garden attached. In front of these houses there is, belonging to the same owner, more land with a piece of water in it. The residents in these houses first of all wished to acquire that land from the owner in order to keep it as an open space for the benefit of the houses surrounding and abutting on it. They did not wish to be selfish, and they were willing that the occupiers of houses in the neighbourhood should have keys. The owner of the land would not give a 99 years' lease or sell the freehold, but he gave, I think, a 21 years' lease. The water was laid out as an ornamental sheet of water and the place was treated as a park. I was invited to speak there, and I remember dwelling on the advantage it was to Birmingham to have the amenities of its suburbs increased in this way. The tendency of many of our great towns is to lose their amenities for residence, and with the development of transit facilities those who can afford it go farther afield. Having returned home they do not care to take a second journey into the town to participate

  569
  in its public life. I think it is a great advantage to cities to have such suburbs as Edgbaston and Moseley, which we have in Birmingham, where people can find such amenities as they want in a situation that makes it practicable for them to give their services to the public work of the town, on its corporation and its other public bodies. If a man has to take a half-hour's railway journey to get to his home he will not take another journey to come back to a meeting. Therefore by going far afield half his usefulness to the town is lost; and for that reason it is a great advantage to the town to keep him there. That is the kind of argument with which I attempted to support the proposition that a piece of land like this, though
  it was not, as in the case of the dedication of a public park, open to everyone, yet by increasing the amenities of residence did a real service to the town. I think that that claim was recognised by the Attorney-General as not unreasonable. It is very hard if, say, ten of those people were for a position to rent five acres that that land would be franked, but because 100 or more join in common, therefore they are to lose the benefit of the exemption. On that ground I support my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division in seeking to reject the words which it is now sought to introduce.
  Question put, "That the words proposed be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 60.

  Division No. 827.]

  AYES.

  [10.10 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Guiland, John W.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rosendale)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Agnew, George William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

  Astbury, John Meir

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale).

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Rees, J. D.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Beale, W. P.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

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

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Beck, A. Cecil

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Robinson, S.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hodge, John

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Holt, Richard Darning

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Brace, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Brigg, John

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

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

  Bright, J. A.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Seely, Colonel

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cameron, Robert

  Keating, M.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Tomkinson, James

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Toulmin, George

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Verney, F. W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Clough, William

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Vivian, Henry

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lynch, H. B.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Walsh, Stephen

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

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Maclean, Donald

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Cowan, W. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Crossley, William J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Whitbread, S. Howard

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

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

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Marnham, F. J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Falconer, J.

  Massie, J.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Morse, L. L.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

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

  Gibson, J. P.

  Myer, Horatio

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Napier, T. B.

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Grady, J.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

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

  Grove, Archibald

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  NOES.

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Gordon, J.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Haddock, George B.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Stanier, Beville

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Walker, Col. W. H. Lancashire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  younger, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Foster, P. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Renwick and Mr. Cave.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON Mr. J. M. HENDERSON moved to add, at the end of Sub-section (4), the words, "Where any land in respect of which Undeveloped Land Duty has been paid thereafter becomes subject to payment of Increment Value Duty the Commissioners shall allow the amount of the Undeveloped Land Duty so paid to be deducted from the amount claimed for Increment Value Duty."
  The object of this Amendment is to bring into line with this Undeveloped Land Tax the provisions with regard to the Reversion Duty. All these three taxes—the Undeveloped Land Tax, the Reversion Duty, and the Increment Duty—bang together to a certain degree; and where you have made provision for the Reversion Duty to be deducted from the increment in certain cases, I think that the Government would do well to accept this Amendment, so that when the land becomes developed and the Increment Duty becomes payable upon it, the Commissioners should be allowed to deduct the tax which the owner has paid in the meantime. It is well known that I am not a great admirer of this Undeveloped Land Tax at all. I spoke against it on second reading, and I gave there certain arguments against the tax, not one of which has been replied to—not successfully, at all events. With all the desire, and it is a very sincere desire, to fall into line with the Government on this particular tax, I have not been able to do so. I cited the condemnation that John Stuart Mill made of this kind of tax. Nobody answered John Stuart Mill on that. The Attorney-General brushed me aside, and said that this was not the tax he meant; but he did not tell us what tax he did mean. John Stuart Mill's condemna-
  572
  tion was of a peculiar tax on realised property, such as land, public funds, mortgages, stocks, and shares. Suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down and said, "I am going to put a halfpenny capital tax on Consols," would not that have been a tax John Stuart Mill condemned? I do not think it was very nice of him to make it appear that I was rather misleading the House. I was not misleading the House, because that was really what was meant. Whether John Stuart Mill may have been right or may have been wrong, most certainly he condemned this tax. The point I wish to raise is that this is a double tax taken in connection with the Increment Tax. I entirely approve of the Increment Tax. It is a good tax, and it is a tax worth having, but the Undeveloped Land Tax is not a tax worth having at all, as I shall be able to show you in a very short time. What was John Stuart Mill's condition precedent to the Increment Tax, and he was the first to propose that tax? The condition precedent was this, and I will read his words:
  "The present market price of their land should be secured to them, held sacred from any peculiar taxation"
  That is exactly what the Prime Minister said at Bletchley.
  "We do not go back on the past."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, said that the past increment does not count, and even to-day my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Department said that the past does not concern us. The meaning of that, if it has any meaning at all, is that when the value of a man's land is taken at the datum time, say, at a thousand pounds,

  573
  the Prime Minister says that we do not go back on the past, on that thousand pounds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that "we do not count the increment up to the thousand pounds, that is secured to you." How can you go back on that thousand pounds, how is it possible to go back on it but by taxation? Suppose you do wish to go back on it you can only do so by taxation. While they say they do not, straightway they go to the past and tax it. I hope I have made that clear. If you are going back on the past, for goodness' sake say so; but do not say that you are not, and go. What is supposed to be the object of the tax? That you will compel or prevail upon a man to develop his land. Take the case of a man whose land is worth £1,000. You say to him: "Your land is worth £1,000. You may do one of two things—either sell or build upon it now, or wait until there is a fuller market." If he takes you at your word and builds upon it now, away goes both your Undeveloped Land Tax and your Increment Value Tax. If he holds it up, from that moment you, the State, becomes a one-fifth partner in the land—a partner who takes only profit and no loss. But why do you say to your partner, "During the time you are maturing a profit for me you shall pay this tax?" Is that right? It does not commend itself to me as at all right. Objecting to the tax one might naturally approve of the exceptions and exemptions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. He has made a great many; he has so cut the tax down that I challenge anyone on the Front Bench to produce figures showing that the proceeds can for the next three years, at all events, exceed £60,000 a year. He has exempted the whole of agricultural land, all small houses, all land belonging to local authorities, and, what he ought not to have exempted, all land on which the owner has built roads. That means that the Government are actually going to exclude the ripe land, and that all they are going to tax is the unripe land. As to the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. I would like to refer to the evidence of Mr. Harper, a well-known official of the London County Council. Mr. Harper is entirely in favour of this taxation. He entirely disclaims any intention of rating land only ripening for building. He says that until land becomes ripe for building it would inflict hardship to assess it upon any greater value than the annual revenue. He was one of the best witnesses
  574
  before the Commission. He goes on further to say that "any charge upon the assessment could only fall by anticipation upon the same revenue, which would thus be taxed twice over." I would like the Attorney-General to answer that. It is a thing perhaps not easy to follow, but as a matter of fact that is exactly what you do if you do not accept the Amendment that I have put down. You may say to the owners of the land, "You may keep it; if it improves I claim a fifth." As I said before, I do not care if you claim a fourth. Make your claim what you choose. It will give you more money than by your present methods. But when you say, "I am going to take a share of the increment," I say you are bound to take from that increment the amount of the tax which during that intermediate time you have extracted from the man. There can hardly be any answer to that.
  There is only one other point. There is a popular fallacy, which seems with a great many men in this House to have been elevated to an economic principle, that land which is not immediately built upon is therefore being "held up." My hon. Friend the Secretary admitted that there was land—well known to me—on the South-Western line, which, although it was building land, was not ripe for building. There was an equally large number of fields at Raynes Park where 10 years ago young men by the hundred every Saturday enjoyed cricket. To-day that is built upon, but is not occupied. But if anyone had built upon that estate 10 years ago he would not have got tenants for the houses. The same applies to the fields near Earlsfield. It is a mistake to suppose that because land is ripening that it therefore has ripened! There is a time when it will be ripe. It may be five, 10, or 20 years. You cannot tell. It all depends. I could give an instance of an estate near to where I live. I could show hon. Member a prospectus where the estate is going to be covered in six years and a great profit made. That was 12 years ago. It is not half covered, and £60,000 has been sunk. Do not let us forget that builders, speculative builders, are always optimists. After all, man is a building animal; he always wherever he can puts his money into bricks and mortar, so there is not much danger of the land in the big towns being left unbuilt upon. There is, I admit, holding up of land, but it is not in the large towns. Holding up is done by rich people, who buy estates near small towns and who will not sell. If anyone believes

