Commons Sitting of 25 October 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Army Horses.
  The following question appeared on the Paper in the name of Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY:—
  "To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state if orders were issued to divisional and brigade commanders in April last that, irrespective of the causes of unfitness, the number of horses which may be cast during the financial year of 1909–10 must not exceed 4 per cent. of the establishment of the unit concerned; and, if so, whether he will explain why, in a field battery on the lower establishment, 6 per cent. were allowed to be cast?"
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: This question has been altered, and does not represent the meaning of the inquiry of which I gave notice. I will, therefore, ask only the first part of this question.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. F. D. Acland): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why 6 per cent. was mentioned on 15th September?
  Mr. ACLAND: If the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to let me know the number of the battery to which he alludes, I will make enquiry.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I refer to all batteries on the lower establishment. The Secretary of State told us 6 per cent., but as a matter of fact, it is only 4 per cent., owing to an order from the War Office, and I should like an explanation.
  Mr. ACLAND: That is a different question. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put it on the Paper.

  Militia and Yeomanry Act (Irish Horse).
  Mr. MOONEYasked the Secretary of State for War if he could state on what
  718
  date the regulations provided for by Subsection 2 of Section 1 of the Militia and Yeomanry Act, 1902, creating the body known as the Irish Horse, were laid before Parliament; and where might copies of those regulations be seen?
  Mr. ACLAND: The Militia and Yeomanry Act, 1902, gave power generally to raise regiments of Yeomanry under Section 3 of the Militia Act, 1882, under which no regulations were required. Section 1, Sub-section (2) of the Militia and Yeomanry Act, 1902, relates to the regulations required for the reserve divisions of the Militia and Yeomanry (under Section 1, Sub-section (1) which may be found in Army Order 36 of 1903, and were laid before Parliament.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is it not a fact that the Militia and Yeomanry Act, 1902, only gives power to the Secretary of State to annul certain sections of an Act of Parliament, whereas in providing for the creation of the Irish Horse two Acts of Parliament have been entirely annulled?
  Mr. ACLAND: If the hon. Member looks at Section 1 (3) he will find that power was given to raise a Yeomanry regiment under the Act of 1882.

  Maryhill Barracks Contract (Fair Wages Clause).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary of State for War, whether, in view of the circumstances attending the violation of the Fair Wage Clause by Messrs. P. and J. Gordon, for the painting of Maryhill Barracks, and of the fact that the painters on the contract had not been receiving the wages to which they were entitled, he would take some further action besides striking the firm off the list of contractors?
  Mr. ACLAND: It is considered that the case has been adequately met by the removal of the firm's name from the list of Army contractors, which is held to be the most serious penalty which a contractor can suffer.
  Mr. BARNES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the firm in question made a pretence of paying wages 50 per cent. more than were actually paid; and having regard to that fact, can he not compel the firm to pay the wages which they stated they were paying, but which the men had not had?
  Mr. ACLAND: We have not legal power to do so.

  New Hebrides (Native Mortality).
  Sir CHARLES DILKEasked whether the official reports received from the New Hebrides confirmed the accounts published in Australia of the high mortality among the native population and rapid decrease of their numbers in several islands of the group; whether the matter was receiving the attention of the Government; and what measures were being taken to prevent the extinction of the aboriginal population?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The question of the decrease of the native population throughout the Pacific is one of long standing and of extreme complexity. His Majesty's Government have no special official reports with regard to the New Hebrides; owing to the uncivilised condition of the group it has been impossible to obtain even approximately accurate figures of the population. It is hoped that with the gradual extension of settled government under the Convention of 1906, and particularly with the prohibition of the sale of arms and liquor to natives, the decrease of numbers may be checked.

  Opium (Import Duties).
  Sir HENRY COTTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that the rate of Import Duty on opium in the Federated Malay States now stood at 1,200 dollars, or £140, per chest; and if he could state the present rate of duty in the China treaty ports?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): As regards the first part of the question, I have seen the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on October 5th. With regard to the second, the duty on imported opium is determined by the additional Article of 1885 of the Chefu Convention, which fixes the Import Duty at 30 taels per chest of one picul, to which is added a further 80 taels for likin, making a total of 110 taels. This works out at the present rate of exchange at, roughly, £12 17s. a chest.
  Sir H. COTTON: Is it within the power of the Chinese Government to raise the duty?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I should like notice of that question.

  United States (Naval Training Ship).
  Mr. CONOR O'KELLYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communications had passed between his Department and the Naval Department at Washington on the proposal of the United States Government to man and equip with modern guns and armament two naval training ships on the great lakes; and, if so, would he state the result?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

  Tabriz (Retirement of Russian Troops).
  Mr. REESasked whether the Russian troops had retired from Tabriz?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: His Majesty's Minister at Tehran has reported that two companies of infantry and one grenadier battery left Tabriz for Russia on 16th October.
  Mr. REES: Is the Persian Government preserving order and peace in that district now?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is an entirely different question.

  Meat Supply (Examination of Carcasses).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE (on behalf of Mr. Bowerman)asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, with a view to the more effectual protection of the public health, he would consider the desirability of making it compulsory upon all owners of live stock commonly used or sold for the food of man to notify the local authority within 24 hours of any ailing, injured, or apparently diseased animal, in order to prevent such animal being offered upon his premises, or removed therefrom, for the purpose of sale until the carcass of such animal had been duly examined by a qualified veterinary surgeon, and that the penalty for contravention of any such amended Act should be made sufficiently heavy to prevent the foisting of anything unfit or unsound upon those who were responsible for the distribution of the meat supply of the United Kingdom?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Bums): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I will take note of the suggestion made in it; but I could not promise to introduce legislation for the purpose of giving effect to it. There would, I think, be a good deal of difficulty in the matter.

  Island of Lewis.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the cottars of Valtos and Kneep some time since petitioned the proprietor of the island of Lewis to break up the farm of Reef, in the parish of Uig, would he state what decision had been arrived at; and whether the Congested Districts Board would be prepared to co-operate with the proprietor in the creation of new holdings?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the small number of new holdings created in the island of Lewis out of the funds of the Congested Districts Board, arrangements would now be made for a portion of the Board's funds to be utilised for that purpose, especially bearing in mind that the Secretary for Scotland intimated in March last that he then had the matter under consideration?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): In reply to these two questions I can only inform him that the Congested Districts Board are in communication with those concerned, but no decision has yet been arrived at.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the recommendations of Dr. Dittmar, the Local Government Board inspector, for improving the sanitary condition of the townships in the island of Lewis, supported by suggestions of the medical officer of health for Ross and Cromarty, had been under the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland since 1906, would he state what sum had been expended in the island by the Government and local authority, respectively, with a view to remedy these conditions, since the Government came into office?
  Mr. URE: I am informed that £175 has been expended by the local authority in protecting wells, and that in some districts dwellings are being considerably improved by the inhabitants themselves. The Government has no powers to enable it to spend money on sanitary purposes.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill made no provision for crofters, cottars, fishermen, and others who were without means with which to equip and stock a holding, would he state how the Government proposed to deal with the numerous persons of this class, mainly cottars, in the island of Lewis and else-where
  722
  who were without means with which to equip a new holding; and, if legislation was necessary, would he state when he proposed to introduce it?
  Mr. URE: The Government are not able now to anticipate the legislation of future Sessions; and I cannot encourage my hon. Friend to think that any such proposals as he appears to suggest are likely to be laid before Parliament.
  Mr. J. F. REMNANT: In view of the difficulty of raising sufficient money to equip these new holdings, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of recommending His Majesty's Government to extend the Unearned Increment Tax to personal property, such as the Clydesdale Bank shares?

  Loughgall (County Armagh) Postal Facilities.
  Mr. LONSDALE (for Mr. Moore)asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that letters posted in Glasgow, Liverpool, and other cross-Channel ports reach Loughgall the following morning about 10.30, but are not delivered till the day following, and if posted on a Friday are not delivered till the following Monday; and if, having regard to the amount of the fruit-growing industry carried on in Loughgall and its necessarily perishable character, he will alter the existing system of delivery of such correspondence?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): Letters arriving at Loughgall by the second post at about 10.30 a.m. are at once delivered in the village. I regret that the cost of an extension of the second delivery beyond the village would not be justified, as the service is already carried on at a considerable loss to revenue, and the number of letters which would be benefited would be very small.

  Canadian Magazine Post (Extension to Newfoundland).
  Sir JOSEPH F. LEESE (for Sir William Holland)asked the Postmaster-General whether he has extended the advantages of the Canadian magazine post to Newfoundland?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have been in communication with the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General of Newfoundland in reference to this matter, and I am glad to say that I have come to an arangement with Newfoundland similar to that which I made with the Dominion Government—namely, that in view of the particular local

  723
  circumstances the postage on magazines, newspapers, and trade journals from Great Britain to Newfoundland will be reduced from 4d. to 1d. per pound. The whole loss of the reduction in the postage from 4d. to 1d., as in the case of Canada, falls on the British Post Office, while the Newfoundland Government, like the Dominion Government, undertakes the cost of the sea transit.

  Monasterevan (County Kildare) Postal Facilities.
  Mr. W. ABRAHAM (for Mr. Kilbride)asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention had been directed to the general state of dissatisfaction which exists in the town of Monasterevan, county Kildare, with regard to the unsuitability of the present post office premises; whether the Department have acknowledged the unsuitability by entering into negotiations for larger premises; and, if so, will he say how far these negotiations have proceeded, and what is the cause of the delay in providing proper accommodation for the public who use the post office?
  Mr. BUXTON: The need for improved accommodation is recognised, and inquiries for better premises are proceeding, but hitherto no satisfactory offer has been received.

  Irish Census Returns (Discrepancies).
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that there are a great number of discrepancies and omissions in the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851, of which the following is an example: Margaret King, Kilmihill, no trace in Census Return of 1841, 10 years of age in Census Return of 1851, certificate of baptism proving her birth on 18th March, 1838; and whether, in view of the unreliability of the Census Returns, he will issue instructions to pension officers not to lodge objections founded on no better evidence than the Census Returns, but to defer to the opinion of the pension committee unless he can produce indisputable evidence to the contrary?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I regret to be unable to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member. Although discrepancies may have been found in the Census Returns, I am unable to admit that they are in general unreliable.

  Old Age Pensions (England, Scotland and Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the number of people in receipt of old age pensions in England, Ireland, and Scotland, respectively, and the amount received in each country?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The figures are:—

  Estimated population, middle of 1909.

  Number of persons in receipt of Old Age Pensions on 30th September, 1909.

  Amount received from commencement of Act to 30th September, 1909.

  £

  England and Wales

  35,756,615

  …

  421,432

  …

  3,672,747

  Scotland

  4,877,618

  …

  75,134

  …

  667,007

  Ireland

  4,374,158

  …

  186,202

  …

  1,723,904

  FINANCE BILL.

    SPIRITS TAKEN OUT OF BOND.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what quantity of spirits was taken out of bond and what amount of duty was paid in September, 1908, in England, Ireland, and Scotland, respectively; and whether he would give a similar Return for September of this year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The figures requested are:—

    September, 1908.

    September, 1909.

    Quantity duty paid.

    Duty.

    Quantity duty-p'd.

    Duty.

    Proof Gals

    £

    Pr'f Gals.

    £

    England

    …

    1,339,000

    741,000

    835,000

    618,000

    Scotland

    …

    1,016,000

    553,000

    695,000

    506,000

    Ireland

    …

    593,000

    326,000

    367,000

    264,000

    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of duty was paid on spirits taken out of bond in Great Britain and Ireland during the first two weeks of the present month and what amount was paid during the corresponding period last year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The figures requested are not available. The figures for the first two periods in the month are:—

    1st to 16th October, 1909

    £858,000

    1st to 17th October, 1908

    £1,052,000

    SPIRITS IN BOND IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will

    725
    state the quantity of spirits taken out of bond in Great Britain and Ireland during the eight months, February to September, 1908; the quantity taken out for the corresponding period this year, and, if there was a reduction, how much per cent.; and whether he will state the amount of revenue received in each period from the duty paid?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The quantity of spirits duty paid in Great Britain and Ireland during the eight months, February to September, 1908, was 23,342,000 proof gallons; the quantity duty paid during the same period this year has been 19,263,000 proof gallons, and the reduction per cent. 17·47. The amount of duty received was:—

    February to September, 1908

    £12,827,000

    February to September, 1909

    £11,899,000

    LICENSED PREMISES (COUNTY OF LONDON).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in the amended proposals of the Finance Bill having regard to Licence Duties, it is intended to give special treatment to licensed premises in the County of London?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer is in the negative.

  Local Government Board (Meetings).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has yet convened a meeting of the Board; and, if not, whether he proposes to do so?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The reply to both parts of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman know the names of the members of his Board?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes; the members of the Board are the Lord President of the Council, the five Secretaries of State, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why they have not been consulted as to the work of his Department?
  Mr. BURNS: Because the Department do not think it needs such consultation.

  Cromarty Firth (Suggested Floating Dock).
  Mr. WEIRasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the fact that His
  726
  Majesty's fleet frequently visits Cromarty Firth and lies off Invergordon, where there is ample anchorage for the largest vessels afloat, will he again consider the expediency of establishing a floating dock off that town, seeing that it is on the main line of railway and in direct communication with both the North and South, and forms an excellent base for coaling and other purposes?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): A floating dock would not at present be suitably placed in Cromarty Firth, owing to the absence of workshop facilities.

  Battleship Construction (Building Slips).
  Mr. CARLILEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many building slips there are in Great Britain of sufficient size and capacity to admit of the building of ships of the "Dreadnought" and super-"Dreadnought" type?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton on the 17th March last.

  Gun-mountings for Armoured Ships.
  Mr. GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state hen orders will be given for the gun-mountings for the armoured ships which are to be laid down on 1st April, 1910; whether tenders for supplying these gun-mountings have been submitted; and if any of the contractors on the Admiralty list have already made expenditure upon an increase of their plant or preparation of material in anticipation of increased orders for gun-mountings?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman rain error in assuming that armoured ships are necessarily to be laid down on 1st April, 1910. If he means to refer to the four large armoured ships mentioned on page 226 of the Navy Estimates, the reply is that an order for the gun-mountings for one ship has already been provisionally placed, and the tenders for the gun-mountings for three ships are under consideration. As regards the latter part of the question, there is nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Gentleman on 2nd August last.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to the first part of the question, if he can say—if this question is inaccurate—when the four ships are to be laid down?
  Mr. McKENNA: Probably some time in the month of April, 1910. But the Government attach more importance to the date at which they are to be finished. They are to be finished by March, 1912.

  H.M.S. "Victory."
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether His Majesty's ship "Victory" is falling into a condition of decay; and, if so, what action the Board of Admiralty proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: The "Victory" was extensively repaired in 1903 with the object of putting her into such a state as would enable her to last for many years. I am happy to be able to assure my hon. Friend that there are no grounds for thinking that the ship is falling into a condition of decay.

  Admiral Lord Walter Talbot Kerr.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Admiral of the Fleet the Right Hon. Lord Walter Talbot Kerr, G.C.B., has been placed on the retired list; whether it is proposed to promote any of the present admirals in consequence of that retirement; and whether he will take care that in future promotions no other considerations shall prevail but those of seniority or exceptional merit displayed in the course of naval service?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative, the officer referred to having been, by authority of a special order in Council, promoted supernumerary to the established list of Admirals of the Fleet.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to refer to the third part of the question?
  Mr. McKENNA: Well; the hon. Gentleman suggests that I should do my duty in the third part. If he needs an assurance on that point——

  Rosyth Dockyard (Hospital Accommodation).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what hospital accommodation has been installed at Rosyth, and how far would victims of an accident at the new dockyard works have to be carried before receiving treatment in hospital; and what provisions have been made for transport thereto?
  Mr. McKENNA: No hospital accommodation has yet been installed at Rosyth. Injured men requiring hospital treatment are conveyed about three and a half miles to Dunfermline Hospital. The contractors have arranged for the use of the St. Andrew's Association's ambulance waggon, which is kept in Dunfermline. This can be summoned by telephone, and arrive on the site in 25 or 30 minutes. Less serious cases can be transported by the contractor's motor car in 15 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very great demand for hospital accommodation, and is it not necessary to do something more than that?
  Mr. McKENNA: The matter is one for the contractor, and not for the Admiralty.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the whole matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have already explained that it is not a matter in which the Admiralty can act themselves. The workmen in question are employed by the contractor and not by the Admiralty.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Are the Admiralty going to employ any men there?
  Mr. McKENNA: Not at present.
  Mr. W. THORNE: You have a clerk of works on the job. I should have thought it would have been his duty to prevent as many accidents as possible?
  Mr. McKENNA: We have inspectors on the works to see that the work is carried out according to contract. But we are not the employers of the labour.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state how many men are now being employed at Rosyth; and whether any considerable addition to that number is contemplated in the near future?
  Mr. KENNA: Five hundred and seventy-three men are now employed at Rosyth. In March next this number will probably be increased to about 2,000.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Two thousand men are to have no hospital accommodation, and have to be taken four miles in case of accident?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not justified in saying that.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I think I am justified.

