Commons Sitting of 22 September 1909

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

  Naval Floating Docks (Tenders).
  Mr. RENWICKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any contracts have been entered into by the Admiralty for the construction of floating or other dry docks on the North-East Coast of England suitable for the docking of vessels of the "Dreadnought" type; and, if so, in what ports will they be placed, and when will they be ready to receive such vessels?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): Tenders for two floating docks suitable for vessels of the "Dreadnought" type have recently been called for, but have not yet been received, and no date for their completion can therefore yet be given. A decision as to the port at which they will be placed will be given in good time for all necessary preparations to be made for their reception.
  Mr. RENWICK: May I ask whether these are not the two dry docks that were intended for Chatham and Portsmouth, or are they the two docks intended for the North East Coast?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have stated that "a decision as to the port at which they will be placed will be given in good time for all necessary preparations to be made for their reception."
  Mr. RENWICK: Are these the two dry docks that we were told were to be ordered for Portsmouth and Chatham?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; the hon. Member has never been told that two dry docks were to be ordered for Portsmouth and Chatham.

  Naval Intelligence Department.
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the reasons for dispensing with the services of the two naval officers of the Naval Intelligence Department who were called before the Sub-Committee of Imperial
  392
  Defence by Lord Charles Beresford, seeing that no specific reorganisation of the Department has yet been carried out?
  Mr. McKENNA: A reorganisation of the Department is being carried out, and in consequence of the changes involved the services of the two officers in question will not be required after they have been carried into effect.
  Captain FABER: Is it a mere coincidence that one of these officers was ordered away the very day that the inquiry ceased?
  Mr. McKENNA: Coincidence has nothing to do with it.
  Captain FABER: Then why was he ordered away?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; the hon. Gentleman is in error. The officer in question was invited to take his holiday from the date. [Laughter.] I do not in the least desire to answer the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the Prime Minister's definite pledge that officers who gave evidence before this inquiry should not have their careers prejudiced in any way, he will take steps to remedy the unfortunate impression which will be created if these officers' careers at the Admiralty came to a termination under these circumstances?
  Mr. McKENNA: No "unfortunate impression" will be created as the hon. Gentleman says. The services of the officer in question came to a termination with the Admiralty in the ordinary course, and he will be employed in the ordinary course when his turn comes.
  Captain FABER: Is it not the fact that the officer in question was responsible for the Admiralty manœuvres and was sent away just before they began?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must decline to answer any further supplementary questions from the hon. Member.
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he will state whether the new scheme for the reorganisation of the Naval Intelligence Department, as a war staff, will be promulgated before the end of the Session; and whether it will involve an increase in the Naval Estimates?
  Mr. McKENNA: As the date of the end of the Session is uncertain, I am unable to reply to the first part of the question.

  393
  With regard to the second part—the increase in the Estimates, if any, will be small.

  Wreck of Steamship "Maori."
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if he has seen the report of the inquiry about the wreck of the "Maori"; and if he intends taking action to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The report was received last Saturday, and the Secretary of State is in correspondence with the Board of Trade as to it.

  South African War (Deaths of Civilians).
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can say if there have been many inquiries made as to the whereabouts of British subjects who were engaged in civil pursuits in South Africa during the period of the late war; can he say whether a record has been kept of all deaths from disease, wounds, or other causes of such persons during the same time; and, if not, will steps be taken to prepare such a list, seeing that insurance companies refuse, in the absence of a certificate of death, to accept circumstantial evidence of such deaths and put the relatives of such missing persons to the expense of asking leave of the courts to presume death?
  Colonel SEELY: Numerous inquiries have been addressed to the Colonial Office of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend, and the Colonial Governments have, at the request of the Secretary of State, readily assisted in endeavouring to trace missing persons. The Secretary of State does not, however, think that he can fairly ask them to incur the inconvenience and expense of preparing such a list, but inquiry will be made in any particular case which my hon. Friend may bring to notice.

  FINANCE BILL.

    TRADE WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any Reports have been received from the Consuls and Business Agents in France or Germany as to the feeling with regard to the Budget in those countries, and the effect it will have upon trade between those countries and Great Britain; and if there are any Re-
    394
    ports or Papers on the subject which can be presented to this House?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have not received any such Reports or other communications from France or Germany.
    Mr. FELL: I am unwilling to put these questions down if there is no object in doing so. May I ask if the Reports will come to the Board of Trade from the Consuls or business agents?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot at all understand how the Budget is likely to have any effect upon the trade between Great Britain and these countries.