  575
  that this halfpenny in the £ is a cure for that he is greatly mistaken. What use is it to say to a rich man near a town 70 miles from London, who has sacrificed £300 or £400 capital simply because he does not wish the public to come near him, "You must pay this halfpenny in the £? Axe you going to frighten him by £5 or £10 a year? The only possible cure in such a case is to give the local communities absolute power of purchase, and to force purchase. That is the only way you can cure that evil. A ½d. tax here is absolutely futile The result of all these exemptions must be to reduce the amount of your tax to something that certainly is not worth all the excitement and trouble it is causing in this country. You will remove the last vestige of injustice, or feeling of injustice, if you would only say to a, man when his increment comes to be paid, in the case, say, of land that was worth £1,000 and is now worth £2,000, "We claim 20 per cent., but from that you may deduct the small amount of the Undeveloped Land Duty which you have paid to us."
  Mr. A. CECIL BECK: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: My hon. Friend concluded his speech, which he admitted he was not making altogether for the first time, with the observation that if we accepted this Amendment we should remove the last vestige of injustice. Well, injustice is a phrase that sometimes requires a little explanation, and in this case what my hon. Friend meant was that if we accepted his Amendment we should remove the last remnant of the tax, because he said, and I think with some force, we made so many concessions that he believed—I do not quite know upon what basis—the tax as it now stood was not worth more than £60,000 a year. That does not look like a very gigantic injustice. In fact the hon. Member reproaches us not so much with having imposed the tax, but rather with, the concessions we have made in connection with the tax. He did not appear to have quite made up his mind as to which was the greater sin. The hon. Member made an observation reflecting upon a speech which I made upon a former occasion, and he complained that nobody had answered an argument he adduced from John Stuart Mill. On that occasion my hon. Friend did that which I do not think was quite fair. He read some very strong language from John Stuart Mill, and he said that it ap-
  576
  plied to this tax, I said it did not, and having respectfully contradicted my hon. Friend on that point I looked round hoping my hon. Friend was going to give the context to justify his statement. But Mill referred to a tax very different. What he condemned was an outrageous proposal to collect revenue by a tax on all realised property. By realised property was meant not the property which is engaged in business, or property used by way of capital in industrial or commercial concerns, but land and savings, and there were some fiscal reformers at that time sufficiently bold to suggest that the whole revenue of the country could be raised by that tax. John Stuart Mill pointed out that it would exonerate merchants, manufacturers, and men making large incomes, and would throw the burden of the national expenditure upon thrift. That was the proposal which Mill condemned in strong language.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Will the Attorney-General read the passage?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I have already read it to the House. My hon. Friend applied the language which John Stuart Mill had used in reference to that tax on realised property to this Undeveloped Land Duty, and I said that was a wholly unjustifiable way of using a quotation. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have given us an illustration of the tax that Mill condemned, and it certainly was not the Undeveloped Land Duty, which was not thought of in Mill's time. What was the tax which Mill proposed? It was a much stronger tax than any Undeveloped Land Duty, and it was not so much a tax as a policy in relation to land. My hon. Friend also read a further passage from Mill in which he said that you should protect existing values. That is a very fine phrase, and it is something like what we do under the Increment Value Duty. I wish, however, that the hon. Member had gone on to say in relation to what proposal John Stuart Mill was using that language. Although there are now those who seek to detract from the merits of this great economist, I think he was one of the greatest intellects that ever lived, and certainly he was the greatest intellect that ever devoted himself to a systematic study of economic science. His proposal was that you should exempt existing value and take not 20 per cent. but the whole of the increment, and that proposal was in the programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association, which

  577
  Mr. Mill founded in the year 1874. Let me say in justice to Mill that although he proposed to exempt existing values, and suggested taking the whole of the increment, he would not do that without giving the owner the option of selling to the State. I do not seek to bring in John Stuart Mill as an authority on this tax, because his proposals were different. They were in some respects more extreme, and in other respects they were very carefully safeguarded, I do not think he can fairly be appealed to either for or against this tax with any great degree of exactitude.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: May I be allowed to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he makes a very serious charge against me? The language John Stuart Mill used was this:—
  "From the present date or any subsequent time at which the Legislature may think fit to assert the principle. I see no objection to declaring that the future increment in land shall be liable to special taxation."
  That is exactly what this Increment Tax is.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think that controverts anything I have said. It is not that proposal to which John Stuart Mill applied the language of condemnation which the hon. Gentleman attached to this Undeveloped Land Duty. John Stuart Mill said, rightly enough, that it is a fit subject for taxation, but he was in favour of an option of sale, which undoubtedly makes a radical difference. The greater part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was devoted rather to an attack upon the tax as a whole than to a justification of his particular Amendment. Speaking of the tax as a whole, it is intended to be a tax on undevelopment. I do not suppose anybody will say it will cure all cases of undevelopment. You may tax drink without curing all the evils of drinking. It is a tax upon land which is being held back. The hon. Gentleman says that if you want to cure undevelopment you must go further. I do not doubt it. He suggests that the municipalities should be given the power of compulsory purchase. Do hon. Members opposite approve of that? If any hon. Member opposite wishes to test the question at any election in the near future he will not find his own party supporting him. He will get the cheers of his opponents.
  Mr. G. YOUNGER: In Select Committee on the Scottish Land Values Bill I proposed a Clause to recommend compulsory purchase by municipalities in the
  578
  interests of anyone immediately prepared to develop the land, but I had no support except from my Unionist colleagues and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I have no doubt the hon. Member is stating the matter accurately, but I confess I should like to see the exact circumstances.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: You will find the proposal in the Report.
  Sir W. ROBSON: No doubt; and I daresay I shall get an opportunity of looking at the Report as soon as I find time. I do not think, however, the forced purchase of land which is being held back is altogether favoured by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If it is, I should like to ask upon what terms the land is to be valued. They are sure to obtain assent from this side of the House if they would only say forced purchase upon a fair valuation. I do not find those in favour of forced purchase on the other side of the House going to that extreme. The hon. Member proposes that when the Increment Value Duty comes to be assessed there should be a deduction from it of whatever has been paid for Undeveloped Land Duty. The effect of that would be that there would be no sort of Undeveloped Land Tax. The owner would know he was merely playing with the State. He has paid his Undeveloped Land Duty, but he knows the time will come when he must sell, and then he will comfortably deduct the whole of it. That is what the hon. Member desires to do, but it is not what we desire to do; and it is scarcely an Amendment which we could accept. He puts forward the argument that the State has made itself in some sort of way a partner with the landlord, because it taxes him. That is a somewhat singular contention. We do not make ourselves partners with dealers in tea, sugar, cocoa, and other things which we taxed. The State simply goes to the trade and puts its hand upon so much profit as it thinks it can tax and applies it to its own purposes. That is not exactly partnership. The State is a very awkward partner. I should not like a partner animated by the principles which animates the State upon a fiscal question. I am afraid I have occupied the attention of the House rather a long time. The Amendment is one which we certainly cannot accept.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I had no intention of speaking on this Amendment but for the interesting, contentious,

  579
  and rather discursive speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was tempted to inquire into the views of the Opposition, or, rather, he was not so much tempted to inquire into the views of the Opposition as to state the views of the Opposition on the subject of compulsory purchase of land for public purposes by public authorities. Let me say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I think he entirely misconceives our position. No doubt, speaking generally, we do not like compulsory purchase, but, so far as I know, I may say for all my colleagues that where you can prove a public necessity which cannot otherwise be achieved we are prepared to assent to compulsory purchase. I will not enter into a discussion of the Lands Clauses Act at this stage, but I will make the hon. and learned Gentleman a present of the admission, if he cares to have it, that although in theory it is perfectly fair, in practice it results in frequently giving to the individual, when a public authority is buying from him, more than the fair value. After listening to the observations which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made from this box, I do not think that any views I am now expressing go beyond what he has more than once said in the course of our discussions. Certainly I was brought up under an enterprising municipality, but at the same time a prudent one, and one that desired always to act fairly by those whose interests were affected. I think compulsory powers for public purposes may be used when these purposes cannot otherwise be gained. I agree that under the Lands Clauses Acts an exorbitant price is obtained. I must not be taken to discuss that question now, and I will say it is a very complicated and difficult matter. Certainly if the Attorney-General's challenge extended to the point of saying that we are prepared across the Table to say on what terms we would be prepared to sanction this compuslory purchase, I am not prepared to define those terms better than by saying, fairly. It was because of the introduction of this subject that I described the Attorney-General's speech as rather discursive, and mine has gone round an equally large circle, and now, like the Attorney-General, I come to the immediate Amendment. The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson) I think quite clearly established his case that
  580
  unless you accept his Amendment you are taxing the same thing twice over. By your Increment Tax you take, as you state, one-fifth of any growing profit that he has realised when the occasion for the collection of Increment Tax comes. In the meantime you are taxing the same subject and the same value in this tax. You are taxing, therefore, the thing twice over. The Attorney-General admits that if you do not tax it twice over you get no money from this tax at all, and although he has not committed himself to figures I think he is as convinced as the hon. Member that there is not much money in the tax now under any circumstances.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen dwelt upon a great many important exceptions that had been made by the Government, but he omitted what I think is the most important of all, for, after all, this tax has ceased to be a fiscal measure in the least. £60,000 a year is not a sum a Government really cares about in order to pay for "Dreadnoughts" or provide old age pensions. It is imposed, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in order that you may tax undevelopment, and in that you penalise undevelopment in the sense that you put a burden upon the man who does not develop the land, because he does not develop it in the hope that you will force him to develop. Just consider the exception which the hon. Member for Aberdeen did not make in that case—the exception which allows that all land shall be free from the Undeveloped Land Duty, which is let on agreement for not less than five years to sportsmen. If a man has made up his mind not to develop his land for five years, and is willing to wait, he can hang it up for that period by making that agreement with a cricket or hockey or any other club, and he is exempt from duty. No man who really wants to hold up land need pay Undeveloped Land Duty. The only man who will have to pay Undeveloped Land Duty is the man who finds his land not absolutely ripe for building, but hopes it will be ripe at the end of next year or the beginning of the year after. When you have done that not only have you destroyed the fiscal object of the tax, but also the penal or social object, which is now the sole reason for the existence of the tax.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the "Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 163.

  Division No. 828.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

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

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Gordon, J.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Renwick, George

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Haddock, George B.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Heimsley, Viscount

  Stanier, Beville

  Cave, George

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Whitbread, S. Howard

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Younger, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Foster, P. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. J. M. Henderson and Mr. Beck.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Guiland, John W.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Agnew, George William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Beale, W. P.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Radford, G. H.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Brace, William

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rees, J. D.

  Brigg, John

  Hodge, John

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Bright, J. A.

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Robinson, S.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cameron, Robert

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Clough, William

  Lambert, George

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Seely, Colonel

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Cowan, W. H.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Scares, Ernest J.

  Crossley, William J.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Essex, R. W.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Tomkinson, James

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Toulmin, George

  Falconer, J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Verney, F. W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Mickling, Major G.

  Vivian, Henry

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Gibson, J. P.