  North Tipperary Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE (for Mr. Kendal O'Brien)asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has directed the county committee of agriculture and technical instruction for North Tipperary to dismiss their secretary, and refused to assign any reason for his action when requested by the committee to do so; if he is aware that the secretary, Mr. Walsh, has held the position for the past nine years and at the end of the first six years got an increase in salary for his efficiency with the approval of the Department; whether he will state what has since taken place to justify its change of attitude; whether it is usual with his Department to dictate to the elected representatives of the people whom they should employ; whether he will state if the work of the local committee is at present at a standstill; and, if so, from what cause?
  Mr. P. WHITEalso asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether the North Tipperary committee of agriculture and technical instruction has refused to dismiss their secretary at the instance of his Department; if the local committee requested the Department to state its reasons for desiring the dismissal of Mr. Walsh; if so, what reply the Department gave; and whether there is any, and, if so, what, objection in this case to confer with the local committee on matters affecting the future progress of the Department's work in their district?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Ireland) (Mr. T. W. Russell): I will circulate the reply with the Votes and Proceedings; but I may add that I am satisfied as to the desirability of the action taken. [See Written Answers this Date.]
  Mr. P. WHITE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to an interview with the local committee?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I have had two interviews with the local committee.

  Licensed Premises, London (Dancing).
  Mr. MOONEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is usual in London to allow licensed premises to remain open after the usual hour for closing on the occasions when balls, dances, or public dinners are given on such licensed premises; whether this permission is given by virtue of any Act of Parliament; and, if so, what Act or Acts, or
  730
  whether it is a discretionary power exercised by the police for the benefit and convenience of the public?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): Permission for licensed premises in London to remain open after the usual hour for closing on special occasions, such as those indicated in the question, is given in pursuance of the discretionary power for the benefit or convenience of the public conferred on the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis by Section 29 of the Licensing Act, 1872.
  Mr. MOONEY: Do I understand that there is a practice of allowing discretion to the police; and is that discretion to the police all over the Kingdom?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: No.
  Mr. MOONEY: Only in London?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The Commissioner has discretion only in the Metropolis.

  Attendance in Irish National Schools (Effect on Teachers' Salaries).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, having regard to the fact that 49 assistant teachers in Irish national schools were dispensed with last year and 623 others were threatened with withdrawal of salary owing to a decline in average attendance, which may arise from emigration or other causes of diminution of population, the Commissioners of National Education will be given discretionary power to relax the rules relating to average attendance bearing upon the retention of an assistant teacher when once recognised in a school?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The powers of the Commissioners in regard to the retention of teachers, when the average attendance from any cause falls below the number specified in the Commissioners' rules as warranting the recognition of such assistance, are limited by the financial rules which have been approved by the Treasury. Under those rules they may continue to recognise as assistant teacher for four successive quarters of insufficient attendance, but beyond this they cannot go without the special consent of the Treasury. They have no discretionary power under which they could continue their grants for an assistant beyond four successive quarters, and it is not proposed to extend their powers in the manner suggested in the question.

  Reinstatement Application (Monasterevan, County Kildare).
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Cork) (for Mr. Kilbride)asked whether the Estates Commissioners received an application for reinstatement from the representatives of the late John Hannon, who was evicted from his farm at Lughill, Monasterevan, county Kildare, in September, 1891, by Mrs. Fraser Johnston; whether he is aware that the new tenant, Mrs. Harriet Waters, died last October, and that the farm is now occupied by a caretaker; and can he say what steps are being taken to reinstate the representatives of the evicted tenant or provide them with an equivalent holding?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Miss Kathleen Hannon, who lives in Londonderry, has applied to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement in a farm in Kildare from which, according to her statement, her father was evicted in 1891, owing 5½ years' rent. The Commissioners received the application after the date mentioned in the Evicted Tenants Act and have not inquired into it.

  Mitchelstown (Co. Cork) Estate.
  Mr. W. ABRAHAM(Cork)asked the Chief Secretary if he will ascertain from the Estates Commissioners whether the tenants on the Fraser estate, Mitchelstown, Cork, have agreed to purchase their holdings at the rate of 21½ years' purchase of non-judicial and first-term rents and 23 years' purchase of second-term rents, and if the sale is now nearing completion; whether the Commissioners are aware that Mrs. Catherine O'Brien, the occupier of three holdings on the estate, has been refused the terms given to and agreed upon with the other tenants, although she informed Mr. Hunt, an inspector, of her willingness to accept the terms given to other second-term tenants; whether he is aware that Mr. Henry Frond, agent of the owner, is demanding a price from Mrs. O'Brien amounting to over 25 years' purchase; and whether the Commissioners, before giving their sanction to the sale and purchase of this estate, will cause inquiry to be made into the case of Mrs. O'Brien and secure for her terms of purchase equivalent to those obtained by the other tenants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that the terms of purchase agreed to by the tenants on this estate work out as follows: First-term rents, 21½ years' purchase; second-term rents, 23 years' purchase; non-judicial rents, 22½ years' purchase. At the time
  732
  the sale was arranged in 1905 Mrs. O'Brien was offered the same terms as the other tenants, but refused to purchase. In 1908 she had a second-term rent fixed in respect of one of her holdings. The price asked by the vendor in respect of this holding represents 21½ years' purchase of the first-term rent and 26¼ years' purchase of the second-term rent. The Estates Commissioners have the case still under consideration.
  Mr. W. ABRAHAM: Am I to understand that Mrs. O'Brien will get the same terms as other tenants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know. She did not accept them, and since her refusal second-term rents have been fixed, but all the circumstances are before the notice of the Estates Commissioners.

  West Clare (Natural Resources).
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked whether, in view of natural resources in West Clare which would become productive if properly developed, he will consider it advisable to send a small commission, comprising a distinguished civil engineer and a competent business man, with instructions to furnish practical reports on the basis of which public works can be immediately undertaken, such as the reclamation of about 1,400 acres in Poulnasherry Bay; the construction of a small serviceable pier at Labsheeda, and others of the kind; and whether, in the cases where a favourable report is forthcoming, he will undertake that the carrying out of these works shall not impose any additional burden on the people of West Clare?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There are no funds at present at the disposal of the Government for carrying out works such as are suggested in the question. Should funds hereafter be made available for the purpose, the claims of West Clare will be carefully considered in connection with similar applications from other districts. The Government has ample means of obtaining expert advice as to the practicability of works of the kind.

  Royal Commission (English Church in Wales).
  Mr. WALTER F. ROCH (for Mr. D. A. Thomas)asked the Prime Minister whether Mr. R. M. Thomas, who has acted as secretary of the Royal Commission on the English Church in Wales since its formation until recently, has resigned his position; if so, what were the grounds of his resignation; with whom does the appointment

  733
  of his successor rest; has any successor been appointed; and, if so, who has been appointed?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Mr. Thomas resigned the secretary ship a few days ago, but without stating the grounds of his resignation. Mr. F. H. M. Corbet, barrister-at-law, has been appointed secretary by the chairman of the Royal Commission, with whom the appointment rests.

  Land Legislation for Scotland.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Prime Minister, in view of the need of land legislation for the Highland crofting counties, will he state whether the Government propose to reintroduce a Small Landholders Bill next Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Government are fully alive to the need of land legislation for Scotland, but I cannot make any statement as to the business of next Session.
  Mr. WEIR: Can the right hon. Gentleman not give some ray of hope that he will introduce legislation next Session.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot say more now.

  Kilkee Sewerage System.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that the defective character of the present sewerage system in Kilkee has been the cause of considerable detriment to that town; and whether he can state what steps he is prepared to take with the object of providing a scheme for the establishment of a satisfactory sewerage system in Kilkee?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The question of the unsatisfactory sewerage of Kilkee has occupied the attention of the Local Government Board for a long time, and in 1904 they issued an Order dealing with this subject and with the water supply. Legal difficulties have, however, considerably delayed the Kilrush Rural District Council in procuring an improved water supply, without which new sewers could not advantageously be laid down. As the Board now understand that the new water supply will shortly be in working order, they have urged the district council to appoint an engineer an obtain plans for the sewerage system. In the event of unnecessary delay in proceeding with the works the Board will take steps to enforce their Order.

  Clothing for the Royal Irish Constabulary (Advertising for Contracts).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary has advertised in certain English newspapers for tenders for the supply of cloth, tartan, and tweed for clothing the Irish police, naming a number of English chambers of commerce at which tender forms can be obtained by intending contractors, and omitting to include the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, which has a larger interest in this business than any others named could have; and whether, in view of the convenience to Irish manufacturers of being able to obtain tender forms for this Irish contract, he can explain this omission and have it corrected?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Forms of tender for the cloth, tweed, and tartan required for the Royal Irish Constabulary uniforms in 1910 were sent direct by the Inspector-General to every manufacturer in Great Britain and Ireland likely to be in a position to quote for the supply of the material. Advertisements were also inserted in Irish, English, and Scotch newspapers, stating that forms of tender might be obtained, and patterns and specifications of the cloth inspected at the principal Chambers of Commerce of Great Britain, or at the office of the Inspector-General, Royal Irish Constabulary, Dublin Castle. No increase of convenience to intending contractors would be attained by having forms of tender and patterns left at the Chamber of Commerce, Dublin, as it is quite close to the Inspector-General's Office.

  Union Infirmary Patient (Old Age Pension Claim).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Thomas Walsh, Kilfarnon, Kilmainham Wood, county Meath, entered the Kells Union infirmary upon the certificate of the local doctor that he was suffering from paralysis; whether he is aware that the doctor under whose care he was in the infirmary has certified that while there he was suffering from and treated for paralysis; and whether, having regard to the fact that he was there for medical treatment only, this man, considering his advanced years, will receive, the pension to which he is entitled?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to the question asked by him on the 19th August last, the nature of Walsh's illness was certified to the Local Government Board as being debility, and as he was relieved in the hospital from May, 1907, to April, 1909, the Board regarded the medical assistance which he received as incidental to ordinary relief. The Board, therefore, considered that he was disqualified for a pension in accordance with the principles laid down in their circular letter of the 30th December, 1903, which has already been furnished to the hon. Member.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: To whom was it certified? Was it to the Local Government Board, because I can produce a certificate from the doctor who attended him while in the infirmary, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes I can show him the certificate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If the hon. Member does that, I will forward copies to the Local Government Board.
  Mr. CONOR O'KELLY: Are not all these matters decided by clerks in the Local Government Board offices, and is it not a fact that these things never come before the Board or the members of the Board except for initialling purposes?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know what the hon. Member means by clerks. I assure him that all these matters receive very careful attention from most competent and highly placed officials of the Board.

  Kilmainham Prison, Dublin.
  Mr. LONSDALE (for Mr. Moore)asked the Chief Secretary if he will state whether it is the intention of the Irish Government to close Kilmainham Prison; and if regard has been had to the fact that the prison population in Ireland during the past three months has been considerably over the normal limit?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is not proposed to close Kilmainham Prison formally, but the prisoners now confined therein are to be transferred to Mountjoy Prison, the prison buildings at Kilmainham being retained for use in emergencies, such as winter assizes. It is true that the number of prisoners in Ireland during the past few months has been rather higher than usual, but the accommodation in local prisons in Ireland, exclusive of Kilmainham, is sufficient for all probable contingencies.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Might I ask whether the emergency contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman is such as may arise under coercion should hon. Members above the Gangway come into power?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My vision takes the very widest range.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Officers (Religion).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked whether there is a vacancy now in the depot command of the Royal Irish Constabulary, owing to the promotion of Mr. Ball; whether Catholic officers are excluded on religious grounds from promotion to these positions; if not, can he explain why no Catholic officer was ever promoted to that position since the establishment of the force; and whether he will see that in filling Mr. Ball's place fair play is shown to Catholic candidates?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is at present a vacancy for an assistant inspector-general in the Royal Irish Constabulary. The officer to be promoted to the vacancy will probably act as commandant at the depot. Catholic officers are not excluded from these positions, professional qualifications only being taken into account in filling them. Any other method of selection would be contrary to the public interests.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that in a force which is overwhelmingly Catholic no Catholic ever got this post before?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I can give no explanation, except that, as I understand it, certainly so far as I have experience of it, the question of religion does not enter into consideration.

  Poplar Mercantile Office (Chinese Seamen).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could state the number of Chinese seamen engaged through the mercantile office at Poplar during the quarters ended 30th September, 1908, and 30th September, 1909, respectively?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): The number of Chinese seamen of all ratings engaged through the Mercantile Marine Office at Poplar during the quarters ending 30th September, 1908, and 30th September, 1909, was 240 and 360 respectively. In order to avoid misapprehension, I should like to add that the figures at Poplar are quite exceptional, and afford

  737
  no criterion as to the number of Chinese seamen engaged at Mercantile Marine offices in the United Kingdom. Of the 360 engaged during the quarter just ended 325 proved that they were British subjects, leaving only 35 of Chinese nationality.

  Beri-beri (Death at Sea).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been called to the death at sea, from beri-beri, on 11th August, 1909, of an Asiatic seaman named Dheria Fackeer, whilst serving on the steamer "Singapore," of London; whether he was aware that this disease was attributed to improper and insufficient food; whether any inquiry had been held into the matter; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining; how long he had served on the vessel; whether he had had any previous sea service; whether any previous deaths from this disease had occurred on this vessel; and whether, as in cases of deaths from this disease, owners, in reply to questions, invariably stated that the food was in excess of the official scale, he would direct the Board of Trade inspectors to institute independent inquiries in all such cases, with a view to determining whether the owners' statements were correct?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Lascar seaman referred to in the question died of beri-beri on the voyage from New Orleans to Antwerp. The cause of beri-beri has not yet been definitely ascertained, but there seems to be no doubt that bad and insufficient food predisposes to the disease. Inquiry was made by the Consul-General at Antwerp and a deputy superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office at Dock-street, London, and also by Dr. E. W. S. Evans, sanitary surveyor, who was appointed by the Board of Trade as an inspector to report to them on this and other cases of disease amongst the crew of thy "Singapore." The crew were medically examined before joining at Bombay. The man had been 265 days on board the vessel, but it is not known whether he had had previous sea service. Board of Trade inspectors have been and will continue to be instructed to make independent inquiries in such cases into all the conditions of employment, including food supply. In the present case the inspector has reported that the food was good, sufficient in quantity, and in accordance with the Lascar Food Scale sanctioned by the Government of India. The full report of the inquiry is being forwarded to the Government of
  738
  India, and has been communicated to the Royal College of Physicians, who have the subject of beri-beri under investigation. No other death from beri-beri besides those which were inquired into by the inspector has occurred in the "Singapore" during the last three years.
  Mr. REES: Will the hon. Member state whether any complaints have been made by the Government of India or any other organisation by or on behalf of any Asiatic seaman against the captain, the owner, or the master of this vessel?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. I am not aware that there is anything to complain of.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: In view of the prevalence of beri-beri in European waters, and in view of the great doubt existing as to the origin of this disease, will the right hon. Gentleman direct that a special medical inquiry should toe made into the matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am pleased to inform the hon. Gentleman that there is no special prevalence of beri-beri at the present moment.

  Steamer "Dunbar" (Disappearance of Asiatic Seamen).
  Mr. STEADMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the disappearance at sea, on 13th June, 1909, of an Asiatic seaman named Li Li, whilst serving on the steamer "Dunbar," of Leith; whether any inquiry has been held into the matter; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining; how long he had served on the vessel; whether he had had any previous sea service; whether he was on duty at the time; and whether any previous cases of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this vessel?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Asiatic seaman Li Li jumped overboard from the "Dunbar" on the voyage from Cardiff to Yokohama. Inquiry was held by the Acting Vice-Consul at Yokohama and the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Avonmouth. The man was not medically examined before joining the ship at Sharpness, but appeared to be of poor physique and in weak health. He was 51 days on board the "Dunbar," and had had previous sea service. He had been off duty and on special diet for some days before the occurrence. No other case of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance has occurred in this vessel during the last three years.
  Mr. REES: Is it not a fact that in all such cases inquiries are, as a matter of official routine, made, and published in a list, and were any complaints made on behalf of the seamen on this vessel?
  Mr. TENNANT: I think there are automatic inquiries. There were no complaints made in this case.

  Dock Labour (Port of London).
  Mr. STEADMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention had been called to the fact that at midnight on Sunday, 3rd October, a call was made at the West India Dock gates to discharge a steamer which had arrived; that a considerable number of men without tickets assembled, blocking the way of the men who had been ordered to work with tickets; that the dock police opened a small wicket gate, which was quite inadequate to admit the number of men having to go in; and that several wild rushes were made, when a large gate was opened and the men without tickets were allowed to enter the docks, with the result that on the quay fighting took place, one man having his jaw broken; was he aware that the men were compelled to work from 12 midnight till 7 in the morning without a break; and that one night in the London Docks, 1 to 4 Depot, they were compelled to work from 10 p.m. till 7 a.m. the next morning without a break; and would he make inquiries into these things with a view of preventing such scenes occurring again and such a system of sweating?
  Mr. TENNANT: As the reply is a rather lengthy one perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate it with the Votes?
  Mr. STEADMAN: I have no objection to that.
  Mr. TENNANT: I may add that the Board of Trade have been, and are, in communication with the Port of London Authority with a view to joint action under Section 28 of the Port of London Act and the Labour Exchanges Act for the improvement of the conditions of dock employment. [See Written Answers this Date.]

  Board of Trade Meetings.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, since his appointment to that office, there had been any meeting of the Board; and, if not, whether he proposes to convene one?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. I understand the Board has not met for many
  740
  years, and it is not proposed to convene it now.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask the hon. Member whether the Archbishop of Canterbury, as a member of that Board, was consulted as to the provisions of the Trade Boards Bill, with a view to extending its provisions to sweated curates?