  Massie, J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Glover, Thomas

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Morse, L. L.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

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

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Grove, Archibald

  Myer, Horatio

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  582

  583

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Wilson W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Whiteley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  Wiles, Thomas

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

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (5), to leave out the word "a" ["held under a tenancy originally created"], and to insert instead thereof the words "an agricultural."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. J. FALCONER: I should like to ask what is the effect of this alteration? It has been brought to my notice that there is a considerable amount of land which, prior to 30th April, 1909, has been let on lease which might fall within the definition of agricultural land, because that under the Definition Clause includes a great deal which is not regarded as agricultural land—woodland and such like—but which is not let on agricultural tenancy. Supposing the words "an agricultural" were included as now proposed the result would be that the owner of such land as I have described, who has let it on lease long before this Bill was introduced, and where there might still be some years of the lease to run, would have to pay Undeveloped Land Duty in respect of land which he was unable, by reason of the lease, to develop. I do not understand that that is the object of the Government at all. I understand that the purpose of the Government is not to levy Undeveloped Land Duty upon land which the owner could not develop by reason of a lease entered into prior to 30th April. I am aware that in the Valuation Clause there is express provision made that in valuing land for the purposes of the duty the valuator is to take into account covenants in leases. That leads me to assume that I am right in what I regard as the intention of the Government. The point I desire to get information on is this: A valuator valuing such land would take the capital value of the land; and if there were three or four years of lease still to run he would make some small allowance with respect of the period of the lease still to run, and the owner of the land would be compelled to pay the Undeveloped Land Duty upon the whole value of the land, less that slight deduction for postponement. It does seem to me that there is really here a case where an owner having land which by reason of a lease he could not develop will have to pay the Undeveloped Land Duty according to the value of the Crown. It might be considerably more than the rental he was getting for the whole of the land. I would
  584
  therefore like the opinion of the Government as to the effect of the words introduced. If the word "agricultural" is not introduced with regard to the tenancy a great part of the evil would be obviated; but if you do introduce the word "agricultural" all the land held under agricultural tenancies will be exposed, subject only to the question of the five acres.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We thought that we had completely covered the case referred to by the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer). The object of this Clause was to stop the levying of Undeveloped Land Duty on land in the neighbourhood of towns which the landlord could not develop even if he wished. Subsequently we got a series of drafting Amendments which provided, in a different form from the Amendment which we accepted from the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), that where the landlord has power to break the lease if he has not exercised that power he shall not enjoy the exemption. That, I understand, the hon. Member does not object to. But the hon. Member thinks that there may be leases of woodlands with similar conditions as agricultural lands which may not be strict agricultural tenancies in the strict description of the meaning. In that case we are quite prepared to leave the Clause as it stood, and to omit the word "agricultural" before "tenancy."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Drafting Amendment made.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in Subsection (5) to omit from the word "thereunder" to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:
  "Provided that where the landlord has power to determine the tenancy of the whole or any part of the land, the tenancy of the land or that part of the land shall not be deemed for the purposes of this provision to continue after the earliest date after the commencement of this Act at which it is possible to determine the tenancy under that power."
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: This is a case where it is clear that the charge would be increased, because in the Bill as it stands the provision for the exemptions is applicable until the tenancy can be discontinued. But when we come to look

  585
  at the new words which the Government propose to substitute there is the express provision that the exemption is to expire at the earliest date after the commencement of this Act at which the tenancy could be made to expire by the landlord. When I recall the Debate on this point in Committee, it certainly does seem to me hard that now, on the Report stage, the Government should tighten up the Clause and make it as inelastic and as onerous upon the taxpayers as possible, because there could not possibly be anything severer than that which it is now proposed to introduce—that at the earliest possible date at which the tenancy could forcibly be put an end to it is supposed to be terminated for the purpose of this exemption. It is for that reason I think the words very objectionable.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As to the increase of charge, we are doing nothing of the kind. If we are doing anything we are making it clear that part of the land shall be treated separately from the whole of the land. As the Clause stands it is exceedingly probable that if only part of the land could be taken out, and therefore be subject to Undeveloped Land Duty, then the whole of the land would have to pay Undeveloped Land Duty. We are making it clear that that shall not be the case.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. FALCONER: As the concession made by the Government in regard to agricultural land practically meets my point, I do not propose to move my Amendment.

  CLAUSE 20.—(Mineral Rights Duty and Provisions as to Minerals.)
  (1) There shall be charged, levied, and paid for the current and every subsequent financial year on the rental value of all rights to work minerals and of all mineral wayleaves, a duty (in this Act referred to as a Mineral Eights Duty) at the rate in each case of one shilling for every twenty shillings of that rental value.
  (2) The rental value shall be taken to be—

  (a) Where the right to work the minerals is the subject of a mining lease, the amount of rent paid by the working lessee in the last working year in respect of that right; and

  (b) Where minerals are being worked by the proprietor thereof, the amount which is determined by the Commis-
  586
  sioners to be the sum which would have been received as rent by the proprietor in the last working year if the right to work the minerals had been leased to a working lessee for a term and at a rent and on conditions customary in the district, and the minerals had been worked to the same extent and in the same manner as they have been worked by the proprietor in that year. Provided that the Commissioners shall cause a copy of their valuation of such rent to be served on the owner of the land; and

  (c) In the case of a mineral wayleave, the amount of rent paid by the working lessee in the last working year in respect of the wayleave.

  (3) Every proprietor of any minerals and every person to whom any rent is paid in respect of any right to work minerals or of any mineral wayleave shall, upon notice being given to him by the Commissioners requiring him to give particulars as to the amount received by him in respect of the right or wayleave, as the case may be, and where the proprietor is working the minerals, in respect of the minerals worked, make a return in the form required by the notice, and within the time, not being less than thirty days, specified in the notice, and in default shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds to be recovered in the High Court.
  (4) Mineral Rights Duty shall be assessed by the Commissioners and shall be payable at any time after the first day of January in the year for which the duty is charged, and any such duty for the time being unpaid shall be recoverable as a debt due to His Majesty from the proprietor of the minerals, where the proprietor is working the minerals, and in any other case from the immediate lessor of the working lessee. As between the immediate lessor and the working lessee, the duty shall be borne by the immediate lessor, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, whether made before or after the passing of this Act.
  (5) Mineral Rights Duty shall not be charged in respect of common brick clay, common brick earth, or sand, chalk, limestone, or gravel.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY Mr. LAURENCE HARDY moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "rights" ["of all rights to work minerals"], to insert the words "under a mining lease."
  This really has the effect of limiting the Mineral Rights Duty to the class of people about whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others always talked when

  587
  they were referring to this tax. They desired to lay it not upon those who were taking the risks necessary for a colliery business, but on those who receive their rents without contributing anything to the rates of the district or in any way risking their money. The consequence of this will be, of course, that it will be necessary to omit paragraph (b), referring to the minerals which are worked by the proprietor. I dare say the House will recollect that on the general discussion we had some very valuable speeches from political economists on the other side, in which they said it was quite unnecessary to modify this, because under no consideration could such a burden be laid upon the proprietor working his own coal make any difference to the price at which it was sold; that it was entirely a burden on rent, which is a separate part of his profits, and that this could not possibly have anything to do with his business. After all the speeches we had on that occasion, when we afterwards came to discuss other minerals than coal, minerals such as chalk and lime and others, immediately the Members opposite at once alleged that this very same burden was of such importance and such decrement to the industry concerned that it was necessary to exclude it. That proposition was accepted by the Government, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other Members. An especially valuable admission was made by a Member from Essex (Mr. Whitehead), who, at that time sat behind the Government, in a speech in which he defended the attitude of the Government. He said that one particular reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not inconsistent with what he had said earlier that afternoon was that in the districts in which chalk was most used
  "three-fourths of the output of the chalk quarries used in the manufacture of cement are owned by the manufacturers themselves….and would necessarily fall upon them as manufacturers."
  That was just the argument we had tried to put forward in connection with coal. It comes with much heavier weight from coal than from any of the minerals excluded. We were challenged in the House by another hon. Member as to whether there were any cases of owners working their own coal. At once that challenge was taken up in the House, and would be largely taken up in the country. It is not only the people who work the coal as coal sellers who are affected by the much larger class of people who work it as
  588
  auxiliary to other industries, such as iron and steel. Manufacturers of iron and steel obtain those minerals for the purpose of working them, and in that way the imposition of this tax does necessarily act upon the industry with which they are connected.
  It is impossible for them to take the attitude of political economists when they have admitted the exemption in connection with the other minerals. Therefore, I feel we have strong reason for putting this case again on the Government. In fulfilling the pledge to which I alluded, namely, that they do not intend by this Mineral Rights Duty to put any extra burden whatsoever on those who risked their capital, and because it has been already sufficiently burdened by other legislation, the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a deputation, I venture to put forward this again, and to press it most earnestly on the attention of those in charge of the Bill, because, undoubtedly, if this exemption is not made on the same lines as has been given to the cheaper minerals, great injustice will be done. The tax will fall upon several of our most important industries and on industries which have at the present time a very small margin of profit. I do think we have established a new case by the very arguments used as to the other minerals, and I therefore ask the kindly consideration of the Government for this Amendment.
  Mr. F. A. NEWDEGATE: I beg to second the Amendment. In Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to accept an Amendment of mine in regard to cheaper minerals, and, as one living in a county where many owners have developed their minerals, I earnestly appeal to him not to put this tax on owners who have been public-spirited enough to risk a lot of money in developing minerals in different parts of the country. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Mr. Markham) say, in a former Debate, that comparatively few owners of land work their own minerals. In the two counties with which I am familiar—Derbyshire and Warwickshire—I know several cases where they do so. In the neighbourhood in which I live, Sir Alfred Hickman, a former Member of this House, a large proprietor of minerals and a great ironmaster, has laid out large sums of money, first of all in searching for minerals, and then in developing them,

  589
  with the result that a large population has sprung up; houses have been erected at his expense, and the neighbourhood has greatly developed. It is absolutely unfair that people who risk their money in doing these services to the community should be taxed in the way proposed. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he does not wish to put a tax on industry, but he will certainly be doing so if he retains the tax as it stands. It is an entirely different thing to tax proprietors who work their own minerals and have laid out their own money, from taxing people who have not invested a single penny in sinking collieries or developing the minerals; therefore, I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
  Sir JOHN RANDLES: In referring to these taxes on minerals the Chancellor of the Exchequer has all along argued that the infliction on industry and on the iron and steel manufactures of the country would be very slight. His argument was that where there is a heavy royalty, his little tax will be of so small importance that it will not be felt, and that he might very well get 6d. where somebody else is getting 10s. But he has never argued those cases where there is no royalty, where the royalty is part of the manufacture, where there is an actual proprietary right in the minerals, the minerals being worked for the sake, not of the royalty, not even of the mineowner, but of the manufacture which follows on, and is part of the same concern. Even though he thinks it right to take a small portion out of the heavy sum paid to the royalty owner, surely in a case of this kind, where there is no royalty owner, and the tax must of necessity be a tax on the industry, he must agree that the relief sought by this Amendment should be granted. So far as that argument goes the tax would fall on the industry. It was admitted in the case of clay and limestone and those inferior minerals, which are really of comparatively small importance, that it was a benefit to remove the tax from that industry—not from the royalty owner. He had no thought for the royalty owner. It was for the industry. And the great supporter of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham), in his speech, said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the worst of the argument in his encounter with the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bonar Law).
  590
  The hon. Member for Mansfield stated that the argument of the Chancellor was all bad, and that the observations of the hon. Member for Dulwich were right. He did not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his argument as to the incidence of the tax on clay and limestone. He said that if these taxes fall on the clay and sand industry, they must equally fall on the coal industry. What applies to coal applies with greatly increased force to iron ore, where the taxes are four, five, or more times as much a ton to what they are on coal, where the nature of the industry is much more uncertain, and where there is no certainty that a man will get a good result from his mine. It is therefore more desirable in those cases that the man who is getting the coal should be not only the proprietor of the mine, but the owner of the minerals themselves, and have no royalty to pay. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must see that the burden which comes on the industry in these cases, at any rate, suggests an equally strong case for its relief in respect of the mines owned and worked by manufacturers, as there was a case for those claypits or limestone quarries or any of those other articles which are absolutely necessary to trade and commerce, as distinguished from those being worked from the royalty-owing point of view, and merely for the profit of the royalty owner. I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of accepting the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the hon. Member who moved this Amendment will recognise that this point was very fully debated in Committee. He has used the same arguments as he used before, even to the point of submitting that the concessions that have been extended to chalk should be extended to the owner of a coal mine. It is true of every concession that it must necessarily be a departure from strict principle. But if a concession is used as a means of extending further concessions it loses its merit.
  Sir J. RANDLES: I do not see that.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is then not a concession, but an abandonment of the general principle. You may lay down a general principle and find it desirable in some small cases to make a concession here and there in order to smooth the way. Especially so where it does not produce a large revenue, and probably gives a great deal of irritation. But the concession

  591
  should not be extended in such a way as to completely destroy the tax! What are the arguments of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment? He said, "It is not fair that you should charge a man who is working his own minerals." We are taxing the landlord's interest in the minerals. If a landlord expends money on developing the property, like a colliery proprietor, we are not charging him at all in respect of the return he may legitimately expect upon what he expends purely as a colliery proprietor; we only charge him upon his mineral rights. I do not see how we could draw a distinction between the landlord who develops the property himself and the one who leases it. That may be a distinction between a rich and a poor landlord. The poor landlord may not be able to develop it himself and hands it over to a company, but if a man is rich enough to develop it himself he is to be let off all mineral rights. I do not think it would be possible to defend that, and therefore I think we must abide by the decision the House came to in the Committee stage, and refuse to draw a distinction between the two cases. I may point out that in Scotland, where royalties are subject to rates, no distinction is drawn between the landlord who leases and the landlord who works the mine, and if there is no distinction drawn in that case, and the landlords do not seem to complain of it there, I do not see why a distinction should be drawn when it is a matter of Imperial taxation.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It cannot be pointed out too clearly that the word lease, as used in connection with minerals, is a confusion in terms. What is called a mineral lease is not a lease at all, and it is out of that point that the present difficulty arises. A mineral lease is really a sale of the minerals to the person to whom the lease is supposed to be granted, and the royalties paid are the prices of taking the article away. It leads to great confusion to call these transactions leases, and it is out of that the present difficulty arises between the proprietor who is working his own coal and the ordinary man who is working the coal purchased from somebody else. If the colliery company has bought the coal out and out the price is paid for that in advance, but if they take an ordinary mining lease the price of the minerals is spread over a number of years. The transaction is the same, namely, the purchase of so much minerals paid for
  592
  either in lump sum or in instalments, as the case may be. This Amendment illustrates the extreme difficulty of the tax itself.
  I should not be in order in discussing the principle of the tax at this stage, but I wish to point out that the consumer of minerals raised in this country must undoubtedly pay any tax of this kind cast upon this industry in any shape or form. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has several times pointed out, that with regard to existing leases the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a very careful provision that this particular tax is to fall upon the landlord to whom the royalties are being paid, but with regard to all future transactions, and where the proprietor is working the mills himself, exactly the opposite case arises. Surely when you come to consider that the iron and coal industries of this country win be affected by this Clause, it will be recognised that these are industries where a few pence per ton makes all the difference between getting the contract either between one establishment and another in this country, or between this and other countries. When these businesses are at the present moment in such an exceedingly difficult and precarious position, I should have thought this would have been the very last moment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have insisted upon a proprietor's lease being treated in this way by casting the burden upon the actual cost of getting the material and turning it into money. I cannot help thinking that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who are going to follow him into the Lobby would only pause for a moment and consider what they are doing with reference to the coal and iron industries, they would entirely change their attitude, and something would be done to meet the few cases which have been selected.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not propose to repeat the observations which I made on a previous occasion on this subject when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the announcement of the new form of this tax. I desire, however, to point out to the Government and to the House that the proposal, or rather that part which is challenged by this Amendment, is wholly inconsistent with the justification which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in his Budget speech for the establishment of this tax. His justification, in that as in many other instances, is not an argument, but an illustration of the way this Bill is being proceeded with. We are told that without any expenditure on the part of the

  593
  owner very large mineral revenues were being derived. That is what we want to get at, and that is a proper thing to tax. That, however, is not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is getting at in that portion of the tax which is challenged by this Amendment. What he is getting at here is not the man who has done nothing, but the man who has done everything. He is the man who has risked his capital, and he is the very man whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer held up as a model, to be encouraged in contra-distinction to the idle, or it may mean the poor man who has not money enough to develop his own property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has completely changed the tax, and he has put it in a form which is irreconcilable with the arguments he adduced for the tax in its original shape. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to have made some observations in my absence in regard to the Opposition raising this point again on Report.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I simply gave that as a reason for shortening my observations.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the right hon. Gentleman had heard as much
  of the discussion as I have he would have known it has been conducted with rather remarkable brevity. The longest speeches certainly have not come from this side of the House, and the number of points we have selected for discussion are very few. We might have challenged each Clause, but we have not. We have accepted the decision of the House that these taxes are to be enforced—it has not been usual, and I do not know whether we ought to do such a thing—and we have devoted ourselves merely to points of detail which were either insufficiently discussed, held over for further consideration, or not satisfactorily met in the Committee stage. I desire to emphasise the absolute contradiction in the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day on the proposals we are now discussing, and the attitude he assumed on the proposals made in his Budget speech I do not know exactly how many months ago.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 161.

  Division No. 829.]

  AYES.

  [11.50 p.m.

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Renwick, George

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, J.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

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

  Gretton, John

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

  Stanier, Beville

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Haddock, George B.

  Starkey, John R.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Forster, Henry William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Laurence Hardy and Mr. Newdegate.

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

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Agnew, George William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Falconer, James

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Barnard, E. B.

  Clough, William

  Gibson, James Puckering

  Beale, W. P.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Beauchamp, E.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Glover, Thomas

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Bennett, E. N.

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

  Grove, Archibald

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Guiland, John W.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Brace, William

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester,)

  Brigg, John

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

  Essex, R. W.

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Massie, J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hazleton, Richard

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Thomasson, Franklin

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

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

  Toulmin, George

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nuttall, Harry

  Verney, F. W.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Hodge, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Vivian, Henry

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Walsh, Stephen

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Pollard, Dr.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Radford, G. H.

  White, Sir George Norfolk

  Keating, Matthew

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Lambert, George

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robinson, S.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lupton, Arnold

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Lynch, H. B. (Yorks, W. R., Ripon)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

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

  Seely, Colonel

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Drafting Amendment made.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved at the end of paragraph (c) Sub-section (2) to insert the words. "Provided that if in any special case it is shown to the Commissioners that the rent paid by a working lessee exceeds the rent customary in the district, and partly represents a return for expenditure on the part of any proprietor of the minerals which would ordinarily have been borne by the lessee, the Commissioners shall substitute as the rental value of the right to work the minerals or the mineral wayleaves, as the case may be, such rent as the Commissioners determine would have been the rent customary in the district if the expenditure had been borne by the lessee."
  Mr. FALCONER: This, Mr. Speaker, is exactly the same matter with which the next Amendment standing in my name deals [to insert, "(d) In ascertaining the rental value for the purposes of this section, there shall be allowed to the proprietor a deduction therefrom of such sum as shall represent interest for the year at the rate of five per cent. on all expenditure made by the proprietor or his predecessors in title or by companies, the ordinary stock of which belongs wholly or mainly to him or them, for the purpose of developing the said minerals on boring, sinking shafts, and equipping pits or collieries, or in constructing and equipping railways or docks
  596
  in connection therewith."] It is quite inconceivable that both the proposal which is brought forward by the Government and the Amendment which I have suggested should be inserted in the Bill, because they both deal with the same subject. I am not quite sure, however, whether I should raise the question upon the Government Amendment now, and if I were to allow it to pass now it would be very stupid of me to ask them to take my alternative as well as theirs.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's proper course is to object now and to take exception to and criticise the Amendment before the House. If he succeeded and defeated the Government Amendment then he might have an opportunity of proposing his own.
  12.0 P.M.
  Mr. FALCONER: I am not sanguine of being able to defeat the Government, but I am not without hope of being able to persuade them to modify their Clause, and I venture to say so, because the one feature which more than another I have admired in the Government and in the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the few matters which I have ventured to bring up has been the readiness with which they have listened to representations made when the object has been to make the tax more equitable in its bearings. It is with that feeling, and with no desire to militate against the general principle of the