  Mines and Quarries (Inspection).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of mines and quarries of all kinds not visited by Government inspectors during 1908, and the number not visited since 1906?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The number of mines not visited in 1908 was 396 out of a total of 4,059; the majority of the un-visited mines were unimportant mines, employing only a few persons. I cannot say whether there were any mines not visited since 1906 without special inquiry of the inspectors, but I think it may be taken that there were very few, if any, such cases. The number of quarries not visited in 1908 was 3,119 out of a total of 6,938 on the Home Office list. The Home Office list contains a very large number of small quarries. Out of the 6,938 quarries on the list, 5,570 employ less than 10 persons inside the quarry. In many cases these quarries are only casually worked, and the unvisited quarries would belong almost entirely to this class.

  Factory Act (Florists' Shops).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now considered the Report of the Commissioner appointed to inquire into the question of employment in florists' shops with reference to the granting of exemptions under the Factory Act; whether he will give the date of such Report; and when it is likely to be published?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The Report was presented to me last month, and I have given directions for it to be printed and presented to Parliament. It is now under my consideration.

  Lord Charles Beresford and the Admiralty.
  Mr. C. BELLAIRS: I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice. I wish to ask, in view of his correspondence with Lord Charles Beresford, published this morning, whether any other letters have passed, and what steps he proposes to take for the

  741
  guidance of Parliament in regard to the grave charges which are made?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I observe that Lord Charles Beresford has thought it right to publish this correspondence in the newspapers to-day, although his last letter was written on Saturday, and was only received by me in the country on Sunday night. The correspondence cannot be regarded as complete until I have had an opportunity of replying to that letter. In the circumstances it would be premature for me at this moment to answer the last part of the hon. Member's question.

  Old Age Pensions (Lord Advocate's Speeches).
  Mr. J. F. REMNANT: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice. I wish to know if his attention has been called to the notice of Motion placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for the Banbury Division of Oxford (Mr. Fiennes) relating to the recent speeches made by the Lord Advocate in reference to old age pensions being stopped in view of the likely return to Parliament of the Unionist party, and whether he proposes to allot time to discuss that subject so as to allay, if possible, the unnecessary alarm and anxiety which has been occasioned to the old people?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid in the present state of Parliamentary business I cannot at this moment promise a day.
  Mr. REMNANT: Will the Prime Minister put some curb upon the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. REMNANTsubsequently asked: Should I be in Order, Mr. Speaker, in moving the adjournment of the House in reference to these scandalous utterances of a Member of the Government, in view of the Motion on the Paper to stop discussion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has himself pointed out that there is a blocking Motion to prevent the moving of the adjournment of the House. I have no power to remove the block.
  Mr. REMNANT: If you will forgive me, Sir, I did not point out that. I had no idea it would stop me from moving the adjournment of the House. I am anxious to move so as to ventilate the matter. At present a responsible Member of the Government, the Lord Advocate——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better address himself to the hon. Member for Oxfordshire.
  Mr. REMNANT: I am afraid it is useless.

  Liverpool Police Inquiry.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I desire to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question of which I have given him private notice, (1) Whether he is aware that official disclosures were made last Friday morning from which it appears evident that the present dangerous situation in Liverpool originated not with anything said or done by Pastor George Wise, but in consequence of and following upon the erection of an altar in a public street, for which official permission was given through some blunder on the part of the authorities? (2) Whether he is a ware that on Saturday afternoon last Pastor George Wise surrendered and was escorted to gaol by a procession of 60,000 sympathising citizens? (3) Whether the inquiry for which the Government has promised a Bill, which I believe is to be introduced to-day, will not necessarily be largely concerned with events connected with Pastor George Wise? (4) Whether it is reasonably fair and just to the Protestant community of Liverpool that this inquiry should be held whilst Mr. Wise is in prison, and therefore unable to take part? (5) Whether the Secretary of State can see his way to do an act of common fairness, and also allay popular excitement, by accepting Mr. Wise's solemn promise, supported by the offer of prominent citizens, to be bound over, that pending the official inquiry Mr. Wise will take no part in any public meeting which could reasonably be objected to as referring to a matter sub judice, and release Mr. Wise for the time being by allowing the warrant to stand over pending the inquiry? And lastly (6), I apologise for the length of the question—whether, pending consideration of the matter, he will give instructions for Mr. Wise to be put in the second division? May I also say that representations have been made to me——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to ask questions, but not to air his views.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It was not with a view of representing any views——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was making a statement.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: No, Sir; it was not a statement.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Communications have passed between the hon. Member and myself. I suggested to him that this question should be put down for Wednesday, and, perhaps, if that is convenient, the hon. Member will do so.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Having regard to the extreme importance of the position and the great excitement in Liverpool, I readily fall in with the suggestion that these questions should be put down for Wednesday.

  LIVERPOOL POLICE INQUIRY.
    PRESENTATION OF BILE.
    Bill to facilitate the proceedings of any Commissioner who may be appointed to hold an Inquiry respecting the conduct of the police of the City of Liverpool in dealing with disturbances of the peace in that city during the 12 months preceding the passing of this Act—presented by Mr. Gladstone, and read the first time. (To be read a second time to-morrow, Tuesday, 26th October.)
FINANCE BILL.
As amended in Committee of the Whole House, further considered.

CLAUSE 26.—(Valuation of Land for Purposes of Act.)
(1) The Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, cause a valuation to be made of all land in the United Kingdom, showing separately the total value and the site value respectively of the land and distinguishing that portion of the site value which is due to the value of the land for agricultural purposes. Each piece of land which is under separate occupation, and, if the owner so requires, any part of any land which is under separate occupation, shall be separately valued, and the value shall be estimated as on the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and nine.
(2) Any owner of land and any person receiving rent in respect of any land shall, on being required by notice from the Commissioners, furnish to the Commissioners a return containing such particulars as the Commissioners may require as to the rent received by him, and any other information which the Commissioners may require, and which it is in his power to give,
744
and if any owner of land or person receiving any rent in respect of the land is required by the Commissioners to make a return under this Section, and fails to make such a return within the time, not being less than thirty days, specified in the notice requiring a return, he shall be liable to a penalty under Section fifty-five of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and that Section shall apply accordingly, but the penalty shall only be recoverable in the High Court.
(3) Any owner of land may, if he thinks fit, furnish to the Commissioners his estimate of the total value or site value or both of the land, and the Commissioners, in making their valuation, shall consider any estimate so furnished.
Amendment made: In Sub section (1) to leave out the words "distinguishing that portion of the site value which is due to," and to insert instead thereof the words "in the case of agricultural land."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson)The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson) moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "purposes ["the value of the land for agricultural purposes"] to insert the words "where that value is different from the site value."
Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: May we have some explanation of this Amendment?
Sir W. ROBSON: The Amendment will slightly limit the scope of the valuation. As the Clause stands there must in every case be a specific and special distinction of the agricultural value. We are substituting words which are rather better, and which will prevent complication. We say that the agricultural value shall be shown where it is different from the site value. If you have a piece of agricultural land there is no site value apart from its agricultural value, and you do not want to distinguish the value for agricultural purposes because the value will be the same for all purposes; but where you begin to have a building value over and above the site value it is necessary to distinguish the agricultural value. That is the only case where you need the distinction. The words, therefore, have a slightly limiting effect upon the valuation.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is difficult to follow these Amendments, but, if I rightly understand it, there is one case which the Government have not considered, and which is not covered by the words proposed. As the Clause originally stood, the agricultural value of all land

745
had to be separately indicated. I agree it would seem rather absurd to set out the agricultural value on 30th September, 1909, of Berkeley-square, and the Government have averted that by the change they have introduced; but, if land reverts from building to purely agricultural land, with what have you then to compare it? You have no agricultural value of 1909. It is not likely that Berkeley-square will ever revert to agricultural land, but it is quite possible that land which is now reserved for mineral purposes or land which is at present of building value, may, in certain districts, owing to changes in the character of the trade carried on in the locality, or owing to the failure of trade or to unexpected difficulties about development being discovered later, may revert to a purely agricultural value. You have your original site value, but the agricultural value is different from the normal site value, and, having no original agricultural value with which to compare, that land would lose all the benefit of the agricultural exemptions. If I am wrong in that, then my contention falls to the ground; but, if I am right, it would be a blot on your Bill.
Sir W. ROBSON: We have an universal valuation on 30th April, 1909, and that valuation, of course, will comprise agricultural land. Some of the agricultural land will also have a building value. It is only in such cases that we want its value for agricultural purposes. In cases like that where there is a different site value for the agricultural value we say the two values must be distinguished. In the case of ordinary agricultural value there is no account taken of site value.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Is the agricultural value to be the site value? Agricultural value is ordinarily understood to include buildings, etc., and for site value the land is to be divested of these.
Sir W. ROBSON: The agricultural value is the value of the land. You get your value in April, 1909. But, suppose the agricultural value relapses—we have to consider this for the purposes of increment. Whether it goes up or down, we take the simple value on 30th April, 1909. Whatever happens after, that is the basis on which we take the increment. If the agricultural value is below, the deduction is made; if it is a site value, you have already got the value for agricultural purposes.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite certain that I have made myself
746
quite clear to the Attorney-General. This is really like one of the Chinese puzzles—boxes within boxes—with the difficulty of fitting the pieces one within the other. The right hon. Gentleman says that where you have agricultural land, this provides for the agricultural value on the 30th April, 1909. But he claims more, as I understand it is provided that where the land now has a building value the agricultural value shall also be set down if it is different from the site value. But there is no definition in the Bill of agricultural land.
Sir W. ROBSON: There is one of agriculture.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that that meets the ease. If the Attorney-General will carry his mind back to the discussions in Committee he will remember that for a long time the Government argued on the point what is agricultural land, and they objected on the ground that a man might sow mustard and cress on a vacant building site in Piccadilly and claim that that was agricultural land. But now, owing to the changes which the Government have introduced, a definition is needed, otherwise, as the Bill reads, it must mean that land has no higher value for any other purpose than it has for agriculture. That is the only possible interpretation as the Bill now stands, and if that is so then you may have land not now developed which has a higher value—building or mining—at this moment, and which will not come under the exemption, as there will be no agricultural value. On the other hand, it may never be developed. The time may come when it is seen there can be no development. The population will be moving away from instead of extending towards it. The town in the vicinity instead of growing may fall back. Instead of more houses being required, existing houses may become empty, and then the land will lose all value except as agricultural land. It will then have no statutory value.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Personally I am fairly puzzled by the Clause. I cannot find that the agricultural value of the land is anywhere defined or indicated. The only thing defined in Clause 25 is the value of land—the total value, the site value and the assessable value. The value of agricultural land is not defined. But it must be something different from site value, otherwise the Amendment will not read at all. There is no indication how a distinction is to be drawn between the value of

747
land for agricultural purposes and its site value. I confess I am exceedingly puzzled how the Section is to be construed.
Mr. YOUNGER: It appears to me that the only definition of the value of land for agricultural purposes is to bring it down to prairie value. If you take away the whole equipment you naturally reduce it to prairie value. Therefore no definition is required.
Amendment made.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George) moved, in Clause 26, Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "and any other information which the Commissioners may require," and to insert instead thereof the words "as to the title, area, character, and use of the land, and the consideration given on any previous sale or lease of the land and any other matters which may properly be required for the purpose of the valuation of the land" ["which it is in his power to give."] When this Clause was under consideration in Committee the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that the words were much too wide, as they would entitle the Commissioners to demand information which was quite unnecessary for the purposes of valuation. The words now moved, I believe, were suggested at the time, but the right hon. Gentleman thought it better to deal with the matter on the Report stage. I think it will be found that they cover all that is essential to enable the Commissioners to value the land.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer just now, in the course of his few explanatory sentences, to say that title was unnecessary, and that is one of the things which we hold to be unnecessary, and which ought not to be required. We find, however, that it is one of the first words of his proposal. I may have misunderstood him, but I thought he said that there were many things that it was unnecessary to ask for, and, amongst other things, title. Why is title necessary? Surely it is a very large order to put a subject to the expense of proving his title in every case, and clearly these words may be interpreted that he has to prove his title.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, that is not the case if the hon. Gentleman will look at the last words of the Amendment. It is only such information as to title which
748
is wanted as "may properly be required for the purpose of the valuation of the land."
Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think the Clause bears that interpretation. It says, "and any other matters which may properly be required for the purpose of the valuation of the land." The owner is to give any information which the Commissioners may require as to the rent received by him, and as to the title, area, character, and use of the land, and the consideration given on any previous sale or lease, and any other matters which may properly be required for the purpose of the valuation of the land. That last part is clearly additional.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, no.
Mr. PRETYMAN: In any case, I think that should be made clear, but even so I do not quite see why title is required. It is a very onerous thing, and nothing is so expensive as proving title. Then, again, although, of course, it is necessary that information as to the "area, character, and use of the land" should be given, is it necessary that it should be furnished as to the "consideration given on any previous sale or lease of the land"?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Perhaps I may interrupt. Really what we mean by "title" is that the Commissioners must know who the owner is. That is the title required, and it is inconceivable that the Commissioners should ask for an abstract of title. That is not the idea at all. It is to get the information as to title which is necessary for the registration of the property. They really must know who the owner is of the estate.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Then substitute the word "ownership" for the word "title."
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is all we want really. We certainly do not want title, and I shall be quite satisfied with the word "ownership."
Mr. PRETYMAN: Then I will say no-more about that, but will come to the words, "the consideration given on any previous sale or lease of the land." Those words cover a very wide area and may go back to infinity. They cover ownerships of all kinds and descriptions and it may be a very onerous and difficult demand to comply with. Why not say the consideration on any sale or lease or letting "within twenty years." That surely would be quite sufficient. There are no lettings extending beyond 20 years, and the

749
indefinite period of this is alarming to a degree to owners of land, because they may have to give particulars of any sale or lease of land through infinity and going back an indefinite period.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: A lease does not go back to infinity.
Mr. PRETYMAN: It is not for me to indicate the drafting, but I strongly suggest, and I think the right hon. Gentleman agrees, that an indefinite term of this kind as regards any antecedent lease or any sale is unreasonable.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I read over this Amendment with great care, and I asked some friends of mine who understood these matters in regard to it, and they said they thought "title" was a mistake for "tenure." The Commissioners, they said, would want to know the tenure whether it was leasehold, or freehold, or copyhold. The question of title has nothing to do with the value, and if a man has a poor title it has nothing to do with the value of the property if he has a possessory title. It is the word "tenure" which is wanted here instead of the word "title." As to what has been given for any property in the past it does strike me that that is a very improper question for the Commissioners to ask. Why should a man whose property is being valued by Commissioners under this Act, and against his will, be obliged to furnish particulars as to the exact consideration for which he has either sold or bought or leased any portion of his land? It might convey most misleading information to the valuers. As I understand it the object of the Government is to arrive at a valuation on 30th April, 1909, and this is one of the most important parts of the Bill. We are dealing with a Clause which is to give the Commissioners an inquisitorial right to go to every owner of property in this Kingdom and demand from him these particulars. It is quite true and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will point out that the particulars are restricted to such as are in the power of the land-owner to give, but that is an exceedingly wide phrase. If this Bill passes in this shape the Commissioners might very properly say, "Although you do not know precisely yourself what the piece of property was bought for 27 or 28 years ago, it is your duty, at your own expense to find that out, and to give us particulars of the exact description of that piece of property which was so transferred and the conditions under which it was so transferred."
750
I do not think we can pay too much attention to the exact wording of this Clause both with regard to this particular Amendment which is before the House, and also the whole Clause, because this is the first Clause in this Bill under which the Commissioners are going to set to work and make a valuation of the whole country, and they are going to have the power to ask the land-owners for these particulars. I do therefore think we are entitled to go very narrowly and very carefully into the powers of these Commissioners and see the way in which they may treat land-owners. Of course, there is the usual penalty to fall on the landlord under the Section, and I may point out that it is not merely the owner himself who is liable under this Clause for failure to give these particulars but any person in receipt of the rents.
4.0 p.m.
In the case of quite three-quarters of the property of this country the rents are not being received by the land-owners themselves at all but by others, many of whom simply receive them and know nothing about the tenure or the title or any of the other matters referred to here. What sort of powers can these Commissioners have, and how far are we going to allow them to exercise them? It seems to me that a number of these items ought to be struck out, but at all events it ought to be made quite clear that the person who is simply in receipt of the rents, and is probably simply getting a commission on the rents for receiving them and paying them into a bank, ought not individually to be put to a lot of expense and trouble about matters that he knows nothing about, and cannot know anything about without making a lot of inquiries and probably spending a lot of time and money. All these words require the greatest possible care. I think the words about "the consideration given on any previous sale or lease of the land" ought to be struck out, and I am not sure that the Government ought not themselves to be willing to put in some words at the end to say that no mere agent, or person of that sort, shall be caused any expense, or be put to any penalty, for not supplying the information which he could not obtain without expense.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have had opportunity of refreshing my memory, and I find that the words "title, area, character, and use of the land" were suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, and I still think they are the right words, because

751
"title" would include not merely ownership, but tenure, and I should want both those words if we omitted the word "title." The criticism of the hon. Member shows how much better the word "title" is. We do not want the absolute title, but particulars as to the ownership and the tenure of the property whether copyhold or otherwise. Title will cover both. However, if the Opposition prefer those two words I do not mind at all. I shall move the omission of the word "title" and the insertion of "ownership tenure." With regard to the consideration, that is information which it is really quite essential that they should have with a view to valuation, and as to going back 20 years for the purpose of the Reversion Tax that does not give us the information we require. We might require to go back 90 or 100 years.
Mr. JULIUS BERTRAM: I cannot agree that the words now suggested render the Clause more innocuous than it was. It seems to me perfectly unreasonable that the Government valuers should be afforded facilities which are not afforded to valuers in the ordinary transactions which occur every day. The most constant occasions, when valuations are required and the employment of valuers becomes necessary, are mortgages or valuations of property at death. There never is an occasion when the valuer of the property who is not the owner's valuer has information as to what the cosh value of the property has been in times gone by. The right hon. Gentleman himself, in introducing the Budget, said what, he was going to get was the value on 30th April, 1909. Time and again they have told us that nothing is easier than to make this valuation, and that anyone can do it. Then later they say they must have a valuer, and now he is to be a valuer who, presumably, is so incompetent that he has to be given all sorts of information which no recognised valuer in any part of the Kingdom at present requires when he is put to the work of making a valuation. I quite agree that the elimination of the word "title" and the substitution of "ownership and tenure" does, to a certain extent, protect the owner, but when it comes to a question of saying that he has to give information as to what the property has cost on the last or or any other transaction, that is an improper question to put. You are asking him to disclose to your valuer at the outset the very facts and evidence on
752
which the taxpayer will rely if he is to make an appeal. It renders entirely valueless the proviso that where a man can show that within twenty years he paid a higher price for the land than the valuer puts upon it he can have that higher value placed upon it.
If you are giving all this precise, particular information to the Government valuer there can be no reason for it except that you are not going to have a personal survey at all. You will be giving such information that any office-boy in Somerset House can work the value by saying so many years' purchase for something in Category A and so many years' purchase for something in Category B, and so on. The whole value, I should have thought, of this survey and valuation would be that it was made by independent, competent people who viewed the site and had the same information and facilities as are given to valuers in transactions all over the country at present. I cannot understand why the Government in this Bill have found it necessary to go further than the late Sir William Harcourt went in 1894. There, for the purpose of Estate Duty, the Department was given power, if it was dissatisfied with the value put upon landed property by the executors, to appoint their own valuer. In those cases, where they did appoint their own valuer, provision is distinctly made that no cost shall fall upon the land-owner by reason of that valuation. An enormous cost will be placed upon land-owners, not only in the initial stages of this valuation but every five years, by reason of this Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's. Take the ordinary case of a largish estate, where a man has been buying land, in order to found a family estate or something of that kind, piecemeal for many years. I know of one estate where the giving of this information would entail very large costs and a very prolonged and minute investigation—an investigation of such a kind that providing a mere abstract of title for the whole estate would be no more expensive and no more troublesome, because it would mean that every single deed of purchase by which the owner of the estate acquired the property would have to be looked up, the plans would have to be copied, the price paid would have to be supplied, and an immense amount of labour and expense would be incurred by the land-owner, and it seems to me wholly unreasonable, if there is any value whatever in the Government concession, that they would bear the cost of valuation, that

753
these labours should be thrown upon the land-owners. It must cost them so large a sum of money that the Government promise to pay the expense of valuation becomes entirely worthless.
Amendment made in the proposed Amendment to omit the word "title," and to insert instead thereof the words "ownership, tenure."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "and the consideration given on any previous sales or lease of the land."—[Mr. Bertram.]
Mr. G. D. FABER (York): I beg to second the Amendment. I agree that this is an attempt on the part of the Government to take away with one hand what they have given with another. After many weeks' discussion on the Finance Bill at last the Government were driven into this position, that instead of the whole cost of valuation of all the land of the country being put upon the owners the State would take that burden upon its back. The owners see clearly that even so there will be a very considerable material cost remaining to be borne by the land-owners. Now this latest Amendment seems to show clearly that the Government are trying to make the cost which will fall upon the State as small as possible, and the cost which must fall upon the owners as large as possible. I agree that the words now proposed to be put in seem to intimate that it will not be a valuation on the spot, at least in many cases. If this exhaustive information is to be supplied by the owner or his agent on the spot, and then forwarded to the Head Office in London, where the value will be derived as far as possible without anyone ever going down to view at all, I think the procedure is mean. Let the Government be generous in their Amendments. Having said the valuation should be a State valuation let it be so, but do not go whittling away the concession you have made, and by a side wind, at this stage, impose more and more cost upon the land-owner, leaving the public to imagine all the time that the State is going to bear the cost. I cannot imagine any other reason for these words at all. The words in the Bill, "and any other information which the Commissioners may require," are wide, but when you put in these specific words "ownership, tenure, area, character, and use of the land, and the consideration given on any previous sale or lease of the land, and any other matters which may
754
properly be required," it seems to me that you are playing on the whole octave—you are running your hand up all the strings—for the information which can be required for any purpose.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member for York (Mr. G. D. Faber) said that this was an attempt on the part of the Government to take away with one hand what they had given with the other. At any rate, so far as these words go, they are a limitation of the words in the Bill as it left Committee. They may be very inadequate, and insufficient to meet the views of the hon. Member. The hon. Member does not deny that they are a limitation of the words in the Bill. If they are not, I am quite willing not to move the Amendment. I do not suppose that the hon. Member would get very much support if he appealed to me to withdraw the Amendment. Why should landlords get this limitation? The hon. Member is aware that it is proposed that there should be a great State valuation of land, and, that being so, it is surely desirable that you should ensure accuracy. It is also important that you should simplify the task of the Commissioners if you can simplify their task. After all, it is an expense which will be borne by the whole community. The hon. Member for the Hitchin Division (Mr. Bertram), who moved the Amendment, admitted that on an appeal this information might not only be desirable, but absolutely necessary.
Mr. BERTRAM: I said if the owner desires it.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I know what the hon. Member said. It might be useful in the interest of the subject himself to get the information. If it is information that could be got on appeal, why on earth should you not get it before any appeal is rendered necessary? I should think that it would save expense to all parties to get the information before any appeal is necessary. Why not get it without going to the expense of an appeal? Why should there be double expense incurred when by putting this information in the return the whole thing can be saved? The hon. Member seems to regard this as an attempt of both parties to dodge each other. His view is that the State is extorting more than it ought to take, and that the subject on the other hand is trying to dodge the State of what he ought to pay. If that is his view he is perfectly right in supporting Amendments of this kind. Now I know the view he takes of this matter, and

755
I am not at all surprised that he should move the Amendment.
Let me take another matter. The hon. Member seems to think that it is really a gigantic task to discover what consideration has been paid. The hon. Member talks about what can be done by the office boy. Well, the office boy should be able to work it out for himself. If on the face of the deed, it is stated that the consideration paid was the sum of £5,000, the office boy could go through the documents and work it out for himself. Why there should be any difficulty in finding out the valuation it is impossible for me to discover. It is information which the valuers should get, and I should think that it is very easy to get it now.
Mr. BERTRAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the valuers on the other side will get their opponent figures?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member has an extraordinary idea of the attitude of citizens towards the State. He seems to think that the citizens regard the State as some hostile monster. After all, we are all citizens of the same common country. In the case of Income Tax the citizen is bound to produce his books if the Commissioners want him to do so for the purpose of getting information with regard to his business. Why should a land-owner not be required to give information as to what he has paid? A man engaged in a profession may be asked what he has made by that profession for the purpose of Income Tax assessment, and in like manner a man in business may be asked to state what profits he made last year. But when you are asking "How much money did you pay for that piece of land," it is gross oppression. This is an attempt to get a great State valuation with a view to accurate, fair, and equitable taxation.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has forgotten his earlier legal experience. No on who has had experience as a solicitor
in tracing title, and so forth, would say that it is an easy matter to get such information as land-owners are to be asked to give. The right hon. Gentleman went on to speak of Income Tax, and he made statements, if I may be allowed to say so, which are not quite accurate. The Commissioners have no power to call upon a man to produce his books. I know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in his mind, but if you state the case accurately, I do not know that it helps the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The power which the Commissioners have is to raise a man's assessment, and to call upon him to prove that he is over-assessed. They do from time to time make use of that power, and that being so, they no doubt force a man to bring forward his books. It is by presenting his books that the man can prove that the assessment made by the Commissioners is wrong. In this way they do get at his books, but they have no power to call upon him to produce them. The method by which the Commissioners can compel a person to produce his books is regarded widely by the taxpayers as being grossly oppressive, and certainly if the Government are going to do the same kind of thing under this tax, that is not the way to reassure anxious taxpayers. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the words he is now proposing, is asking more information than he reasonably requires. I do not agree with my hon. Friend who says that the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to insert are even more dangerous than the words in the Bill. I think the words in the Bill are so wide that the Commissioners could have whatever information they liked. Therefore I agree that the words of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment are limiting words, and though I do not think they are sufficient, I shall certainly, if a Division is taken, vote for the omission of the words in the Bill.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 53.

Division No. 837.]

AYES.

[4.27 p.m.

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

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

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Acland, Francis Dyke

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

Byles, William Pollard

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cameron, Robert

Alden, Percy

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Black, Arthur W.

Clough, William

Ambrose, Robert

Boulton, A. C. F.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Branch, James

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

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

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

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bryce, J. Annan

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Barker, Sir John

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Courthope, G. Loyd

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

Erskine, David C.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Scanlan, Thomas

Evans, Sir S. T.

Lupton, Arnold

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

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

Falconer, J.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Shackleton, David James

Fuller, John Michael F.

Maclean, Donald

Snowden, P.

Ginnell, L.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

M'Callum, John M.

Stanger, H. Y.

Glendinning, R. G.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Glover, Thomas

Marnham, F. J.

Steadman, W. C.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Massie, J.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Guiland, John W.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Sutherland, J. E.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Mooney, J. J.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Hedges, A. Paget

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Verney, F. W.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Napier, T. B.

Vivian, Henry

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Waterlow, D. S.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Weir, James (Galloway)

Hodge, John

Parker, James (Halifax)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

Hudson. Walter

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Idris, T. H. W.

Radford, G. H.

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Rees, J. D.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Jewett, F. W.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Keating, M.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Lambert, George

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Lamont, Norman

Rogers, F. E. Newman

NOES.

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

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

Renton, Leslie

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Hamilton, Marquess of

Ridsdale, E. A.

Balcarres, Lord

Heaton, John Henniker

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hunt, Rowland

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Kerry, Earl of

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Kimber, Sir Henry

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Farcham)

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

Cave, George

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

M'Arthur, Charles

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

Magnus, Sir Philip

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Percy, Earl

Younger, George

Craik, Sir Henry

Pretyman, E. G.

Fell, Arthur

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Bertram and Mr. G. D. Faber.

Forster, Henry William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Gretton, John

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN moved, in the proposed Amendment, after the word "land" ["and use of the land"], to insert the words "so far as required for the purpose of ascertaining any of the thirteen kinds of value mentioned in this Act."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer reads the qualifying words at the end of his Amendment as referring to the whole of the words which he proposes to insert. I cannot see that they do. It appears to me that by the Amendment as it stands the Commissioners have absolute discretion to ask for any information they like as to "title, area, character, and use of the
758
land, and the considerations given on any previous sale or lease," and it is only if they wanted to go beyond that and asked for other information that the limiting words might be required. In order to meet that case and to limit the previous words I propose to insert this Amendment. It is well that the House and the country should understand what is the nature of the valuation on which the Government are embarking. I am not certain that I have got the figure quite right, and, of course, I shall be quite willing to have it amended if the Government point out to me that I have omitted some of the values. But a cursory perusal has led me to find

759
that there are at least 13. There are the gross value, the total value, the full site value, the total site value, the assessable value, and the site value, and there are also original site value, increment value, agricultural value, rental value, capital value, and building value. Besides that, there are a site value which is equivalent to capital value and an annual value which is equivalent to capital value. But, at any rate, there are 13 clearly marked different values, and every one of them is something different in the price which would be given for the property if it came into the market for sale. That is a complication of machinery which the Government have found it necessary to introduce for the purposes of this Bill, and I think it would be just as well that it should be clearly stated on the face of the Bill itself.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman really wanted to introduce an Amendment in order to make perfectly clear what I think is already clear in the last words of my Amendment. Instead of that he introduced a sentence from a very polemical speech, and attempted to convert that into an Amendment. There are many ways of drafting, but I think that about the very worst is to choose a sentence from these speeches and to try to put that into an Act of Parliament. I cannot imagine anything more inconsistent with the responsibilities of a Government than to accept an Amendment moved either in that spirit or drafted in that form. If the right hon. Gentleman really wanted to make it perfectly clear that the last sentence dominates the whole of my Amendment I should be perfectly willing to accept any Amendment doing so, but I could not accept an Amendment of that kind which is not intended to be accepted. I say that it is quite clear as it stands, but if he really desires to insert anything which he thinks would add to its clearness I am perfectly willing to accept anything which would have that effect. It is perfectly absurd to say that there are 13 valuations. It has nothing whatever to do with this Clause, and I do not accept his interpretation. Does the right hon. Gentleman really want to make my Amendment clear, or did he simply rise to make a speech on it?
Mr. BALFOUR: I am not sure that I understand the point of the right hon. Gentleman's rejection of my right hon Friend's Amendment. He says that my
760
right hon. Friend's Amendment is the introduction of a polemical sentence from a polemical speech into an Act of Parliament. I thought that the whole of this Bill was an attempt to turn polemical speeches into an Act of Parliament. I thought it was embodying the crystallised rhetoric of these speeches from the first sentence in the first Clause to the very last words in the last Schedule. I venture to say that my right hon. Friend's Amendment is perfectly clear. The Government have no reply to make to the statement that in order to carry out these proposals they had to invent a number of valuations which absolutely staggers the ordinary brain, and it is in order to ascertain these various valuations that you are going to have a State valuation. Why not mention it? Why not say that? Why not say that your State valuation is for the purpose of ascertaining the 13 kinds of valuations, and that no information except for the purpose of ascertaining these 13 valuations is to be asked for? There are 13 which must be known before you can levy the tax, and we agree that you must have the information about these 13 valuations, but we do not see why you should have any more. That should satisfy you. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dislikes the Amendment because it puts on the face of the Bill some of the criticisms which we have ventured to pass, and be does not like to have a commentary on his measure introduced into a clause. If the Government absolutely refuse to take the Amendment, so as to express what is required in plain, unmistakable form, because, as my right hon. Friend suggests to me, they think that 13 is an unlucky number, then they need not put in any figure. Let them leave out the figure and everything in the nature of a polemical speech, and simply have "so far as is required for the purposes of ascertaining any of the valuations mentioned in this Act." That is innocuous to the last degree, and does not embody the criticism of even the mildest critic.
Sir W. ROBSON: Perhaps it is unnecessary for me to raise any serious argument about what is essentially a joke. I cannot take seriously the attempt to introduce an estimate of the number of valuations which are said to be in the Bill and put it upon the Clause itself. I would respectfully remind the House that although these words which are the subject-matter of discussion necessarily qualify every part of what is to be done, the Commissioners are only entitled to make a valuation for

761
the purposes of the Act, and therefore they have no authority to demand any information whatever that is not clearly required for the purpose for which they are appointed; and the function they are directed to exercise they can only exercise by obtaining such particulars as are required for the purpose of ascertaining the value. The reason why the words are inserted in the Amendment is to modify the wide generality of the words "other matters." They are entitled to ask in regard to tenure and so on for the purposes of valuation, but for no other purpose. They would be entitled to ask in regard to any matter which may be properly required for the purposes of valuation.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It is extraordinary that the hon. and learned Gentleman should attempt to describe this very serious matter of valuation as a joke, I can assure him that it is not so. I do not know whether he has personally come into contact with many land-owners in the country, but I can assure him that there is not a land-owner who regards valuation as a joke at all. I hope that, if the Amendment be pressed, the number 13 will be omitted, because there are certainly two or three more valuations which have not been mentioned. In the first instance, there is the communal value, and there is the recovery value, for both of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible the other night, which are not referred to in the Bill at all, but which have been argued upon at great length from the Government Bench. I think it is desirable to limit the power of the Commissioners; anything that can be done in that direction ought to be done. The Commissioners have no right to ask the owner of property when they are valuing it about the character of the soil. Why cannot they go, if they are valuers, and look at the character of the soil for themselves? Almost all these values which are referred to in this way are in the same category, and there could not possibly be anything more objectionable than the whole Amendment as it is now before the House, with, perhaps, the exception of the Bill as it originally stood. I join my right hon. Friend in pressing upon the attention of the Government, at all events, the necessity of cutting down the rights and powers of the Commissioners to ascertainment of the particulars which are directly necessary for the purpose of this Bill, and not for any purpose outside it. It is stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General
762
that such things as the character and use of the land and details of that kind are strictly within the purposes of valuation. I contend that they are not, and that the best possible analogy that we could bring before our minds at the present moment is that of a railway company taking land of a private owner. In such a case there are two, three or four valuers on each side, and what have these valuers got before them? Has the owner to furnish material to the railway company such as that which is required by this Bill? It would be perfectly ridiculous to make any such suggestion. The valuers on each side go to look at the place for themselves, and, if they do not, they are liable to be entirely knocked to pieces on cross-examination. They have given them the dimensions of the property, and whether it is freehold or on a long lease. When they have got that information everything else has to be obtained on the spot. We look upon the whole of this Clause, and particularly the words of this Amendment, as being exceedingly objectionable, exceedingly inquisitorial, and they are very strongly objected to by the owners of property in this country.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I would suggest that the words might be qualified by substituting in the Amendment for the word. "which," after "matters," the words "so-far as." The word "which" clearly refers only to "matters." If you put in "so far as" they would cover the preceding words. At any rate, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take these words into consideration, for he said that if the Amendment were not clear he was prepared to make it clear by inserting words that would govern the whole of the preceding paragraph.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have said so more than once, but the Leaders of the Opposition have chosen rather an elaborate and poor joke, if I may say so, and apparently they prefer to have that joke. I am advised that the words suggested by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) are not necessary, and I do not see what difference they will make at all.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the right hon. Gentleman will not take the Amendment in the form suggested by my right hon. Friend, we must go to a Division on the subject.
Question put, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
The House divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 164.