  597
  tax, that I have put down this Amendment. There is no tax either in this Bill or any other Bill which seems to me to be one more to be commended than a tax which is placed upon the owner of land under which there are minerals, which he himself does nothing to develop, but which he leases out to somebody else, who incurs all the expenditure and all the risk in connection with the development, the owner really receiving a royalty. That seems to me to be an ideal subject on which to raise taxation for the necessities of the country. With that proposition I always agreed, and I still agree. The point of my Amendment and that of the Amendment of the Government is an entirely different one. There you are dealing with a case where the owner of the land has himself made the expenditure and taken all the risk, and contributed all the energy upon which the success of the enterprise has depended, and, if I might give an illustration of a very important undertaking in Scotland, it will explain my argument a great deal better than I can state it in general terms. It is the case of a property in Fife, which belonged to the late Mr. Erskine Wemyss, under which there was a very large area of third-class coal which was incapable of being developed at a profit. It was coal of comparatively low thermal value, and did not fetch a very high price, and it could not afford the railway rate necessary to take it to the nearest port, 15 miles away, and at the time there was no market to be found for coal of that class in this country in any very large quantity. Mr. Wemyss built a dock on his estate and a railway at a cost of £250,000, and he expended in the sinking of pits and otherwise, roughly, £1,000,000, and he built up a business under which he exported about 2,000,000 tons of coal a year. He has thus provided employment for somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 people. He has built houses which are a model for everyone, and he spent money in tramways for carrying the people to and fro. The rates paid in respect of the enterprise amount to something like £8,000 or £9,000 a year. I do not know of any instance so much to be commended from the point of view of anyone interested in the development of the country. It is a real romance of enterprise which has not been equalled in Scotland in my time, and I commend it as a case which is worthy of every possible encouragement.
  598
  Mr. Wemyss had, of course, to raise all the money. He formed an owning company, of which he held the whole of the ordinary capital and took all the risk. He also formed a working company, of which, again, he held the whole of the ordinary capital and took all the risk, and he held them as a means of giving security to those from whom he borrowed the money to assist him in his enterprise. The royalty which is paid by the working company to the owning company and by another tenant in another part of the field amounts to about £60,000 a year, and the Mineral Bights Duty would amount to about £3,000 a year. If you allow interest on the expenditure which Mr. Wemyss made in connection with that development at 5 per cent. there is £50,000 of the £60,000 already gone in interest. Therefore the £3,000 duty is altogether out of balance, whatever it is, between the interest and expenditure and the amount of the royalty, say, £10,000.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: May I ask what the tenants pay as rent for these houses?
  Mr. FALCONER: I was coming to the question of what Mr. Wemyss got for the houses in rent. I am not pretending that what was done was solely for the sake of philanthropy. He did his work in a manner which was intended to provide the best accommodation for the people, and I think he gets credit for that in the country around. He probably also got feuing value for his land. He was carrying out an industrial enterprise in the best possible spirit, and, no doubt, with a desire to get as good a return as he could. Bents are got for the houses, and I dare say feu duties are paid for some parts of the property which is feued to other people. I do not wish to suggest that he did not get the benefits incidentally accruing from his property, and, if alive, he would be the last to show any desire to shirk paying a fair share of this duty. He would not have thanked me or anyone else for suggesting that be would not have been willing to pay. What the Government propose to do in dealing with this situation is to charge duty upon the royalty which can be got in the neighbourhood. That I am bound to say, looked upon at the first blush, is a very fair way of meeting the case. I do not deny it. On the other hand, it is really not so, because, in the situation I have described, if it had not been for the enterprise and the risk taken by Mr. Wemyss

  599
  with his own money and the money which he borrowed from others, there would not have been any development of that field at all. I do not say that there were no workings in the neighbourhood which his ancestors worked to a certain extent, but it was impossible to have any development of that coal field, and to have that dock accommodation provided, without the large expenditure which he made. At present the proprietor is sinking another pit, with the view to a further development of the field. I think it is a much fairer way to allow interest on the money he has borrowed to be deducted from the amount of the royalties upon which duties are to be paid.
  I do not wish to press the Government in any way as to the figures which I have given. It is the principle that I wish to establish. They can safeguard themselves so that the Commissioners can check and disallow to any extent. For instance, one of the docks that Mr. Wemyss built was sold to a railway company, and allowance must be made for that. I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will quite understand that I am not seeking to commit the Government with regard to expenditure without their having the fullest opportunity of satisfying themselves that this is expenditure made for the development of this great property which ought to be allowed. I do not think that the owner in a case like that should lose the benefit from the mere fact that for the convenience of raising the money from his friends and those who joined with him he formed two companies. He took the whole of the risk himself, and this arrangement was simply to enable him to give the form of security that best suited him. Therefore in my Amendment I suggest that these two companies should be dealt with as if he were the owner himself. Further, it should be remembered that this is in Scotland, where the owner of royalties pays his contribution to local rates, which is not the case in England; and while half of the Land Duty is to go to the local authorities in relief of the local rates, as a matter of fact the contribution to the rates from these royalties is being already made in Scotland, and I think that in Scotland, in circumstances such as I have mentioned, there is a very strong case for a provision which would reduce the duty payable by an owner who develops his property by the extent to which he contributes to the rates already, so that he should not be paying twice over.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I promised my hon. Friend yesterday that I would give full consideration to the facts which he has now stated fully to the House of Commons. I think he will admit that I have really gone into the whole of the facts with very great care. The Amendment put on the Paper in my name fully and adequately meets the case which he has presented. I recognised its merits and promised to meet it. If my hon. Friend had been able to point out in what respect I fail in this Amendment to meet that case I think it would have been useful to reconsider the point which he has pressed on the consideration of the House. Full credit ought to be given in a case of the kind, and I submit that full credit is being given in the Amendment on the Paper, and that in a much more effective and business-like way than by an arrangement which would involve an investigation by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of the complicated business of two or three companies. I am perfectly certain that the House, although the hon. Member stated his case with admirable lucidity, found some difficulty in following the whole involution of the transaction, because it is a very complicated financial arrangement. I know how difficult it was to follow it when I had all the documents. Instead of going into a complicated business we have taken this very simple method. We take the case of the whole expenditure incurred by the lessee, and we simply charge the lessor on what he has got as lessor, if somebody else has spent the whole of the money. I do not know how my hon. Friend thinks he is helping his case by referring to the local rates. Take his case of the local rates. I am perfectly certain that no allowance of the kind is made in that case, and probably the landlord is charged on the whole of his interest there. I think we have recently met the case fully and fairly in the best and most business-like way.
  Mr. GROVE Mr. GROVE moved, at the end of paragraph (c), to add the words: "Where it is shown that the rental value in any case represents a return for money expended within thirty years by a lessor in boring or otherwise proving the minerals the rental value shall be reduced for the purposes of the collection of duty by the amount which represents the expenditure."
  Hon. Members are aware that in many mining transactions three parties are concerned—the landlord, the discoverer of the minerals, and the working lessee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that he wishes to get rather at the landlord, who does nothing, than at the industrial and commercial man, who puts money, enterprise, and brains into the undertaking. As the Bill stands the landlord has to pay—I do not complain—his fifth of unearned increment, the working lessee has to pay no increment duty at all, and the discoverer of the minerals is put on a level with the landlord and has to pay a fifth of his increment. That is not treating the man of brains, who has expended his capital, I think the House will agree with me, in a perfectly fair way. It is not in accordance with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has truthfully and eloquently laid before the country. I think it is probably a lapse on his part, for even Homer nods, and even a great authority in finance nods. If this Amendment were not accepted, I almost hesitate to mention the name, but the authority, not only of John Stuart Mill would be violated, but also of Adam Smith, because both those eminent authorities say that the most expensive form of tax is that which is laid on the initiation of any industry.
  Tax your spade and you at once put the most expensive form of taxation on an industry. To tax the coal would be less expensive. In this case you are not taxing the spade, but you are doing very nearly the same thing—you are taxing the instrument which the discoverer has made use of, the bore. The coal bore is the commencement of the industry of coal, and you are taxing, in the same way as the landlord who does nothing, the man who takes the greatest risk. A company with which I am intimately acquainted took some 6,000 acres in Yorkshire to exploit. They risked £10,000 to put down the coal bore. They bought from the landlord at £20 per foot per acre, and they sold at £25 per foot per acre—a very good deal. What was the actuarial value of the profit they made? £12,500, of which £10,000 was spent on the bore. Yet, as the Bill stands, the unfortunate discoverer of the wealth, which is so useful to this country, would have to pay increment of 20 per cent., not on the £12,500, but on his paltry profit of £2,500. I maintain that is an injustice which has only to be brought to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be remedied at once. I claim in the interests
  602
  of the coal industry, for after all the discoverer of the coal is the pioneer of the coal industry, that the tax should be on the same basis as our working lessee. If he does not see his way to do that he ought, before he charges any Increment Duty, to deduct the money they have expended in risking the undertaking. With the utmost confidence I appeal to the Chancellor to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. SCARES Mr. SCARES seconded the Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. Member has made a persuasive case with regard to Increment Value Duty, which undoubtedly is a duty of a much more serious burden when it comes to be imposed than the Mineral Eights Duty, but he has put his Amendment down in a place where it applies to Mineral Rights Duty. I dare say it would apply also to Increment Value Duty. With regard to the Mineral Rights Duty, I think the House will agree it is desirable that we should keep to the sweet simplicity of our five per cent. With regard to the Increment Value Duty perhaps different considerations do arise where the colliery owner has added to the value of the minerals before they have begun to be worked by boring operations. It is not unfair—or, at all events, it is not inconsistent with the cases we have dealt with in other parts of the Bill—that some allowance should be made when the original capital value comes to be taxed. But for that purpose it would be necessary to move it at a different part of the Bill, namely, in Clause 22. I think, however, we could scarcely allow so long a period as 30 years. Ten years would be sufficient for all practical purposes. It would involve some consequential alterations in a subsequent Government Amendment, which we will suggest when we reach that Amendment. If my hon. Friend is content that the Amendment should be made applicable only to Increment Value Duty, and moved where it would be restricted to that purpose, I think we can meet him.
  Mr. GROVE: Will you say 15 years?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I will say 15 years; there is not much in it. In fact, I do not think there is much in the whole Amendment. Though my hon. Friend is doubtless familiar with such cases, I have not heard of one. The case is an extremely rare one; but though it is very rare in practice, it is somewhat difficult to resist in Debate.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The speech of the Attorney-General has greatly surprised me. The Amendment is intended to apply to any case in which the owner has himself sunk the borings which have proved the coal, and have led to the development of the coalfield; and the Attorney-General says that he has never heard of such a case. Has he heard of Lord Dudley's collieries?
  Sir W. ROBSON: The boring is not the sinking of the shaft. That is a comparatively small matter.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The boring precedes the sinking of the shaft. There are many cases where an owner sinks shafts, but there are many more cases where the owner sinks borings in order to get somebody else hereafter to sink shafts. But what interested me was to ascertain the reason why the Government treat the expenditure of the owner of a mine in this respect differently from the expenditure of a man who owns other forms of real property. Again and again we have had it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no man should pay Increment Value Duty on any value created by his expenditure. I did not understand that that pledge was limited to Increment Value Duty on land, I thought it extended equally to Mineral Increment Duty, and that the same privilege or justice would be accorded to the mineral owner who had created value by his expenditure and enterprise as was given to the owner of land which by expenditure had been rendered fit for building. I do not know whether the hon. Member (Mr. Groves) is satisfied to have this limitation imposed in the case of the mineral owner only. For myself, I cannot see any reason why the mineral owner should not have as wide an exemption as an owner of other real property. If a man has reclaimed land and thereby created its value, or if he has made a railway and thereby created a building value, he is to have credit, not for the amount of money he has expended, but for all the value he has created. Why should not a man who has sunk borings or shafts have credit for all the value that he has created? I really cannot see any reason for the distinction that is drawn between the two forms of property.
  Mr. GROVE: I beg to thank the Attorney-General for the very fair way in which he has received this Amendment. I think he has thoroughly met the justice of the case, and I ask leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3) to leave out the words "in respect of" ["in respect of the minerals worked"], and to insert instead thereof the words "particulars as to."—[Sir W. Robson.]
  Mr. WHITEHEAD Mr. WHITEHEAD moved in Subsection (5) after the word "of" ["in respect of common brick clay"], to insert the words "common clay."
  When this Bill was in Committee an Amendment was moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, and I think that nearly every speaker assumed that common clay would be exempted from this tax. As the line in the Sub-section now stands the exemption only applies to what is described as "common brick clay." I think the words "common clay" ought to go in. It was quite clear as a result of the discussion in Committee that clay which is used for the purposes of manufacture was not to be subjected to this duty, because in many cases it is the manufacturer who is the owner of the clayfield and the tax would therefore fall upon the industry. It is suggested that the words of the Sub-section "common brick clay" are sufficient to cover the case. I understood in the Committee stage that the Attorney-General was clearly of opinion that the legal decisions with regard to clay were somewhat ambiguous, and that it was very uncertain as to what extent clay of particular qualities and kinds could be described as minerals, and in consequence it was very desirable to have a definition and an exemption in the Bill. But I think that the difficulty which already exists in the legal test case has been very much increased by this Clause as it stands.
  A clear distinction is drawn in this Sub-section (5) between "common brick clay" and other classes of clay. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests that "common brick clay" is a sufficient description to cover what is generally known as "common clay." If so, I very much doubt whether courts of law or judges to whom the duty of interpretation will fall will not be obliged to consider that the insertion of the word "brick" between "common" and "clay" was inserted for an express purpose, and must therefore be given some special meaning to distinguish "common brick clay" from "common clay." I do not know whether that will be so, but it seems to me a very natural method of