Division No. 838.]

AYES.

[4.55 p.m.

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

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Renton, leslie

Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Balcarres, Lord

Haddock, George B.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

Hamilton, Marquess of

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hill, Sir Clement

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bellairs, Carlyon

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bertram, Julius

Hunt, Rowland

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Kerry, Earl of

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

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kimber, Sir Henry

Thornton, Percy M.

Cave, George

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Younger, George

Craik, Sir Henry

Percy, Earl

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pretyman, E. G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount Valentia and Lord E. Talbot.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Fell, Arthur

NOES.

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

Glendinning, R. G.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Glover, Thomas

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Agnew, George William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Radford, G. H.

Alden, Percy

Gulland, John W.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Ambrose, Robert

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Rees, J. D.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Hedges, A. Paget

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Barker, Sir John

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

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Barnard, E. B.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Barnes, G. N.

Higham, John Sharp

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Beauchamp, E.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Bell, Richard

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

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

Hodge, John

Scanlan, Thomas

Berridge, T. H. D.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

Howard, John Geoffrey

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Hudson, Walter

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

Black, Arthur W.

Idris, T. H. W.

Sears, J. E.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Seely, Colonel

Branch, James

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Shackleton, David James

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

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Sherwell, Arthur James

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

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Snowden, P.

Bryce, J. Annan

Jowett, F. W.

Stanger, H. Y.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Keating, M

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Lambert, George

Steadman, W. C.

Byles, William Pollard

Lamont, Norman

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Cameron, Robert

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Summerbell, T.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Sutherland, J. E.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Clough, William

Lewis, John Herbert

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Lupton, Arnold

Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Verney, F. W.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Maclean, Donald

Vivian, Henry

Cowan, W. H.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Crosfield, A. H.

M'Callum, John M.

Weir, James Galloway

Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

M'Micking, Major G.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

Marnham, F. J.

Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Massie, J.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Erskine, David C.

Masterman, C. F. G.

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

Essex, R. W.

Menzies, Sir Walter

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

Evans, Sir S. T.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Everett, R. Lacey

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Falconer, J.

Napier, T. B.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Ferens, T. R.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Fuller, John Michael F.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Ginnell, L.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Question, "That the words 'as to the ownership, area, character, and use of the land, and the consideration given on any previous sale or lease of the land and any other matters which may properly be required for the purpose of the valuation of the land,' be inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words, "under Section 55 of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and that Section shall apply accordingly, but the penalty shall only," and to insert thereof the words "not exceeding fifty pounds to."
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: We are obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for even now accepting this suggestion. We did our best in Committee to get this put in every place in which penalties are provided.
Sir W. ROBSON: I know of no place in which we preserve the old form of penalty.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I suggest this maximum penalty should be extended to the licensing Clauses, because there there are certain minimum penalties which are very unusual?
Amendment made.

CLAUSE 27.—(Ascertainment of the Original Site Value of Land.)
(1) The Commissioners shall cause a copy of their provisional valuation of any land to be served on the owner of the land, and unless objection is taken to the provisional valuation in manner provided by this Section, the values shown in the provisional valuation shall be adopted as the original total value and the original site value respectively for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
(2) If the owner considers that the total or site value, as stated in any provisional valuation, is not correct, he may, with a view to an amendment of the provisional valuation, within sixty days of the date on which the copy of the provisional valuation is served, or such extended time as the Commissioners may in any special case allow, give to the Commissioners notice of objection to the provisional valuation, stating the grounds of his objection and the amendment he desires, and if the Commissioners amend the provisional valuation so as to be satisfactory to all persons making objections the total site value as stated in the amended valuation shall be adopted as the original total and the original site value for the purposes of this part of this Act.
(3) If the provisional valuation is not amended by the Commissioners so as to be satisfactory to any objector, that objector may give a notice of appeal under this Act with respect to the valuation, but if no such notice is given the total and site value as stated in the provisional valuation, subject to such amendments as may be made by the Commissioners in order to meet objections shall be adopted as the original total and the original site value respectively for the purposes of this part of this Act.
(4) Any person interested in the land, not being an owner, may apply to the Commissioners for a copy of the provisional valuation of the land before it is finally settled, and shall then have the same right of giving notice of objection and of appealing as the owner.
(5) Where the value to be adopted as the original total or the original site value of any land for the purposes of this Part of this Act has not been finally settled at the time when any duty under this Part of this Act becomes leviable, any duty under this Part of this Act shall be assessed as if the values as shown in the provisional valuation, or, if the provisional valuation has been amended by the Commissioners, as shown in the valuation as so amended were the values adopted as the original total and site values for the purposes of this Part of this Act, and, on the values to be adopted being finally settled if it is found that the amount which should have been paid as duty exceeds that actually paid, the excess shall be deemed to be arrears of the duty, except so far as any penalty is incurred on account of arrears, and, if it is found that the amount which should have been paid as duty is less than that actually paid, the difference shall be repaid by the Commissioners.
(6) A copy of a provisional valuation under this Section shall be sufficiently served if served by post at the address of the owner furnished to the Commissioners under the powers given to them to require a person who pays rent to furnish the address of the person to whom he pays rent, or, if that address cannot be ascertained, by leaving a copy addressed to the owner with some occupier of the land, or, if there is no occupier, by causing it to be put up in some conspicuous place on the land.
(7) Where a lessee is the owner of the land within the meaning of this Act, this Section shall apply as if any person entitled

767
to the fee simple reversion or to a leasehold reversion for a term of years exceeding twenty-one were the owner as well as the lessee.
Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (2) to insert,
"(3) The Commissioners may amend any provisional valuation, whether objected to or not, before it is finally settled, and the amended provisional valuation shall be deemed to be a provisional valuation for the purposes of this Section."—[Mr. Walter Guinness.]

CLAUSE 28.—(Periodical Valuation of Undeveloped Land.)
For the purpose of obtaining a periodical valuation of undeveloped land the Commissioners shall, in the year nineteen hundred and fourteen and in every subsequent fifth year, cause a valuation to be made of undeveloped land showing the site value of the land as on the thirtieth day of April in that year, and for the purpose of ascertaining the value at that time the provisions of this Act as to the ascertainment of value shall apply for the purpose of ascertaining value on any such periodical valuation as they apply for the purpose of ascertaining the original value:
Provided that if on any such periodical valuation any undeveloped land which is liable to Undeveloped Land Duty is for any reason not included in the valuation, the Commisioners may determine the value at any time for the assessment of duty, subject to an appeal under this Act.
Drafting Amendments made.
Further Amendment made: To leave out the words "determine the value at any time for the assessment of duty," and to insert instead thereof the words "complete the valuation after the expiration of the year of valuation."—[Sir W. Robson.]

CLAUSE 29.—(Assessment of Duty on Separate Parcels of Land and Apportionment of Valuation.)
Any duty under this Part of this Act may be assessed on or in respect of any such pieces of land whether under separate occupation or not, as the Commissioners think fit; and where it is necessary for the purposes of any such assessment to apportion the value of any land, which has been valued as a whole, the value shall be apportioned by the Commissioners in such proportions as they think just.
Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON moved to leave out the words, "and where it is necessary for the purposes of any such assessment to apportion
768
the value of any land, which has been valued as a whole, the value shall be apportioned by the Commissioners in such proportions as they think just," and to insert thereof the words:
"(2) The Commissioners shall make such apportionments and re-apportionments of any original site value or any site value fixed on a periodical valuation as they consider necessary for the purpose of the collection or assessment of Increment Value Duty or Undeveloped Land Duty, or which they may be required at any time to make on the application of any person entitled to the fee simple of any land or to an interest in any land.
"On any such apportionment or re-apportionment for the purpose of the collection of Increment Value Duty on the occasion of the transfer on sale of the fee simple of the land or any interest in the land, or on the occasion of the grant of any lease of the land, the consideration for the transfer, or for the grant of the lease, shall be treated as one of the matters to which regard must be had in making the apportionment or re-apportionment.
"(3) The provisions relating to the procedure on the valuation of land for the purposes of this Part of this Act shall apply with respect to the apportionment or re-apportionment of site value under the Section as they apply with reference to the ascertainment of the original site value of land.
"(4) The value attributed on any such apportionment or re-apportionment to each part of the land shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act be treated as the original site value or the site value of the land, as the case may be."
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: We do not desire in any way to move Amendments to this Amendment, the greater proportion of which is certainly in accordance with what was foreshadowed by the Government in the long discussion that we had in Committee. There is one point I wish to mention, and that is if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir W. Robson) could see his way, cither now or later on, to make it quite clear that all apportionments, not merely those mentioned here, but on any of those other points, would also be dealt with, because it is quite certain they will all be required. The enormous complication that is going to result in a few years with regard to many estates, and the necessity for examining the figures, and taking into account, not merely the matters that are referred to,

769
but all kinds of other things, which bear on the same subject, have, I think, hardly been appreciated, because we shall have sites in the course of a few years in which they will be bound to go back to the year 1909, and we shall have scores of transactions where a piece has been carved out of another piece of land. Perhaps that piece has been laid together with some other piece of land similarly carved out of another estate. It is obvious for Increment Duty that the apportionment on each of the previous occasions will have to be regarded in respect of each particular piece. I think it will be seen that it is necessary to have an apportionment on each of the operations with respect to all the different allowances, deductions, and payments that will be made from time to time. It is particularly necessary with respect to Increment Duty, because that is not a matter that arises out of the mere value of the land as it stands. It has only got to be paid on any occasion in so far as it has not been paid before. I think it is a pity that the Amendment did not go a step further and say that every payment and allowance has got to be taken into consideration on any of those periodical occasions.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: The point was raised on Thursday as to where the severance of land may depreciate the value, and that on each of the occasions when apportionment has to be made that it would be more satisfactory if the Commissioners had instructions to take into account any depreciation by severance or other cause. When you come to reapportion the value of a particular bit of land you have to put a new value on one piece. When you are doing that you ought to consider the effect on the whole land as it was originally valued. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Thursday last to say that that would be taken into account, but I cannot see anywhere in the Bill any direction that it should be. I think this is the point where it would naturally arise.
Mr. PRETYMAN: This Clause is a very difficult one to discuss and embodies one of the most difficult points in the Bill, namely, that referred to in the original Debate under the term "unit of valuation." It is the unit of valuation which will necessarily cause one of the greatest difficulties in levying this tax, and this provision has to do mainly with the unit of valuation.
Sir W. ROBSON: No.
Mr. PRETYMAN: What does "apportionment or reapportionment" mean except altering the unit of valuation? If it does not mean that, what does it mean? I take it that Sub-section (2) of Clause 29 gives the Commissioners power to alter the unit of valuation at any moment they think necessary, not only periodically on the given dates, but at any other time, whether it be an occasion for the levying of the duty or not. I see no limitation of that power. Apparently the Commissioners may put the taxpayer to unlimited expense at any moment by desiring an apportionment or reapportionment. The question of whether the tax is leviable or not, or how much is leviable, largely depends on the unit of valuation selected. If you take a particular portion of the original unit and claim increment value upon it, the other portion must be affected by the value put upon the new portion. All sorts of difficulties will be created. I admit that in this complicated machinery something of this kind must be inserted. It is a cleverly drafted sub-section, but it is extraordinarily difficult to follow what will be its effect upon different kinds of property. We have exempted small ownerships. These will have to be valued in case they may at some future time become parts of a property liable to Increment Value Duty. That means that they will not be exempted at all. When the owner parts with them he will do so subject to the burden of Increment Value Duty. Therefore he will lose it in the price, and the small owner will pay just the same as anybody else.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is dealt with in Clause 8 (4). But even if it were not, it has nothing to do with this provision. This proposal is entirely in the interests of the subject. The only alteration in the Bill as it left Committee is one enabling the Commissioners, on the application of any person entitled to an interest in the land, to make a reapportionment. That is a point raised repeatedly by the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Ruther-ford). He was anxious that the owner should be able to claim reapportionment at any time, and we have put it in. The whole point is this: You may have a hereditament valued as an hereditament. The owner sells a portion of it. He then says, "You cannot take that portion as if it were a sample out of the bulk, and say that because I am getting £1,000 for it and only paid £100, therefore there is an increment of £900. That is a choice piece."

771
He will ask for a reapportionment of the value, giving £900 as the value of that piece, and not £100, thus getting out of the payment of an otherwise large Increment Duty. The whole of this Amendment is in the interests, not of the revenue, but of the taxpayer. Supposing an owner has a piece of land of 50 acres, a part of which he decides to develop for building. It is perfectly clear that the valuation then will be of a totally different character. Therefore, in order to protect himself from unreasonable Increment Value Duty in the event of his selling the land, he will ask for a reapportionment, and he will get it. From beginning to end this is a concession made in the interests of the subject.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I apologise for having forgotten the Sub-section which deals with this particular case. Will that reapportionment be substituted for the original site value?
Sir W. ROBSON: That is provided for by Sub-section (4) of the Amendment.
Amendment made.

CLAUSE 31.—(Information as to Names of Owners of Land.)
(1) Every person who pays rent in respect of any land, and every person who as agent for another person receives any rent in respect of any land, shall, on being required by the Commissioners, furnish to them within thirty days the name and address of the person to whom he pays rent or on behalf of whom he receives rent, as the case may be.
(2) For the purpose of the exercise of their powers or the performance of their duties under this Part of this Act in reference to the valuation of land, the Commissioners may authorise any person to inspect any land and report to them the value thereof, and the person having the custody or possession of that land shall permit the person so authorised, on production of the authority of the Commissioners in that behalf, to inspect it at such reasonable times as the Commissioners consider necessary.
(3) If any person fails to comply with the provisions of this Section he shall be liable to a penalty under Section fifty-five of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and that Section shall apply accordingly, but the penalty
772
shall only be recoverable in the High Court.
Drafting Amendment made.
Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (3), after the word "person" ["if any person fails"], to insert the word "wilfully."
To leave out the words "under Section fifty-five of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and that Section shall apply accordingly, but the penalty shall only," and insert instead thereof the words "not exceeding fifty pounds, to."—[Sir W. Robson.]
Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON moved to add, at the end of the Clause:
"(4) Any notice requiring a return for the purpose of valuation, any copy of a provisional valuation, and any other notice or document which is required to be given or sent to an owner or a person interested in land under this Part of this Act by the Commissioners shall be sufficiently given or sent if sent by post to the address of the owner or person interested furnished to the Commissioners under the powers given by this Section or, if the address cannot be so ascertained, by leaving the notice or a copy of the document addressed to the owner or person interested with some occupier of the land or, if there is no occupier, by causing it to be put up in some conspicuous place on the land."
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does not this place the owner in a rather awkward position? If the occupier does not send a notice to him, the owner is to be liable to a penalty of £50. To trust to the occupier sending it will create great uncertainty. I think it is usual in such cases to insert something about delivery by registered post to the last known address.
Sir W. ROBSON: We are only putting the Clause here instead of where it was originally placed. Formerly the words only applied to the original site value for the purposes of Increment Value Duty. Now we are making them apply to all.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I agree that this is only a transposition of the Clause, but the objection of my hon. Friend would be equally applicable wherever the provision appeared. I wish the Attorney-General would consider whether quite such wide words are necessary. It is rather a strong order to say that it shall be a sufficient service of notice on an owner unknown if that notice is left with

773
any occupier of the land. There is no obligation on the occupier to transmit the notice or to do anything with it. He may put it into the fire or into the waste-paper basket, or forget all about it, and yet that is to be taken as sufficient notice to the owner. In view of what the Government proposals are, I am not sure that any such words are necessary at all. Surely they will not be without knowledge of the owner. It is necessary for their valuation that they should find out the owner. They will have to pursue the matter, not simply by leaving a notice with the occupier or by posting a notice on the land, but until they find the owner, as he is the person from whom they are going to collect the tax. It being absolutely necessary for them for their own purposes to find the owner, can they not be satisfied without this provision making the service of the notice on the occupier sufficient warning to the owner.
Sir W. ROBSON: This provision is to meet a difficulty which arises in all cases where you wish to give a great number of notices. In ordinary litigation, where it is difficult to find the owner of a ship, for instance, we are obliged in practice to have recourse to the expedient of nailing the writ to the mast. So that the proposal we adopt here is not unusual. The address is furnished to the Commissioners. That is the address with which we deal. Someone must furnish it, and then the Commissioners deal with that address. Where they are dealing with an enormous number they could scarcely adopt the plan of setting out unaided upon that inquiry, which might involve questions of title. We have considered the matter, and think it is the right conclusion to have arrived at—that it is the owner's interest to appear. There is the highest degree of probability—we cannot say for a certainty—that the matter will come to the owner's attention. That is really the motive of our procedure. We cannot pretend that our procedure will be adequate in every case, but it will be in the vast majority of cases, and will bring the owner to light if he is ascertainable at all. I am disposed to think that we will find our suggestion the most practicable way out of the difficulty.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask leave of the House to make a suggestion? This alternative, these later words, only apply where the Commissioners have discovered no address for the owner. I agree that it is extremely difficult to find
774
any alternative to the course which the Government have chosen. But I think the Attorney-General will agree that it is a strong course, and might conceivably work harshly. Would it be possible for him to put in words to the effect that no owner shall be damnified if he can show that he has taken such action as soon as the matter came to his notice, and it is clear that he has acted bonâ fide in the transaction?
Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think it would be sufficient to put in words saying that the owner shall not be damnified. They might cover a great many cases of wilful neglect. I think we have done all we can with the owner. Under the Bill as it left the Committee the Commissioners had to adopt a certain procedure, and then they could make no further Amendment. On the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite we have adopted words which leave the Commissioners at liberty to make Amendments at any time. Supposing an owner turns up who has not received a notice? I do not think it is likely that the Commissioners will not show the good taste to say that they will consider that situation.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: They are usually the very small people who are affected.
Sir W. ROBSON: Yes, that is so. There is no difficulty at all with the large people. The difficulty is with the small people, and I think myself that the Commissioners are likely to act in accordance with the justice of the case. If not, we must consider, not at a later stage of the Bill but subsequently, as to whether some different provisions should not be adopted. For my own part, the moment I think you begin to use words of the kind suggested you open a wide gate.
Amendment made.

CLAUSE 32.—(Determination of Value of Consideration.)
(1) Where the value of any consideration for a transfer or lease is to be determined for the purposes of this Part of this Act, that value shall, so far as the consideration consists of the payment of a capital sum, be taken to be the amount of that capital sum, and, so far as the consideration consists of a periodical money payment, be taken to be such sum as appears to the Commissioners to be the capital value of that payment.
(2) If the Commissioners are satisfied that any covenant or undertaking to discharge

775
any incumbrance, or, in cases where a nominal rent only has been reserved, any covenant or undertaking to erect buildings, or to expend any sums upon the property, has formed part of the consideration, the Commissioners shall allow such sum as they think just in respect thereof as an addition to the value of the consideration.
(3) Where it is necessary to apportion any consideration for the purposes of this part of this Act as between properties included in any transfer or lease, the consideration shall be apportioned by the Commissioners in such manner as they determine. Any person interested in the land, not being an owner, may apply to the Commissioners for a copy of the proposed apportionment before it is finally settled, and shall then have the same right of giving notice of objection and of appealing as the owner.
Drafting Amendment made.
Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3) to leave out from the word "determine" ["in such manner as they determine"] all the words to the end of the Clause.—[Sir W. Robson.]

SUPPLEMENTAL.

  CLAUSE 35.—(Exemption for Land held by Rating Authorities.)
  (1) No duty under this Part of this Act shall be charged in respect of any land or interest in land held by a local or rating authority, and any Increment Value Duty in respect of any such land which would have been collected from the authority (whether on the occasion of the transfer on sale of the land, or any interest in the land, or the grant of a lease of the land or on the periodical occasions provided in this Act) shall, for the purposes of the provisions of this Act as to the collection of Increment Value Duty, be deemed to have been paid.
  (2) For the purposes of this Section the expression "rating authority" means any body who have power to raise a rate or administer money raised by a, rate, and the expression "rate" means a rate, the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes, and which is leviable on the basis of an assessment in respect of the yearly value of property, and includes any sum which, though obtained in the first instance by a precept, certificate, or other instrument, requiring payment from some authority or officer, is or can be ultimately raised out of a rate as before defined.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "authority"
  776
  ["held by a local or rating authority"], to insert the words "or by any body corporate recognised by the Treasury as working for public utility and not dividing any profit to its members other than a limited rate of interest approved by the Treasury in each case."
  This Amendment was chosen for the purpose of making one more attempt on behalf of garden cities. I have been asked by various people interested in garden cities to press this Amendment on the attention of the Government. I desire to give the Government one more chance of saving these very beneficent enterprises from the evil effects which attach to the taxes as at present drafted by the Government.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think if a correct construction is put upon the words of the Clause it will be found that garden cities stand in much less peril than the right hon. Gentleman imagines. We cannot accept this Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: In the same Sub-section, after the word "authority" ["by a local or rating authority"], to insert the words "or any statutory combination representative of two or more local or rating authorities."—[Mr. Younger.]
  Mr. WALTER GUINEESS Mr. WALTER GUINEESS moved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert:
  "(2) No Reversion Duty shall be charged on the determination of a lease granted by a rating authority in respect of the period only while the rating authority retains the freehold interest, and the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor in respect of any such lease shall be deemed to be the amount by which the total value of the land at the time the lease determines exceeds the amount paid to such authority for their interest in the lease."
  The object of this Amendment is really to effect the exemption from Land Taxes which the Government profess themselves willing to give to local authorities. When I brought the matter forward as a new clause the Government expressed their willingness-to consider the matter, and to accept it on Report, if necessary. It does not embody any new principle, because Clause 35 exempts local authorities from the payment of Land Duties. They are entirely exempt from Increment Value Duty which accrue while the local authority has the land, and that Increment Value Duty is deemed to be paid. The local authority are entirely exempted from Increment Value Duty until they have sold the land. In the case of Reversion

  777
  Duty they are only partially exempt. In the vast majority of cases where freehold land is held by a local authority, and they grant a lease, the land is disposed of before that lease falls in; and unless the reversion is franked for the whole of the period during which the freehold is held by the local authority, they undoubtedly will pay the tax, by being compelled to accept a lower price from the man who buys the freehold.
  This is a matter of very considerable financial importance to the local authorities and to municipalities all over the country who hold land for the purpose of carrying out great public improvements, and in most cases they are compelled to sell the freehold either in 60 or 80 years. In London the amount of land that has been bought for this purpose, and which must be sold in 60 or 80 years as surplus land, amounts to £9,000,000. The freehold of all this must be sold before 80 years. Let me take one instance. The freehold of Shaftesbury-avenue is in the possession of the London County Council. The Grand Hotel has a lease of 80 years, on which they pay £10,000 a year. That lease must be sold before it has run for 80 years, because all surplus land must be disposed of within 80 years of the enabling act; that is to say, about five years previous to the expiration of the lease the London County Council will have to sell the freehold of that land. Is it not perfectly certain that anyone who wishes to buy the freehold interest of the Grand Hotel will be willing to pay far less for that interest in view of the fact that in five years, when the lease falls in, he will have to pay Reversion Duty, not only upon the five years since he bought the freehold, but also for the previous 75 years, during which the freehold interest was held by the County Council?
  I think there is no doubt that in a case like that the local authority will be affected, and if the Government will only accept this Amendment it will be doing away with what is now a very real grievance to the local authorities. I do not think that the Amendment will cause any difficulty whatever, because it will be quite easy to assess the increase in value which accrued at the time the local authority sold the freehold. It is quite easy to compare the price which the local authority received for the lease with which they afterwards realise for the free-bold, and to frank the reversion to that extent—and I feel quite sure that ample justice would be done if this Amendment
  778
  were accepted. The local authority in many cases bought this land with the expectation of a large increase in value which will requite them to some extent for the money which they have sunk in improvements. There has been the regular system of carrying out these improvements by relying on recoupment instead of a "betterment" charge, and if there is cause for exemption of local authorities from Increment Value Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty, I think there is a far stronger case for making an exemption from Reversion Duty in this instance, because this increase in value has been relied upon by the local authority in framing their estimates of these public improvements, and they relied upon it to defray a large amount of costs when these freeholds are sold. I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The Government cannot accept this Amendment of the hon. Member. As I understand the hon. Member's Amendment it means this: A rating authority grants a lease and holds it for some substantial period, and they then sell the reversion. What the hon. Member proposes is this: That Reversion Duty should be calculated only on such interest as has accrued in the purchase of the reversion from the time it was sold, so that duty is not to be charged in respect of whatever increment accrued during the time the rating authority held it. I think that is the case which the hon. Member put. The Government, on the other hand, think if a rating authority wants exemption it must keep its land in its own hands.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: But it cannot in some cases.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Then it cannot get this exemption. The particular operation which would be put upon the valuer by this Amendment would be almost impossible. It would be the usual thing to say at the end of a lease the value of the increment is so and so. There is no doubt about that, because you could test it by the market, but to say what the value of the lease was 10 years ago, and how much of the increment was due in the last 10 years, and how much was due to the previous 70 years, is a kind of apportionment the valuer will not be frequently called upon to make, so the answer of the Government must be what I have said. If the rating authority desire to avail itself of the exemption we have give them, they must

  779
  keep their property themselves. We are not disposed to extend the concession on the lines suggested in the Amendment.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There are many cases where a rating authority has no intention of parting with his land, but there are cases where they may be unable to keep the property, and there are cases where it may be unwise for them to do so, and where it might be a much better thing for the local authority and for everybody in the district that they should part with the property. The determination of the Government is that in such a case the local authority must lose the benefit of this exemption, and must bear its share of the tax. The local authority will not, of course, frequently pay the tax in the case of my hon. Friend's Amendment, but that amount will be subtracted from the purchase price, which would otherwise be given to the local authority. That being the position, I cannot help feeling—and I think I saw some indication of it in the Attorney-General's speech—that if he were not oppressed with the difficulty of the valuation and apportionment, he would really be rather glad to give this further slight exemption to the local authorities. I confess I am quite unable to follow him in the difficulties which he attributed to the operations of the valuers. They have to value the property at the time the reversion falls in. They have got, in addition, to value the property as it was when the lease was granted. Take a case of a lease of 99 years. Why is it more difficult to ascertain what is the value of a building lease after 80 years has expired and the freehold is sold, than it is to find the value away back when the lease was first granted? You can find out the consideration paid for it, that is all you want; that being the definite market price. It is on record, and it can be produced for your inspection. You have got there a very much better basis of valuation than you have in a great many cases under this Bill. I really think the Attorney General has altogether exaggerated the difficulties which my hon. Friend supposed. You have a transaction of which the reversion was sold, say, in 1900; the reversion comes up again for value in 1910. Is it to be supposed that the valuer cannot tell what the growth of the value of the property has been? It is really one of the very simplest problems which will be set to valuers under this Bill.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: The sympathetic answer which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given to this Amendment makes me feel very much disappointed that the Government will not accept it. When the matter was brought up in Committee the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that he would consider it before the Report stage. I am quite certain that the difficulty of valuation has been overestimated by the Attorney-General. I cannot see that there is any real difficulty. You have not any imaginary valuation at the time that the local authority parted with the interest of the freehold, but the actual sum of money which they received. I think if there is any case where the local authority ought to be exempt it is here, where they obtain this land owing to their own enterprise for the benefit of the local community. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give some more satisfactory answer than has been given by the Attorney-General.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 36.—(Deduction from Increment Value of Sum Paid to Rating Authority in Respect of Increase in Value.)
  Where in pursuance of any public, general, or local Act any capital sum or any instalment of a capital sum has been paid to any rating authority in respect of the increased or enhanced value of any land due to any improvements made or other action taken by the authority, the amount of that capital sum or instalment shall be deducted from any increment value of the land for the purposes of the collection of Increment Value Duty and from the site value of the land for the purposes of the collection of Undeveloped Land Duty, and in the case of Increment Value Duty the duty on the amount deducted shall be deemed to have been paid.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS Mr. WALTER GUINNESS moved, after the word "paid" ["paid to any rating authority"], to insert the words "or any charge based on a capital sum is or has been payable."
  This is an Amendment which the Government undertook to insert during the Report stage. In the case of certain local Acts the betterment is paid on an annual basis. The particular case I mentioned in Committee was the case of London, where certain betterment charges have been allowed under local Acts for public improvements, and in most cases the system has been to charge betterment

  781
  at 3 per cent. upon half the increase in value. That is on all fours with the betterment contemplated in this Bill, and I think the Government will be well advised to carry out their promise to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. G. D. FABER Mr. G. D. FABER seconded the Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I think the hon. Member will find that this point is covered. Clause 41, which deals with definitions, provides that "the expression fixed charge' means any rentcharge as defined by this Act, and any burden or charge arising by the operation of law or imposed by any Act of Parliament." Those words cover the point raised by the hon. Member.
  Lord R. CECIL: But there is nothing about "fixed charge" in Clause 36.
  Sir W. ROBSON: No, but it is included in the deductions.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: After the word "duty" ["collection of Undeveloped Land Duty"] to insert the words "and from the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor for the purposes of Reversion Duty."

  CLAUSE 37.—(Special Provision for Land Held for Public or Charitable Purposes.)
  (1) No Reversion Duty or Undeveloped Land Duty under this Part of this Act shall be charged in respect of land or any interest in land held by any governing body constituted for charitable purposes while the land is occupied and used by that body for the purposes of that body, and Increment Value Duty shall not be collected on any periodical occasion in respect of the fee simple of or any interest in any land held for the purposes of such a body, whether it is occupied or used by that body or not, without prejudice, however, to the collection of the duty on any other occasion.
  The expression "governing body constituted for charitable purposes" includes any person or body of persons who have the right of holding, or any power of government of, or management over, any property appropriated for charitable purposes (including property appropriated for the purpose of any of the naval or military forces of the Crown).
  (2) This Section shall apply to the fee simple of, or any interest in, any land held by a registered society as if the purposes of the society were charitable purposes.
  In this provision the expression "registered society" means any society or body of persons who are registered, or whose rules are certified or registered, by a registrar of friendly societies in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, and who by their rules make provision for the benefits set out in Section eight, Sub-section one, of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and where the contract between the society and the member is of a permanent character.
  Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "land" ["shall be charged in respect of land"], to leave out the words "or any interest in land."
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think we are entitled to ask why these words are being left out?
  Sir W. ROBSON: This is merely a verbal Amendment.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: How does the learned Attorney-General justify leaving out these words? As the Section now stands it reads, "No Reversion Duty or Undeveloped Land Duty under this part of this Act shall be charged in respect of land or any interest in land held by any governing body." It is now proposed to leave out the words "or any interest in land," and we are referred to the amended Definition Clause. I think these words are necessary, and ought to be retained.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I point out that Clause 41 says that land does not include "any interest in land."
  Sir W. ROBSON: Wherever we have inserted those words we have always preceded them by the words "fee simple or any." I have no objection to leaving the words in, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Drafting Amendment made.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS Sir PHILIP MAGNUS moved, in Subsection (1), after the word "body" ["for the purposes of that body"], to insert the words "and no Reversion Duty or Undeveloped Land Duty under this part of this Act shall be charged in respect of land or any interest in land held by any university, college, or endowed school, or society constituted for the advancement of science, literature, or the fine arts, the income of which is exclusively applicable for the purposes of that body."
  I do not think I need to apologise for again bringing forward a Motion for the further exemption of distinctly educational

  783
  institutions from some part of these Land Taxes. I am very unwilling to repeat anything that was said during the Committee stage of this Bill, but I have brought forward this Amendment rather with a view of giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of reconsidering the decision at which he arrived on the Report stage. I think he would be wise to grant the further exemption implied in this Amendment. I feel certain that throughout the whole of the United Kingdom this proposal will be regarded as a tax on learning, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is not desirous of inflicting an additional burden on learning. Judging from the replies given to my Amendment on the Committee stage by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General, I am afraid my previous proposal was not sufficiently explicit to be altogether understood by the Government. I know that the term "charitable purposes" is a very comprehensive one, and it includes religious and educational purposes and what may be called distinctly philanthropic purposes. The arguments adduced in answer to my proposal during the Committee stage did not refer at all to educational purposes, and were almost exclusively confined to religious purposes which were included in the word "charity." The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
  "If you are going to exclude universities, how can you include the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with their enormous values?"
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "Land is getting more and more into the possession of great ecclesiastical, religious, and charitable institutions. Very considerable tracts are getting into their possession, and if this exemption is made it cannot be confined to educational institutions."
  I am unable to see why it cannot be confined to educational institutions. Certainly the Amendment refers exclusively to educational institutions, and no others. One can always reason from analogies, and say, "This is the thin end of the wedge, and if we make further exemptions to educational institutions we shall be obliged to make them to religious and other charitable institutions." I am certain the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be the last person to desire to push all his proposals to their strictly logical conclusion, and I am asking him to consider this Amendment in the form in which it stands on the Paper, and not as regards the consequences to which it might possibly lead. Personally I should be very glad to see religious and charitable bodies exempted
  784
  from this Clause. At present we are only asking for the exemption of educational bodies. I believe that charitable bodies would be charitable enough not to begrudge any special exemption which might be given to educational institutions, although they themselves were excluded from such exemption. Another reason why I bring this matter up again is that my Amendment is not now so wide as that which was introduced during the Committee stage. It does not propose that land which is held by universities or schools shall be exempted from the Increment Land Duty on the occasion when that land is sold. As a matter of fact, universities, colleges, schools, and other institutions, on behalf of which I am pleading, do not often sell the land that they possess. Therefore the concluding words of the Clause as they now stand would not very much affect these institutions. We ask that no Increment Duty or Reversion Duty shall be charged upon land which is not only occupied or used, but which is also held by these bodies. The Clause, as it stands, is a little misleading. It was clearly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge that there is practically no exemption whatever granted to these charitable institutions, and certainly not to the universities or colleges, by the first exemption—namely, that no Reversion Duty shall be charged—because it is perfectly evident that a Reversion Duty cannot possibly be charged whilst the land is in the occupation of these institutions. The only exempton therefore which the Clause gives is with respect to the Undeveloped Land Duty. I should be very sorry if it should be thought that the Government are making any great concession by introducing the words "Reversion Duty." If the wording of this Amendment is not clear—it was rather hastily drafted by myself a day or two since—I should be quite prepared to accept any other words which make it perfectly clear that land which is held, even although it may not be occupied by any of these educational institutions, shall be free from the Undeveloped Land Duty and the Reversion Duty. I should like to point out that there cannot be any logical distinction between land which is used and land which is occupied. Land which is used by an educational institution for the sole purpose of maintaining that institution must stand in exactly the same position as land which is occupied by it. It is impossible to make any clear distinction between the two. Land used at