  605
  interpretation. Having regard to the existing ambiguity in the text and to the decided cases, I should like, as representing a constituency where cement is largely manufactured, to have that ambiguity cleared up, and to have the Clause made perfectly straightforward, so that the exemption which I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to give should be given effectively in plain English terms. I myself do not pretend to have any knowledge of the distinction between "common brick clay" and "common clay," but I have endeavoured to acquire the information at the best source. I find that in the encyclopædias and other books the articles are certainly described as very largely of a chemical and geological character, but the descriptions of these two articles are very different, both in the geological descriptions and in law; and where there is a distinction in geology and in law existing there can be little doubt that those engaged in the business are looking at this tax, not with a great amount of apprehension, perhaps, but with a great amount of caution. They think that the Clause as drafted will not give them the protection that the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out to them.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think "common clay" is generally known as "brick clay," and has been so spoken of in a commercial sense. However, we have no objection, if there is any ambiguity, to insert "common clay." I think common brick clay covers the ordinary exemption, but if my hon. Friend has been searching the encyclopædias and thinks there is some ambiguity we have no objection to insert the words common clay.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am rather puzzled at this. If I understand the hon. Gentleman rightly he moved his Amendment because he wants to relieve from taxation that clay which was not a raw material of bricks, but was a raw material of cement, and the reason he wants the raw material of cement relieved is because he has got cement works in his constituency, and his constituents feel that the cost of their raw material will be increased if this tax is put upon cement clay. Therefore, we have it, at all events, from one important branch of producers that this tax does increase the cost of raw material. There can evidently be no economic distinction between a tax put upon coal or iron on
  606
  the one hand and a tax put upon clay on the other. We have it now from a distinguished Member upon the other side that if this tax is put upon the raw material of cement the people who make cement believe it will be injurious to their industry. I suggest, therefore, he is bound to vote for every Amendment which relieves everything that can be used as raw material. Everything taken out of a mine comes within that category, and, therefore, the only justification the hon. Gentleman has for his Amendment is the absolute destruction of the whole economic basis of the tax as presented by the Government. I hope in the remaining part of our discussion and in his constituency he will explain that the Government are now putting a tax upon raw materials.
  Amendment made.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY Mr. LAURENCE HARDY moved in Subsection (5) after the word "sand" to insert the words "sandstone, marl."
  Whereas in the iron and steel industry sand is largely used, there are many other industries in which they use sandstone and grind it down into sand for the same purpose as sand is used in the iron industry. Therefore I ask the Government to include the word "sandstone" as well as sand. I should also like to plead for marl, because if the cement people are to be exempted may I point out that marl is used for exactly the same purpose as clay.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not agree that sandstone is quite in the same category. Once you make a concession of this sort in one case it is very difficult to show why you should not make a similar concession to something else. The reason for making the previous concession was because the Government desired to give general satisfaction to the House, and it was accepted by both sides of the House.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: It was thought to be excluded at the time.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think so, because this is quite a different thing. The reason why we excluded sand was because it involved a great deal of trouble in collection, and would not produce much. If we agree to leave out granite someone else will say "why not leave out slate?" That would relieve the revenue of a very considerable amount of money. I think, in this matter, we have gone as far as the House wishes us to go. We have come to the conclusion that we cannot go any further.
  Question put, "That those words be I there inserted in the Bill."
  Mr. NEWDEGATE (for Mr. Lambton)Mr. NEWDEGATE (for Mr. Lambton)moved in Sub-section (5) after the word "chalk" ["Mineral Rights Duty shall not be charged in respect of common brick clay, common brick earth, or sand, chalk"] to insert the words "stone used for road making, building stone."
  In the absence of my hon. Friend, I move this Amendment, which is to exempt stone used for road making and building stone. When I moved an Amendment to exclude certain minerals from this tax I particularly asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would consider the question of road metal and of building stone,
  The House divided: Ayes, 35: Noes 117

  Division No. 830.]

  AYES.

  [12.45 a.m.

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

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Gordon, J.

  Starkey, John R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Younger, George

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Courthope, G. Lloyd

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Laurence Hardy and Sir John Randles.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Forster, Henry William

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Radford, G. H.

  Agnew, George William

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

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Robinson, S.

  Beale, W. P.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Bennett, E. N.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Brace, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Seely, Colonel

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Shackleton, David James

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Keating, Matthew

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Toulmin, George

  Clough, William

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lupton, Arnold

  Verney, F. W.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Walsh, Stephen

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Watt, Henry A.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

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

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Falconer, James

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Marnham, F. J.

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Massie, J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Gibson, James Puckering

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Glover, Thomas

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Grove, Archibald

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Guiland, John W.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pollard, Dr.

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

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

  and he said, in reference to stone, "That is a totally different thing—I shall have to consider it." I hope the right hon. Gentleman has considered it, because I venture to say it is absolutely necessary that we should have the road metal in this country as cheap as we possibly can. In my own county, the county of Warwick, motor-cars are made to a great extent, and we find it is a very great tax on the county to keep those roads in order. We have excellent road metal for the roads and a good deal of this granite belongs to the people who work the quarries. I do strongly urge upon the Chancellor of the

  609
  Exchequer, especially at a time when he talks of developing roads in the country and of giving grants to local authorities for the purpose, not to put this tax on road metal for the making of the roads. Then as regards building stone, surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having exempted brick clay, which is used for making houses, will also consider that it is advisable to exempt building stone which is also used for building houses. There are certain parts of the country where brick clay is practically unknown, and where stone is used for building houses instead, and I venture to hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us this concession, and that he will, having given way on the question of brick clay, give way on the question of building stone. I think what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if bricks are exempted building stone should also be exempted. I beg to move, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look upon this Amendment with a lenient eye.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I beg to second this Amendment, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept it, because he said on the other occasion that he exempted other classes of minerals because they would cause a good deal of trouble to the Inland Revenue to collect. I think the collection of a tax on road material will be quite as difficult, because there are certain parts of Ireland where people build their houses of stones which they pick up from the roadsides. Are the Commissioners to go round and ask the peasants who build their houses whether they pay for the right of taking these stones off the road sides? Apparently the person who receives royalty on these occasions is not to give any notice until he is called upon to do so. Are the Commissioners to send round people to all the districts to examine small quarries and search into cases in which royalties have been paid? If so I think the expense and trouble of discovering this information will be much greater than the amount which will be raised. I also ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exempt road material especially, because I feel that it is a very great grievance in the case of counties like that which I represent, which possess no road material, if this product is to be made more expensive by being taxed, and they are to be reduced again to making their roads of chalk and gravel as they have done in the past. Last time this point was raised the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was not a tax upon the local
  610
  authorities, but upon the royalties, but he has admitted that a tax on royalties will eventually fall upon the consumer who buys the minerals. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I do not know why he has given these exemptions except for that reason, and on account of the difficulty of collection. The difficulty of collection will be just as great in the case of road material, and if there is a case of the exemptions granted on the Committee stage there is just as much a case for that which my hon. Friend has proposed.
  1.0 A.M.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment taunted the Government with having introduced numerous changes in the Bill. It is rather a curious way of seeking to amend a concession by taunting us with having already made concessions. I confess I shall take to heart the observations made by the hon. Member. The hon. Member who has just sat down said that the reason why we had made concessions was because they involved considerable trouble to the Inland Revenue. He forgot the second part of the reason—namely, that they would produce but a very small return. In this particular case a considerable amount of revenue would be exempted by the Amendment. The hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) talked as if road material and building stone were a matter of no consequence in this country. As a matter of fact, there are considerable royalties paid in respect of them.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Not in Scotland for road material, because we are entitled to take it for roads for nothing.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In that case there is no tax.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Therefore there is no value in the concession.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is obviously no value to Scotland, but Scotland is not the only part of the United Kingdom. In my part of the country there are very valuable quarries, paying very heavy royalties, where a considerable portion of the business consists in the making of road material. It makes no difference at all to the industry whether we tax royalties. It will be no tax upon the industry, but a tax upon the royalty that is being paid. It involves a considerable amount of revenue. With regard to the Irish hillside case, what royalty is payable to anybody in respect of taking an occasional stone from the hillside?
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: My point was that the Commissioners will be put to expense and trouble in making inquiries as to whether any royalties are payable.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I really do not think the Commissioners will spend very much time inquiring into the blasting of
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON Mr. J. M. HENDERSON moved in Subsection (5), after the word "limestone," to insert the word "granite."
  I do not expect much encouragement from the Government after what has just happened, but that will not deter me from stating my case. In Aberdeenshire there are 21 quarries, and the rents begin at £5, the highest being £350. The total rents
  612
  stones by natives on the hills of Connemara or anywhere else. I cannot possibly accept the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 31; Noes, 113.