  785
  one time may be occupied at another time, and whatever reasons may exist in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having endeavoured to exempt land which is occupied by a university or a college or a school from any one of these duties must certainly apply to land the income from which is used for the maintenance of the universities which occupy it. There is really no logical difference whatever.
  There is no analogy whatever between ecclesiastical property and property held by educational institutions. The Government does not make annual grants to religious bodies in the same way that it does to most educational bodies. Many of our universities and nearly all the endowed schools on behalf of whom I am pleading receive grants from the State, but the State does not give grants to ecclesiastical or religious bodies. Consequently, there is really no analogy between the two, and, unless this exemption is granted, what the State really gives with one hand it will take away with the other. I believe it would be an absolute saving to the State to make this exemption, because they would save the cost of valuing the property at present held by all these education institutions, and it is probable that otherwise the State would have to increase the grants made to them. There can, therefore, be no reason for first putting a tax on them and then increasing the grants which are made. There is no doubt whatever that unless the exemption 13 made these institutions will very much suffer from the additional tax, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to bear in mind the fact that this country gives very much less money to universities and to secondary schools than other countries, mainly for the reason that pious founders in the past have left large sums of money for their use. It must be admitted that it will certainly tend to discourage further legacies of this kind being left to educational authorities, if it is known they are going to be taxed in this way. The universities already are not required to pay Income Tax upon investments in ordinary trustee securities, and the reasons which have induced the Government to grant exemptions from Income Tax to universities when their property is invested in the funds surely ought to apply when it is proposed to levy an additional tax on land held by these institutions. If that money were invested in Consols, no Income Tax would be paid.
  I venture to think, without repeating the arguments used on the Committee stage, that I have made out a case for the reconsideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the decision to which he had previously arrived. He may very likely say that the finances of the country do not permit it, that the exemptions already made have eaten up all the balance, but the whole of this money is a very small matter, and, looking at the final Budget introduced a few days ago, one sees that there is still a certain margin which would enable him to accede to this small additional exemption. I should like to say one word with respect to the case of Dulwich, which has very often been before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am quite certain the Attorney-General, when he replied to the arguments used on behalf of Dulwich, was not familiar with all the particulars of the case, and I venture to say that he was quite unconsciously misrepresenting the facts. Since then he has received a letter from the Dulwich authorities, to which I think so far no reply has been given. The Attorney-General led the House to think that the Dulwich authorities were purposely holding up their land, although it was very much wanted for building purposes in the immediate neighbourhood, and that if they liked to sell it they could invest their money and gain a considerable interest from it. In the course of a letter to the Attorney-General it is stated that the estate is being developed on a coherent town planning scheme to maintain the rural character of the neighbourhood. There are already within the boroughs in which the estate is situated 4,670 vacant houses, with a loss to the rates of £65,975. The governors are regularly developing the estate on lines making for the health and well-being of the people. Dulwich is only similar to other cases, and it must be evident to anyone familiar with the facts that it is not always possible to sell land as one supposes. One may be able to sell land, but if one does, he destroys the amenities of the district and sells it for purposes wholly inconsistent with the fact that a school exists in the neighbourhood. It cannot for one moment be said, as was stated without full knowledge of the facts by the Attorney-General, that the authorities of Dulwich School are holding up their land merely for the purpose of obtaining a higher price. I sincerely hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will now be able to say that, to the extent to which it is proposed in this Amendment, he will be

  787
  able to grant this exemption. There is no doubt that this particular tax in its incidence cannot be regarded as other than a tax upon learning.
  Sir H. CRAIK Sir H. CRAIK seconded the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We had a very long Debate on the substance of this Amendment in Committee when the same issue was raised, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not therefore regard me as being in the slightest degree discourteous to him if I do not go at any great length into the reasons which prompted the Government on that occasion to refuse to accept such an Amendment, and which, I think, justify them in maintaining the attitude they then adopted. It would be quite impossible to accept an Amendment of this kind and not to extend it to religious bodies. I do not see upon what ground you can give exemptions to science and art, and refuse it to religious objects; and it is quite impossible for us to accept the Amendment unless we are prepared to accept the wider proposition submitted to the judgment of the Committee by the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. G. Cave) to extend the exemption to religious bodies. The moment you did that you would get back to the old days when there was a conflict between the Crown and the Ecclesiastical authorities of this country with regard to the exemption of charitable and religious organisations, not merely from the rates, but from all taxes as well.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: That is not the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree that the Amendment does not include ecclesiastical corporations, but I really do not see on what ground you could refuse to extend the exemption to ecclesiastical corporations if once you give the benefit of it to the universities. I know the older universities, who are much more intimately concerned financially in this matter than the other universities, are satisfied with the proposals made on the Committee stage, and are not carrying the matter any further. Let me point out this consideration, that the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman really means exemption from rates and taxes altogether, and that is not certainly asked for by all the universities.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Oh!
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am sorry I made that remark. I am afraid the hon. Member will have something to say, but I
  788
  must add that, according to the decision of the courts, the older universities are not exempted.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: The University of London succeeded in getting income returned for the last four years.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That does not apply to the older universities. I believe, indeed, that Glasgow University is not excepted.
  Sir H. CRAIK: No.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think it is far better to increase the grants to universities than to give these special exemptions.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will carry the principle further, and if he will apply it to local as well as to national taxation. Will he give equivalent grants to religious buildings instead of their present exemption from rates? If he will do that he may remove a great deal of the misconception which exists in the public mind at the present time, and especially in the minds of Nonconformists, that the Church of England enjoys special privileges.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: As far as the representatives of the older universities are concerned, I may say that they are in no way satisfied with the position at the present moment. This I am induced to remark by the observation which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer only a few moments ago. The other representatives of the older Universities would have been present but for urgent reasons, but I know they share my dissatisfaction with the present state of things, and the only reason why we have not taken a more active part in the Debate is that we do not desire, on this side of the House, to waste time. We have been given to understand that there is no chance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer changing his view, and this Amendment, which has been very carefully drawn, was decided upon as the shortest method of formally entering our protest. I must say that the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer do not seem to be conclusive on this point. The Amendment was drawn with the express purpose of exempting universities and schools from this particular taxation. I venture to say there is no reason why they should not be so exempt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer considers that, if you exempt them, you must also exclude religious bodies, monasteries, and institutions of that nature. But there is no connection

  789
  whatever between these two. In the case of universities considerable Government grants are made, but in the case of monasteries and similar institutions, at any rate in England, there are no such grants. I may say that this Amendment
  has the unanimous support of the representatives of the universities.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 196.

  Division No. 839.]

  AYES.

  [6.40 p.m.

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Foster, P. S.

  Percy, Earl

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Gretton, John

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Haddock, George B.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cave, George

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Jolcey-

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Keswick, William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Younger, George

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

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Fell, Arthur

  Oddy, John James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir P. Magnus and Sir H. Craik.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  NOES.

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

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Agnew, George William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hodge, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Alden, Percy

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Crossley, William J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hudson, Walter

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jackson, R. S.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Barker, Sir John

  Essex, R. W.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Beale, W. P.

  Falconer, J.

  Lambert, George

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Bell, Richard

  Ferguson R. C. Munro

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Ginnell, L.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Glover, Thomas

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lupton, Arnold

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Branch, James

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Maclean, Donald

  Brodle, H. C.

  Gulland, John W.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cameron, Robert

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Massie, J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Clough, William

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

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Myer, Horatio

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Napier, T. B.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Rowlands, J.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Russell. Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Toulmin, George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Vivian, Henry

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Malley, William

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sears, J. E.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Seely, Colonel

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Shackleton, David James

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Snowden, P.

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Radford, G. H.

  Stanger, H. Y.

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

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Steadman, W. C

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rea, Rt. Hon Russell (Gloucester)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Rees, J. D.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Summerbell, T.

  Mr. RAWLINSON Mr. RAWLINSON moved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words: "but no Increment Value Duty shall be collected on the sale of any such land or of any interest therein in any case where the proceeds of such sale are invested within six months in the purchase of other land, or of some interest in other land, to be held for similar charitable purposes."
  I have been asked by the London Playing Fields Association to move this Amendment, and possibly the Government may see their way to accept it. That association is a society engaged in charitable work under the presidency of Mr. Chandos Leigh, and their system is to buy up small plots of land and let them out to people for the purpose of playing games, such as football and cricket. The Bill exempts the land from taxation so long as the association occupies it for those purposes, but the way the body does its work is this. They buy a piece of land and get possession of it, and then perhaps they sell a bit of the frontage, and with the proceeds they buy more land for their purposes. That really is how the society lives. The Members can make no profit out of these transactions, and it is not a question of speculation or anything of that sort. As the Bill stands it is intended that the association shall be exempt from all taxation as long as they use their land for cricket and football, and as to that we are all agreed. Whenever they are forced to sell some part of a football or cricket field, however—the frontage or anything of that kind—they reinvest the money at once in a larger portion of land more suitable for the purpose of games, and in that way they at the same time are enabled to pay their way. This Amendment is not contrary to the spirit of the Bill, because it refers to
  792
  property in existence at the present time, and if they sold it they could not pocket the money or divide it among their members, or use it for any purpose except to provide cricket and football fields on charitable lines. Therefore, I do not propose this Amendment in any hostile spirit, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept it, because it does not affect the principle of the measure, and makes no difference in the present state of affairs.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTT Sir SAMUEL SCOTT seconded the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This claim is of much larger extent than that which the House of Commons has already refused to concede. What does it mean? By the Bill all charitable institutions are exempted from the ordinary Corporation Increment Duty, but the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to extend that in cases even of sale so long as the money is reinvested in land. Of course that means that all they have got to do is whenever they sell to reinvest their profits in land, and thus secure complete exemption from the whole of our taxation.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: They must still keep the land for the same purpose—football and cricket.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not merely football and cricket; every charitable institution of every sort or kind is included, and if they reinvest their money in land they will be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. That may not be the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but that will be the effect of his Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Drafting Amendment made.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK Sir HENRY CRAIK moved, at the end of the second paragraph of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "and including all universities, colleges, schools, and other institutions for the promotion of literature, science, or art."
  The point which I raise by this Amendment is one which I brought forward in Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not object to the merits at all. We fought that out in Committee, and he is, I understand, willing to concede what we ask. He has announced over and over again that he intends that these charitable purposes shall cover universities and colleges.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Perhaps I may interrupt the hon. Member. There seems to be some doubt as to whether the old universities will come within the words "charitable institutions," and the hon. Gentleman wishes to make that clear. If he moves the Amendment in this form, leaving out the word "including," so that it runs "and all universities, colleges, schools," etc., I shall be prepared to accept it.
  Proposed words, amended accordingly, there inserted in the Bill.
  Sir JOHN JARDINE Sir JOHN JARDINE moved, in Subsection (2), after the word "society" ["any land held by a registered society"], to insert the words "or by a company or body of persons incorporated by the Joint Stock Companies Acts, 1862 to 1900, or by a special Act, and precluded by its memorandum of association or Act from dividing any profit amongst its members."
  I believe that the proposal is in accordance with the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I move it on behalf of the National Trust for the Preservation of Places of Historical and National Interest, as there is some doubt whether the present words of the Clause cover this society, which is incorporated under a special Act of 1907. I ought to explain that this society is empowered by statute to accept on behalf of the nation lands and property to be held in perpetuity provided that they are such as ought to be preserved for the benefit of the whole nation. It differs very largely from charitable societies and institutions, although it is of a kindred character, inasmuch as it holds property for the benefit of the whole nation.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH seconded the Amendment.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I shall be glad to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but his wording requires a little alteration. He has referred to the Joint Stock Companies Acts, 1862 to 1900, but they have now been superseded by the Companies Consolidation Act. If he will move his Amendment in this form I shall be glad to accept it: "or by a company within the meaning of the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908, or any body of persons incorporated by special Act if that company or body is, by their memorandum of association or Act, precluded from dividing any profit amongst its members."
  Sir J. JARDINE: I will move the Amendment in that form.
  Proposed words, amended accordingly, there inserted in the Bill.
  Drafting Amendments also made.

  CLAUSE 38.—(Special Provision for Statutory Companies.)
  7.0 P.M.
  (1) Neither Increment Value Duty, Reversion Duty, nor Undeveloped Land Duty shall be charged in respect of any land whilst it is held by a statutory company for the purposes of their undertaking, and cannot be appropriated by the company except to those purposes; but nothing in this provision shall prevent the collection of Increment Value Duty when any such land is sold or ceases to be so held.
  This provision shall not be construed so as to exclude from the benefit thereof land held by a statutory company which is intended to be ultimately appropriated for the purpose of works forming or to form part of the company's undertaking but, pending the carrying out of those works, is used for other purposes.
  (2) The Commissioners shall not require-a statutory company to make any returns-with respect to any such land for the purpose of the provisions of this Part of this Act as to valuation other than as to the actual cost to the company of the land, and that cost shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be substituted for the original site value of the land.
  (3) For the purposes of the Lands Clauses Acts, as incorporated with any special Act, the amount (if any) payable by the transferor as Increment Value Duty shall not be treated as part of the costs or expenses of a conveyance of land, and shall not be taken into account in assessing the compensation to be paid to the transferor.
  (4) For the purposes of this Section the expression "statutory company" means any railway company, canal company, dock company, water company, or other company who are for the time being authorised under any special Act to construct, work, or carry on any railway, canal, dock, water, or other public undertaking, and includes any person or body of persons so authorised; and the expression "special Act" includes any Provisional Order or order having the force of an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. RENWICK Mr. RENWICK moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "company" ["held by a statutory company"], to insert the words "or company registered under the Companies Acts."
  The object of the Clause is to exempt land held by a statutory company, but I cannot see why this should be limited to a statutory company. I should have thought, if it were necessary to exempt any company, it should be a stock company rather than a statutory company, because a statutory company is more or less of a monopoly, and I cannot imagine why the Government should be so solicitous to help a monopoly. Generally, when Members of the Government are speaking outside the House they condemn monopolies, but inside they seem to go out of their way to help them. I have come from the North of England to-day, and at Darlington I saw locomotive works belonging to a private company and a large amount of land round them for future extension. No doubt that undeveloped land will be liable, not only to Reversion Duty, but to Increment Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty. Then I saw another locomotive works at Darlington belonging to the North-Eastern Railway. I looked at my newspaper and found that the shares of the North-Eastern Railway Company, one of the companies for which this Government is so solicitous, stood at 126. The £1 shares of the private company were 1s. 9d. I should have imagined that if any company ought to have been helped it ought to be the private company, at any rate in a case of this sort. I know the struggle that private companies have to keep their heads above water. If there is any money to be given away in connection with the Budget, private companies are at any rate entitled to a share of it. It is very extraordinary that these statutory companies should compete in the way they do with private companies. Here is a case of a public trust in Swansea
  796
  for working the docks and harbours there, and here is an advertisement that they have issued:—
  "The trustees own a considerable area of spare land which they are prepared to let on lease at a low rental for the erection of blast furnaces, creosote works, and for commercial purposes."
  The land belonging to this trust is free of all these duties, but land alongside of it, belonging to private individuals or joint stock companies, is subject to the duty. Let us take another case The Newport Dock and Railway Company also advertise:—
  "There are excellent vacant sites on the docks available for the location and development of manufactories, works, and other industrial enterprises."
  There is another of these monopolies which is favoured by this Bill exempt from the duties while the unfortunate private companies have to pay them. That is unfair. In the Attorney-General's own constituency there is a large portion of riverside property belonging to a railway company. One of the tenants to-day told me he had a shipbuilding yard, and had rented it from the North-Eastern Railway Company for 50 years. That shows that these great railway companies are doing exactly the same work as a joint stock company or a private owner. Surely if one sort of company is to be favoured the other ought to be. I thought when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was giving away a certain amount of the proceeds of the tax he would have had in view the struggling company rather than the monopoly, and I cannot imagine why they should go out of their way to help these companies. If ever there was a time when joint stock companies and other enterprises required help, now is the time. Notwithstanding the attacks which are made on property by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench—I see two of them now—they generally forget another monopoly with which they are connected, one of the greatest monopolies, that of the law, which is not affected by these duties.
  Amendment not seconded.