  Division No. 831.]

  AYES.

  [1.5 a.m.

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

  Gordon, J.

  Starkey, John R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Kerry, Earl of

  Younger, George

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Newdegate and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

  Forster, Henry William

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Foster, P. S.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Stanier, Beville

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Agnew, George William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Robinson, S.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Beale, W. P.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Bennett, E. N.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Seely, Colonel

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Shackleton, David James

  Brace, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Keating, M.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Toulmin, George

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Verney, F. W.

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Walsh, Stephen

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Essex, R. W.

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

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

  Falconer, J.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Massie, J.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Gibson, J. P.

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Glover, Thomas

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

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

  Guiland, John W.

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Radford, G. H.

  for the biggest Scottish granite district, Aberdeenshire, amount to £1,800. The tax would amount to £90—not the salary of the man who collected it. I do not believe that in the whole of Scotland this tax will yield to the Exchequer £1,000. Of course, the landlords will pay at first, but eventually it will be put on the rent. I know that Tariff Reformers will say,

  613
  "Here is a distressed industry, and it is subject to very great competition. See what this Government are doing. Instead of putting on a tariff to give you a chance, they are actually putting on a duty and handicapping you!" I know perfectly well how to answer that argument, and I know my constituents are level-headed enough to understand it. But I have not the slightest idea how to explain to them why limestone is exempt and granite is not. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain why he excludes brick clay and not granite, I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment, but, as a matter of fact, the excuse is that bricks are the material for building houses. Well, granite is the only material with which they build houses in the North. A brick house is no good to anyone north of the Grampians. It would not stand the weather. Very well, why do you exempt limestone, brickclay, common day, and uncommon clay, and put in granite, when so little is to be got out of it? I do not object to a tax on landlords, or anybody else, but I do object to a tax being put upon something which is very difficult to work, which is hampered in its competition, and out of which so very little is got. I am perfectly certain that in Scotland you will not get sufficient revenue to pay for the expense of collecting the tax. I do not expect much from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, if there is any concession for brick, cement, and other articles, let him include granite, and, if he will not include granite, then let him strike out all the rest. If there is a concession to anything, I think it ought to be to granite, having regard to all that we have heard about it, and considering the fact that the number of granite quarry workers—and for them I am most concerned—are just 50 per cent. of what they were in the Scottish quarries in 1906, so great has been the competition.
  Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: I beg to second the Amendment. I have got very large granite quarries in my division. They have been hit very hard indeed by foreign competition, and I really think this will be the last straw for the granite industry, and for the Government in places where there are granite quarries. The competition from abroad is so severe that in a large quarry, which is owned or managed by a great supporter of the Government, almost the whole of one winter they had to work short time because of foreign competition, although the men had always been told that competition did not make any difference. The House
  614
  will probably remember that an hon. Member—a great supporter of the Government for one of the constituencies in Cornwall—showed how foreign competition had altogether knocked out the granite kerb trade in this country. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and all those hon. Gentlemen who call themselves Free Traders on the other side of the House, are actually going to tax British raw material, and let the foreigner send the manufactured article free to this country. They tell the people that they are Free Traders, and would not for the world tax anything like food or raw material. It is not quite the same in this House. We have seen, quite lately, that they all trooped merrily at the crack of the Government whip—you might almost say like a herd of dumb-driven cattle—to vote for a double tax on the people's food, and here they are going to vote for a new tax on British raw material We have always been told that, whatever you do, you must not tax raw material, and they tell us sometimes that leather is raw material. If leather is raw material, goodness knows granite is, and I should really think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might accept this Amendment from an hon. Gentleman on his own side, especially when it is backed on this side. I do not think you could have a clearer case to exemplify the absurdity of so-called Free Trade than this tax upon granite.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The inference which my hon. Friend (Mr. J. M. Henderson) drew from my speech on a previous Amendment was quite right, for I cannot see my way to accept his proposal. I must say I do not think he made out very much of a case—in fact, he gave it away. He and his Seconder do not seem to agree about the general principle on which they advocate the Amendment. My hon. Friend admitted that the tax was not a burden on the industry.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: He said he proposed it in the interests of the workers.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: He said he could give a most effective answer to that argument. I wish he had given that answer instead of making the speech he did, because it would have been a much better contribution to the Debate. Let us take the case of Aberdeen. The whole of the £1,500 or £1,800 will be paid by the granite quarries to the landlord. Five per cent. will be charged on that—not to those who work the quarry, but to the landlord.

  615
  That is not passed on to the industry. The Income Tax on that £1,500 will not be passed on to the industry, it will be taken out of the rent. If a man has a very large income he will have to pay the Super-tax. He will pay 1s. 2d. if the income is under £5,000, and beyond that he will have to pay the extra sixpence. The hon. Member (Mr. J. M. Henderson) does not suggest that the 1s. 8d. is to be paid by the quarry proprietors. It is to be paid by the landowners out of the rent. Some hon. Members are constantly talking about the tax on royalties as if it were a tax on those who are cultivating the soil or working a quarry. I have already answered that point three or four times even to-night.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: What I said was that although the landlords may pay the duty now, the quarries are all held on leases, and the moment the leases run out the renewed lease will bear the tax.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: My hon. Friend's political economy is sound only in parts. It is all right when he says that this is not a tax on the industry, but he is all wrong when he makes the statement he has just made. Take, for instance, the charge under Schedule A—a charge which ran up to 1s. 3d. under the late Government. That did not fall upon the tenant by being added to the rent. If that is so, why should the charge of 6d. in respect of mining royalties be added to the rent. The landowners, you may depend upon it, are charging the best rent they can get. If they can get more they will take it. They are taking it in the South Wales collieries even now on the mining leases—not since the Budget was introduced, but during the last few years. Where the landlords have found they could get a larger rent the mere fact of charging a royalty has made no difference whatever, and they have simply charged a rack rent. I say that this charge will not pass on to the industry at all; it will be charged on rent, which in itself is a heavy burden upon industry. The hon. Member (Mr. J. M. Henderson) said that the 5 per cent. which will be charged on the Aberdeen quarries amounts to £75.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: £90.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: He says that the £90 is going to destroy the trade of the Aberdeen quarry proprietors, and is going to make all the difference in foreign competition, but that the £1,800 rent will
  616
  make no difference at all. The same thing applies to the case raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Rowland Hunt). It will make no difference to the man who works the quarry. It will come out of the pockets of the landlord. I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am not going to argue the question of political economy with the right hon. Gentleman at this hour. I will say it is ominous that we have two hon. Gentlemen from the other side of the House each pleading on behalf of his constituents that this tax will fall upon the industry. There was the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. Whitehead), who urged that argument with regard to cement, and now there is the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson), who urges it in regard to granite. I would venture to suggest to the hon. Member for Aberdeen that the only possible way of getting anything out of the Government is not to make speeches at two o'clock in the morning, but that all those who are suffering under some grievance on that side of the House should support each other in the Lobby. The hon. Member for Essex is not here to vote for granite, and the hon. Member who now pleads for granite was not here to vote for his hon. Friend, who pleaded for cement. There is no difference between the arguments urged by those two hon. Members or the political economy on which those arguments were based. Neither will support the other, but each pleads perfectly plainly for his own constituency. So long as they do so they will plead in vain. That is a suggestion in tactics which I present to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer made use of two rather curious arguments in answering this Amendment. He was prepared to hold that the principle of the granite tax was indisputable because it was supported by two different sets of arguments. He forgets the fact, which every logician admits, that although you cannot get a false conclusion from true premises you can get a true conclusion from false premises. I will not suggest which of the premises is false. The right hon. Gentleman argued that it was impossible for the Mineral Rights Duty to be passed on to the lessee because the Income Tax was not passed on to the lessee in a like case. The obvious answer to that is that every Income Tax payer is not treated alike. One quarry owner who gets a small

  617
  income pays a far smaller Income Tax than his neighbour who has a large income, and another man next door, perhaps, has to pay the Super-tax. When you consider the Mineral Eights Duty you are considering a duty which has a quite different foundation because every person who receives a mineral royalty is going to pay the same duty. Therefore, he will be in exactly the same position, and you will get combination between all those who enjoy these royalties. You

  Division No. 832.]

  AYES.

  [1.30 a.m.

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Stanier, Beville

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, J.

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Watt, Henry A.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. J. M. Henderson and Mr. Rowland Hunt.

  Forster, Henry William

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Foster, P. S.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Radford, G. H.

  Agnew, George William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Robinson, S.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Beale, W. P.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

  Kigham, John Sharp

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

  Bennett, E. N.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Seely, Colonel

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Shackleton, David James

  Brace, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Keating, Matthew

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Toulmin, George

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Verney, F. W.

  Clough, William

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Walsh, Stephen

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Davies Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Essex, R. W.

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

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

  Falconer, James

  Marnham, F. J.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Massie, J.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Gibson, J. P.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Glover, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

  Guiland, John W.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move "That the further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I confess I had hoped that we might have gone further
  cannot have a combination between Income Tax payers to hand on the tax, because they are treated differently, but you will have combination between those who enjoy these royalties, and, therefore, I believe the tax will eventually be transferred to the industry.
  Question put, "That the word 'granite' be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 35; Noes, 117.
  to-night, and I believed that the right hon. Gentleman shared that expectation. I cannot, however, possibly complain of the way in which the Opposition have conducted the business, and, therefore, I cannot resist the Motion.
  Ordered: That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.—[Mr. Austen Chamberlain.]
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered to-morrow (Friday).

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: This Bill is one which I do not desire to oppose, but I am anxious to have some information upon it. There is a memorandum in the face of the Bill which does give some information, but it is scarcely sufficient. This Bill seeks, by means of a Schedule, to make a very large number of amendments in the Naval Discipline Act, and when we reach it, I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be able to give us full and detailed information regarding them. In the earlier part of the Bill there is an important phrase. In Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, there occur the words "naval detention quarters." I desire to know whether that is a mere alteration of name or whether these quarters are going to be different as regards size, light and comfort from the existing naval prisons in which offenders are confined. My information regarding the alteration of the words "prisoner" and "detention" in connection with the Army, is that it has been an alteration in name only. Although we can claim that in respect of the alteration in connection with the Army there has been some improvement, it has not to any appreciable degree attained what was promised when the measure passed through Parliament. In regard to the Navy we must remember that the places of detention are not all ashore, and that the places on board ship must at all events be less comfortable than those on land. I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will be able to give us some promise of considerable improvement in the conditions under which the men suffer punishment.
Mr. HAZLETON Mr. HAZLETON moved to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
I propose this Amendment not as a protest against what is in the Bill but as a protest against what is not in it. The House will generally recognise that the Bill is a very excellent one so far as it goes.
620
My complaint against it is that it does not go far enough. The object of the Bill as set out in the Memorandum is to effect for the Navy an amendment of the law to prevent sailors convicted of offences purely against naval discipline being subjected to the stigma attached to imprisonment, and detention is proposed to be substituted in certain cases where the punishment at present would be imprisonment. I think everybody will agree that that is a step in the right direction. It is a humane and sensible course to take, and for my part I only hope it will be carried into law. The reason I have put down this Motion for the rejection of the Bill is because I want to ask the Government why they have stopped here. Why have they not gone further. The Bill proposes to amend the Naval Discipline Act, 1884, and I would like to know why they have not proposed to remove what I consider as the biggest blot in that Act, namely, the provision with regard to flogging. I do not propose at this stage to discuss the case for or against flogging. Flogging was abolished in the Army in the early eighties, thanks very largely to the efforts of Mr. Parnell and the Irish party.
Although the provisions with regard to flogging still remain in the Naval Discipline Act, it has been suspended for a considerable number of years. It has been so suspended, not by Act of Parliament, but merely by Admiralty Regulation. There is no security or guarantee whatever that the regulation may not be withdrawn to-morrow by a stroke of the pen. If it has been abolished in the Army I should like to know why the opportunity of this measure has not been taken to abolish it in the Navy as well. Is the Navy more criminal than the Army? Why are the sailors of this Empire to be subjected to a degradation to which the soldiers in the Army are not subjected? I should like to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill what is the justification for the retention of these Clauses in the Naval Discipline Act? Why is flogging retained in it as a legal punishment? Is the liability to flogging to which sailors are subject a good recruiting argument for the Navy? You are building more "Dreadnoughts" at the present time. You will want men to man them, and I do not believe that the fact that you deliberately reserve the right to flog these men will help you to man those ships. I know that so far as my own countrymen are concerned I shall take every opportunity to place before them the facts and the dangers and liabilities

621
they incur by entering the Navy under the present conditions. I am anxious to ascertain the views of the Government on this question. This seems a suitable opportunity for making a very necessary amendment in the law. There would not be any serious opposition to such an amendment in the law if it were proposed.
What is the law on the subject at the present time? Section 52 of the Act provides for imprisonment or corporal punishment. Paragraph (11) of Section 53 provides that: "In any case of corporal punishment not more than 48 lashes shall be inflicted: no officer shall be subject to corporal punishment; no petty or non-commissioned officer shall be subject to corporal punishment, except in case of mutiny." Paragraph (3) of Section 56 provides that: "Except in case of mutiny no man shall be sentenced by the Commanding Officer to corporal punishment until his offence has been inquired into by one or more officers appointed by such Commanding Officer, and his or their opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner reported to such Commanding Officer, and the Commanding Officer shall thereupon act as, according to his judgment, may seem right." In conformity with these provisions there is one regulation contained in the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions which I should like to read to the House. It is Section 752, which says: "By corporal punishment is to be understood the usual punishment at the gangway; it is to be carried out according to the custom of the service, and in the presence of the captain, the officers and the ship's company or so many as can be spared from other duties. Every other description of corporal punishment, by rope, stick, or any other instrument, is hereby forbidden, with the exception of the authorised caning and birching of boys." I have only to say that, in my opinion, the right and proper course for the Government is to take advantage of the measure now before the House in order to repeal the provisions I have mentioned. In bringing forward this Motion I do not intend, of course, to press it to a Division, as I approve of the objects of the Bill otherwise. I merely make this protest.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am very loath indeed to detain the House at this hour, but I think a response to the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman is called for. It is necessary that I should say one
622
or two words about the scope of the Bill. It incorporates a very valuable reform, and I am quite sure that with its passage all parties in the House will be glad to associate themselves. We propose to make such verbal amendments in the Naval Discipline Act as will enable us as a rule to set up the punishment of commitment to detention quarters in lieu of commitment to prison in cases of offences purely against naval discipline. We adopt generally the example set by the War Office—already followed by such good results—in setting up Army Detention Barracks in 1906. We have issued a White Paper showing verbal alterations in the Naval Discipline Act, and which are set out in the Schedule to this Bill. Let me take the present system in the Navy. When a sailor commits an offence against naval discipline—for instance, if he is absent without leave or deserts, if he uses insulting language or contempt to a superior officer, if he wilfully disobeys a lawful command, or if he strikes or uses violence to a superior officer—he is committed to a naval prison for a maximum of two years. The theoretical minimum is one day, but in practice it is 21 days. If he is sentenced at Devonport he goes to Bodmin Prison; if sentenced at Portsmouth or Chatham he goes to Portsmouth, if the punishment is 56 days and under, and to Lewes if it is over 56 days. On sentence the man is put into prison rig and taken in the custody of a Metropolitan police officer by train to Bodmin, Portsmouth, or Lewes, as the case may be. Supposing he is coming from Portsmouth to Lewes, he is taken in the train to Brighton, and there taken out, and, whenever I have seen him, he is handcuffed. It may not always be so. Then he is removed by train to Lewes, and taken out handcuffed—at least, the one I saw was. He is taken in a cab to prison, his hair is cut close, and he is confined in a prison cell. The first month he does three hours' shot drill every day, seven hours' oakum picking, and is kept throughout in strict separation, and for the first fourteen days he sleeps without a mattress. If he earns his marks he passes into the second stage after 28 days, and then he does not pick oakum, or do shot drill, but he does about nine hours' industrial work daily, that is, rough sewing work, partly in the cell, and partly in the associated sewing room. He passes in due course, as he earns his marks, on to the third and fourth stages, which do not vary substantially from the

623
second. I am leading up to the changes which we propose, and which are very real ones. Let us go back to the first stage man, with his seven hours' oakum picking and three hours' shot drill. The oakum is picked in the cell, and the work is certainly monotonous and tedious. As to the shot drill, the man does two spells daily, each of 1½ hours' duration. The men do it briskly, and, so far as I could see, without apparent physical discomfort. I tried it myself for a short spell, and I have no doubt whatever that, when a man gets used to it, and his muscles get set to the bending, lifting, and carrying motion, there is no very great strain on a strong man, but it is a useless and stupid task to put a young sailor upon.
The hon. Gentleman asked if we were going to make a mere change in title, and rather suggested that the War Office has done that. Let me tell him that the Army Detention Barracks at Gosport are a very great improvement indeed upon the old prison system. We propose something which is far more than a change in title. We propose, in the cases which I have mentioned, to provide detention quarters at each of the home ports, Chatham, Devonport, and Portsmouth. The offender will not be a "prisoner," but a "man under detention." He will go to "Detention Quarters," in naval rig, under a naval escort. He will be confined in a separate "room"—not a "cell"—wearing ordinary uniform. He will be under orders of naval petty officers, and the captain of the detention quarters will be a commissioned officer on the active list of the Navy. During the first month of his sentence, as against the old system of oakum picking and shot drill, he will do five hours' physical training, and Service drill and instruction, and five hours industrial work. During the succeeding months he will perform, daily, 4½ hours physical training and Service drill and instruction, and 3½ to 4½ hours' industrial, work. The Service drill and instruction will be of the nature to improve his physique, and to render him more efficient in the discharge of his duties as a sailor when he returns to his ship. That is the genius of the new plan, and I am deeply interested in it, as are all members of the Board of Admiralty. The approximate cost of building detention quarters at Chatham and Devonport, and of converting Portsmouth Naval Prison, will be about £50,000, and the
624
approximate time to complete these buildings from the date of the order will be about 2½ years. The thing will take time, the change must be gradual, and we do not even propose to bring this Bill into operation till 1st January, 1911. We mean to make punishment deterrent—severely deterrent if you like—but not degrading. We want to make it real punishment, but we want to have in view the turning out of the man a better sailor. I have myself carefully studied the Army Detention Barracks at Gosport and at the Corodino, Malta. I also went very closely into the naval prison system at Lewes and Portsmouth. I greatly rejoice that I should have been privileged to have a hand in bringing about this salutary charge, and I am sure that this House will cordially approve it. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hazleton) has recognised, as we all must do, that we are engaged upon a salutary reform. With regard to what is called flogging in the Navy, namely, the corporal punishment inflicted under Sections 52 (4) of the Naval Discipline Act, that has been entirely suspended by Admiralty Order since 1881, and no man has since that date been subject to the punishment. The hon. Gentleman has some anxiety lest by a stroke of the pen the old system may be re-enacted. I do not think he need have any anxiety on that point. There is not the slightest prospect of it so far as I know.
Mr. KEATING: Then why not put it in the Bill.
Dr. MACNAMARA: That is exactly the point to which I am coming. That would mean such a very considerable change in the whole scope of the Bill, and objections might be taken to it in certain quarters, with the result that at this late period of a very long Session, we might endanger this reform upon which we have set our hearts. If we were revising the Naval Discipline Act my hon. Friend would be able to raise the point.
Mr. HAZLETON: Would the Government put it in them?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say. What I want to get is Naval Detention Quarters, and I am afraid that if we asked for anything more just now we should endanger the Bill. I appeal to the hon. Member and to the House to bear in mind that there has been no flogging since 1881, and there is no prospect of the regulation being rescinded in any way. If he will be

625
good enough to leave the matter where it is and give us this reform, he will be doing something to improve the case of the young sailor very much.
Mr. HAZLETON: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill read a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Two o'clock a.m., Friday, 22nd October, 1909.