  CLAUSE 39.—(Power to Charge Duty on Land in Certain Cases, 45 and Vict. c. 38.)
  (1) Where any land or interest in land in respect of which Increment Value Duty or Reversion Duty is charged is settled land within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1882, and the tenant for life is the person who is liable to pay any sums on account of either of these duties, he shall be entitled to charge by deed upon the settled land any amount paid by him

  797
  or which he may then be or may thereafter become liable to pay in respect of either of these duties, and the amount of any expenditure which he may have reasonably incurred in connection with the valuation, and the benefit of any such charge may be transferred in like manner as a mortgage.
  (2) A deed executed for the purposes of this Section shall not take effect until notice thereof has been given to the trustees of the settlement for the purposes of the Settled Land Act, 1882.
  (3) Sections sixty and sixty-two of the Settled Land Act, 1882 (which relate to the exercise of powers on behalf of infants and lunatics), shall apply to the exercise of the power under this Section in the same manner as they apply to the exercise of the powers of a tenant for life under that Act.
  (4) In Scotland, where any person having a limited interest in the land or interest in land in respect of which any duty under this part of this Act is charged, is the person who is liable to pay any sums on account of the duty, he shall be entitled to charge such land or such interest in land by means of a bond and disposition or bond and assignation in security in his own favour which he is hereby authorised to grant.
  Amendments made: In Section (1), after the word "Where," to insert the words "the fee simple of."
  After the word "or" ["Where any land or interest"], to insert the word "any."
  After "1882," to insert the words "or is vested in a trustee."
  After the word "life" ["and the tenant for life"], to insert the words "or persons having the power of a tenant for life or the trustee."
  After the word "settle" ["upon the settled land"], to insert the words "land or interest in."
  In Sub-section (2), at the beginning, to insert the words "In the case of settled land."
  In Section (3), after the word "Section," to insert the word "fifty-nine."—[Sir W. Robson.]
  Sir W. ROBSON Sir W. ROBSON moved, at the end of Section (3), to insert, "(4) Where the fee simple of any land or any interest in land in respect of which Increment Value Duty or Reversion Duty is charged is vested in a mortgagee who is liable to pay any sum on account of either of those duties, he
  798
  shall be entitled to add to his security the sum for which he is so liable, including any costs or expenses properly incurred by him in respect of the payment of the duty.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD, who had an Amendment on the Paper, rose——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's (Mr. Watson Rutherford) Amendment does not appear to be germane to the proposed Amendment.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The mortgagee is only mentioned twice in the Bill up to this point—once in Clause 2 and once in Clause 14. When you come to this new Clause that the Government propose you find words in it like this: "a mortgagee who is liable to pay any sum on account of either of these duties." Mortgagees in this country really have to do with about five-sixths of the whole value of the land of the country. I am aware that in many directions they are very frightened of this Clause. I think it will be conceded that where you find a Clause coming in the Bill at this point in the shape of a Government Amendment, stating in so many words that the mortgagee is liable to pay it——
  Sir W. ROBSON: These words do not; impose any liability whatever. The Amendment is "Where the fee simple of any land in respect of which Increment Value Duty or Reversion Duty is charged is vested in a mortgagee who is liable to pay."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must address himself to this point if he has anything to say. This is a Clause the note of which says: "Power to charge duty on land in certain cases." What the hon. Member wishes to do is to exempt a mortgagee from payment in certain cases—a wholly different matter.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: That is so, undoubtedly, but this is the first time we come to anything which says a mortgagee is to be liable to pay. The Government Amendment contains words saying that the mortgagee is to be liable to pay.
  Mr. SPEAKER: No it does not. It contains words saying where the mortgagee is liable—a very different matter. These words do not make him liable. The mere fact of the word "mortgagee" being introduced does not entitle him to take that opportunity to move to exempt the mortgagee from payment.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I will not move my Amendment, but I will say

  799
  a few words on the Amendment proposed by the Attorney-General. I venture to think that this Amendment is as important as any proposed during the whole time the Bill was in Committee. About three-fifths of the land in this country is to-day subject to mortgage, and about four-fifths is subject either to mortgage or charges of some description. We on this side of the House raised this subject over and over again in Committee, and we asked whether the mortgagee was liable, and, if so, at what stage and how far he would become responsible to pay these taxes. The only place where, in my opinion, the mortgagee could become responsible is where he forecloses. That is exactly the case which the Government have left out. They have not made foreclosure one of the occasions on which the tax should be paid. I submit that it is exceedingly objectionable to insert in Clause 39, which is supposed only to give power to charge duty on land in certain cases, the words "vested in a mortgagee who is liable to pay any sum on account of either of those duties." If, as the Attorney-General says, the mortgagee is not liable, why complicate the Bill by putting in these words? I take it that this Amendment introduces a very serious question indeed. The amount of money invested to-day on mortgage in this country is, I suppose, approximately almost equal to the National Debt. That the people interested in those moneys—trustees, societies, companies, and individuals—should have their minds disturbed by the question whether their investments are safe, and whether they might be called upon at any time to pay the new Land Duties, is a serious matter indeed. While the Bill was in Committee I appealed to the Government to make clear what the responsibilities and liabilities of mortgagees under certain circumstances were. It was in accordance with an Amendment which I moved that a Subsection was put in what is now Clause 14 of the Bill that something was done in that direction, but even that has been altered by the Government, and now the Clause is absolutely different from what was agreed to in Committee. I take this opportunity of protesting against the way in which the Government have treated the subject of the mortgagee. In addition to the men who own land, there are the men who have lent money upon it, and it ought to be made perfectly clear that they are not going to be penalised with regard to these taxes. Take the case of Income
  800
  Tax. A mortgagee has nothing to do with a mortgagor's Income Tax. Why, because he happens to have lent money on the security of landed property he is to be dragged in, and the suggestion made that he may be liable to pay any of these taxes is more than I can understand.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford) is under a very serious misapprehension as to the meaning of the Amendment. He began by saying that we have left out the mortgagee who forecloses. A mortgagee may become the owner of property, like anybody else.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: That is not made an occasion where duty becomes payable.
  Sir W. ROBSON: The hon. and learned Member is under a misapprehension. Under Clause 2 we have dealt with the position of a mortgagee. That Clause, which defines increment value, says: "This provision shall apply to a mortgage of the fee simple of the land or any interest in land in the same manner as it applies to a transfer, with the substitution of the amount secured by the mortgage for the consideration."
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Really the hon. and learned Gentleman——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had a good innings.
  Sir W. ROBSON: Under Sub-section (5) of Clause 14 it is provided: "Where a reversion has been mortgaged before the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and nine, and the mortgagee has foreclosed before the lease on which the reversion is expectant determines, the mortgagee shall not be liable to pay Reversion Duty in excess of the amount by which the total value of the land at the time of the determination of the lease exceeds the amount payable under the mortgage at the date of the foreclosure." That shows clearly enough that the case of the mortgagee has been carefully provided for.
  Amendment made.

  CLAUSE 42.—(Application of Part I. To Scotland.)
  (1) In the application of this Part of this Act to Scotland, unless the context otherwise requires:—
  The expression "land" does not include teinds, titles, or offices of honour, or any servitude, superiority, casualty, feu duty, or ground annual, or any-incorporeal heritable right;
  The expression "rent" includes yearly or other rent, toll, duty, royalty, or other reservation by the acre, the ton, or otherwise; and for the purpose of Section twenty of this Act includes feu-duty and ground annual;
  The expression "interest" in relation to land includes the landlord's right of reversion to the subjects let on the determination of the lease, but does not include teinds, servitude, superiorities, any interest in expectancy, whether vested or not, heritable securities, bonds of provision, jointures, annuities, or other capital or annual sums, or other debts secured upon heritage, or any sporting right, or any lease thereof;
  The expression "owner" means the fiar of the land, except that where land is let on lease for a term of which more than fifty years are unexpired, the tenant under the lease shall be deemed to be the owner, and includes an institute or heir of entail in possession, and the life-renter of land which is settled within the meaning of the Finance. Act, 1894, whether such fiar, institute, or heir of entail in possession, or life-renter is or is not sui juris;
  The expression "freeholder" includes "fiar," "life-renter of land settled within the meaning of the Finance Act, 1894," and "institute or heir of entail in possession," and the expression "freehold" shall be construed accordingly;
  The expression "incumbrances" includes any heritable security, or other debt or payment secured upon heritage, and the expression "incumbrancer" shall be construed accordingly;
  "Servitudes" shall be substituted for easements and shall be deemed to include public rights;
  "Court of Session" shall be substituted for "High Court": Provided that, for the purposes of the appeal, to the High Court under Section twenty-two hereof, the judges of the Court of Session named for the purpose of hearing appeals under the Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Acts shall be substituted for the High Court, and sheriff court shall be substituted for county court.
  (2) Any order of a referee as to costs shall be enforceable as a recorded decree arbitral.
  (3) Sub-section (2) of Section two of this Act shall be construed as if after paragraph (d) thereof the following paragraph were added (that is to say):—
  (e) where the occasion is the grant of any feu of the land or the creation of any ground annual thereon, the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration for such grant or creation, by way of feu duty, ground, annual, or otherwise.
  Where Increment Value Duty falls to be collected on a feu contract or feu charter or a contract of ground annual, it shall be paid by the person by whom or on whose behalf the feu is granted or the ground annual is created, and for the purposes of this Part of this Act that person shall be deemed to be the transferor or the transferor on sale and the contract or charter to be the instrument, and the expressions "transfer" and "transfer on sale" shall be construed accordingly.
  The expressions "lessor" and "lessee" include a sub-lessor and sub-lessee and the heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns of a lessor and lessee respectively.
  Drafting Amendments made.
  Mr. YOUNGER Mr. YOUNGER moved, at end of Subsection (1), to insert: (2) The provisions of Section twenty of this Act (which refers to Mineral Rights Duty) shall be subject to the following modification, that is to say, that any proprietor or lessor of any minerals who is liable as such proprietor or lessor to pay any local rate in respect of such minerals shall be entitled to toe relieved in any year from the payment of Mineral Rights Duty as such proprietor or lessor up to the amount so paid by him in that year in respect of local rates.
  This Amendment raises a very important question from the point of view of the owners in Scotland, who will be penalised in comparison with their English neighbours if some allowance is not made for the rates which they have to pay. The owners in Scotland are subject to rates rising to two or three shillings in the £, and it is not merely a hardship, but quite intolerable if some allowance is not made to them from the corpus of the annual rental for these duties which they have to pay; more particularly when you consider that the municipalities are under this Bill to receive half of this tax. I do not think that this is a concession at all. It is simply a matter of right.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I could not possibly accept this Amendment. In the first place, I have not had an opportunity of seeing what the effect of this new Amendment would be, or whether it represents a substantial deduction.
  Mr. YOUNGER: It would be about on an average two shillings in the £, not of the duty, but of the assessable amount. On £2,000 it would be £100.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is quite impossible for me now with the time at my disposal to investigate this Amendment and its effect, as in its present form it is fundamentally different from the Amendment which was put down on the Paper. Perhaps fiscally it may not mean very much, but on the general principle I do not see why the rates should be deducted. Rates are not deducted from any other tax under this Bill or any other Bill.
  Mr. YOUNGER: They are paid in Scotland. That is the essential difference.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am dealing with Scotland. You do not deduct the rates before you arrive at Schedule A in Scotland.
  Mr. YOUNGER: A certain allowance is made for rates.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: All I can say is that that is very different from any other country.
  Mr. YOUNGER: That is exactly my point.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not see why rates should be deducted in Scotland and not here for arriving at Schedule A, and if they are not deducted for Schedule A I do not see why they should be deducted for arriving at the Mineral Rights Duty. In paying Land Tax in this country these properties which pay rates are on exactly the same basis as those which do not It does not affect the matter one way or another. I do not see why the Mineral Rights Duty should be in the slightest degree controlled by rates. It would be a very serious principle for the Government in establishing a new tax to take into account the rates paid by the property taxed. The dominant interest of taxation is the Imperial. After all, I do not think you ought to make the amount which is contributed to Imperial revenue subject in the slightest degree to the amount contributed to local funds. That is a very serious principle, which I could not possibly accept.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I quite understand the difficulty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in having to consider an Amendment which has been very materially modified from the form in which it stands on the Paper. If I make a complaint at all of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it is not that he is not prepared to accept an Amendment of this kind, which he only sees in manuscript almost at the moment it is moved, but that the Government have not themselves put down any proposal for dealing with this particular case. Just consider what it is, and how far the Chancellor of the Exchequer's general observations about taxation are applicable to it. If we were dealing with Income Tax, I should not like to say offhand whether he had or had not very good grounds for all he said; but what is the basis of these taxes, especially of the Mineral Tax? Repeatedly the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the man who is drawing great sums in royalties is contributing nothing to local taxation. It is true that in this portion of the country he contributes nothing to local taxation, but in Scotland that is not so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has recognised that the local authorities are to have, not the raising of the tax, but the spending of the tax, by giving half the tax back to them. That being so, is it right that the owner of minerals in Scotland who does contribute to local rates should be treated exactly like the English owner who does not contribute? Whatever you take from the English owner, surely you ought to take something less from the Scotch owner. My hon. Friend in this Amendment asks for nothing more than that the Scotch owner should be permitted to deduct from the assessment the actual amount contributed in rates, and I do not think that is an unreasonable proposal. I am quite certain that this is a matter which ought to have been dealt with by the Government.
  Mr. JOHN S. AINSWORTH: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give this matter consideration. In Scotland the owner of minerals contributes to local rates, and certainly everybody who understands the position would think it only fair that under these circumstances the Scotch owner should be able to deduct the amount which he contributes to the local treasury. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to deal with this so as to avoid what would undoubtedly be unfair in the case of the owner of minerals in Scotland, and also in a number

  805
  of cases in England where owners contribute to the local exchequer. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to concede the point.
  Mr. ALEXANDER FINDLAY: I may point out that the feeling in Scotland is that mineral proprietors there ought to pay a very much larger share. I am credibly informed that in the case of a pit which is being sunk in Scotland they expect to get a thousand tons a day, and the royalty to be paid will amount to about £8,000 a year from that one pit. Not only that, but in the district to which I refer there is a duty to be paid in respect of the surface of the ground, and
  those who build upon that ground will have no security against the coal being worked underneath and letting down their houses, thus destroying their property without any compensation being given to the owners of that property by those who work the minerals. The feeling among the public of Scotland, at any rate, is that in equity those proprietors who own the land right down to the centre of the earth—or assume to do so—ought to contribute very much more largely than they do in the public interest.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 168.

  Division No. 840.]

  AYES.

  [7.53 p.m.

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

  Foster, P. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gretton, John

  Percy, Earl

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cave, George

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Jolcey-

  Keswick, William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Lamont, Norman

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Duucan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Younger and Sir H. Craik.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Oddy, John James

  Forster, Henry William

  NOES.

  Abraham W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hudson, Walter

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Agnew, George William

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Alden, Percy

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Elibank, Master of

  Jackson, R. S.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Erskine, David C.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Essex, R. W.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Barker, Sir John

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jowett, F. W.

  Beale, W. P.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Bell, Richard

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lambert, George

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Ginnell, L.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Glover, Thomas

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lynch, H. B.

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gulland, John W.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Maclean, Donald

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Cameron, Robert

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hedges, A. Paget

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

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Clough, William

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Higham, John Sharp

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Marnham, F. J.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hodge, John

  Massie, J.

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Crossley, William J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Toulmin, George

  Napier, T. B.

  Rowlands, J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Vivian, Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Sears, J. E.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Seely, Colonel

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Shackleton, David James

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Radford, G. H.

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Steadman, W. C.

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Winfrey, R.

  Rees, J. D.

  Summerbell, T.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Amendment made: To add at the end of the Clause, "(4) Where arrangements are made under Section four of this Act for dispensing with the presentation of any instrument or particulars thereof, it shall be the duty of the keeper of the general register of sasines, and of the respective keepers of burgh or other local registers, to furnish to the Commissioners particulars of instruments presented for registration or registered in their respective registers as may be prescribed by regulations of the Commissioners, and in such case the provisions of Sub-section three of Section four shall not apply."—[Mr. Ure.]
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to move, "That the proceedings under the Bill be now adjourned until to-morrow."
  I do this for the reason that I think we had better start on the new subject [Licensing Clauses] to-morrow. I understand that course to be for the convenience of all parties in the House. I should like to suggest that it is very desirable we should, if possible, get to the end of this stage on Friday, at a fairly reasonable hour. I looked through the Amendments and I do not see any reason why we should not do so. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) would say something on that suggestion.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking in not proceeding further this evening is for the convenience of everybody, and I am much obliged to him for so arranging business. As regards what may happen and what time may be taken upon the rest of the Bill I do not want to say anything to dispel the hopes which he cherishes. On the other hand, he perfectly understands that we cannot treat this Motion as in any way binding us to finish the Bill at a particular time.
  808
  [Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE assented.] It is recognised everywhere that the discussion on the Report stage has been very expeditious, considering the nature of the subjects; as expeditious as it could possibly be in reason. I have no reason to anticipate that other parts of the Bill will be differently dealt with. There is a vast deal of important matter still to be got through, and I certainly could not come to any agreement.
  Mr. YOUNGER: While I am sure no one desires to prolong discussion on the Licensing Clauses to any unnecessary length an Amendment has been placed on the Paper to Clause 44, which would require a very considerable amount of discussion, almost so much as to necessitate the recommital of the Bill, although I do not say so provided a certain latitude is allowed in discussing it so that we can thresh it out as we would in Committee. It is a very important alteration, and must be borne in mind in considering the time.
  RESOLVED: That the proceedings under the Bill be now adjourned until to-morrow.
  ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved "That this House do now Adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
  House adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Eight o'clock.