    MINERAL DUTY (BRICK-CLAY).
    Captain FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that at the brick-making centre at Fletton the price of bricks has fallen from 23s. 10½d. in 1898 to 10s. 6d. in 1909, or 1s. 6d. below cost price; and whether he will, therefore, take steps to exempt common brick-clay from the Mineral Duty?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): My right hon. Friend is not able to say whether the figures quoted by the hon. and gallant Member are correct. He is not prepared to introduce a special exemption for brick-clay.
    Captain FABER: May I ask whether there is any direct legal authority that brick-clay should not be treated as mineral?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I could not say.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of bricks has steadily fallen for three years?

    DEPRECIATED LAND VALUES.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked whether land which has been depreciated in value, or rendered valueless for building purposes, by refuse destructors, small-pox, fever, or consumption hospitals being placed in close proximity to it by local authorities, will be subject to the proposed Land Taxes?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Clause 14 of the Finance Bill provides that for the purposes of Part I. of the Bill the value of land will be its market value, which will allow for any depreciation due to surroundings.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES AND LAND DUTIES.
    Captain FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what registered friendly societies will be exempted from his proposed Amendment to Clause 25 of the Finance Bill, and what the total number of members are in such societies?
    The following questions were also on the Notice Paper:—
    Captin FABER: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state whether the National Deposit Friendly Society will be exempted from or included in his proposed Amendment to Clause 25 of the Finance Bill?
    Sir BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Manchester Unity of Odd-fellows has from time to time made a valuation in respect of each of its lodges, and that in many cases the funds show a balance in excess of its total liability, such balance being divisible amongst a certain number of members; and whether this practice would debar the Manchester Unity and other societies conducted on similar lines from the benefits of the exemption proposed in the Finance Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will answer these three questions together. My right hon. Friend has decided that from a practical point of view it is scarcely necessary, in connection with the exemptions provided for in Clause 25, to draw a distinction between the different types of friendly societies, and he has modified his proposed Amendment accordingly. The Amendment in its new form was placed on the Paper yesterday.

    BEER AND SPIRIT DUTIES.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will say how much out of £100 worth of beer of a specific gravity of 1.055 at 33s. for 36 gallons will be paid to the State as duty by a retailer of beer after the passing of the Finance Bill; how much out of £100 worth of whisky of 25 per cent. below proof at 18s. a gallon will be paid to the State as duty by a retailer of whisky after the passing of the Finance Bill; and how much out of £100 worth of champagne at 120s. a dozen will be paid by a wine merchant as duty to the State?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The duty on 60 20–33rd barrels of beer of 36 gallons each brewed in the United Kingdom, and of a specific gravity of 1.055 deg., would be £23 9s. 8 4–11d. The duty on 111 1–9th gallons of whisky, strength 25 per cent.
    396
    under proof, would be £61 9s. 2d. The duty on 16 8–12th dozen reputed quart bottles of champagne would be £6 5s.
    Mr. HUNT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the increase in the taxation on the working man's whisky up to 300 per cent. and on his beer up to 31 per cent. is the latest great effort of the Liberal party to lessen the burden of taxation on the poor?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which should be reserved for Debate.

    ROYALTY ON SURFACE CLAY.
    Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to impose a tax upon the estimated royalty value of common surface clay excavated by the owner of the land and used by him for carrying on his industry of brick and tile making; and, if so, whether he can state how it is intended to estimate the value of the royalty?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the value of the royalty will be estimated on the basis of what a tenant would give for the right to work the clay.
    Mr. MACKARNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House of Lords decided in a case brought before it on appeal that surface clay is not mineral, and whether he proposes that this clay should be subject to the duty?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: In the case the hon. Member refers to no tax will be imposed.
    Mr. MACKARNESS: Is it not proposed to place any other interpretation on this clay than that which has been placed upon it by the courts?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Does it mean a tax on the royalty or a tax on the clay?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It means a tax on the royalty.

    BRITISH AND FOREIGN SECURITIES.
    Mr. LANE-FOX (for Mr. Leverton Harris)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would say by how many points respectively the following Government securities have risen or fallen between 1st September, 1908, and 1st September, 1909; British Two and a-half Per Cent. annuities, French Three Per Cent. Rentes, German Three Per Cents., Italian Five Per Cents., and Spanish Four Per Cents.?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The prices of the securities mentioned on the 1st September, 1908, and 1st September, 1909, respectively, were as follows:—

    Price on 1st September.

    1908.

    1909.

    Two and a-half Per Cent. Consols

    86¼

    …

    84 9/16

    Two and a-quarter Per Cent. Annuities.

    84½

    …

    83

    French Three Per Cent. Rentes

    96

    …

    97½

    German Imperial Three Per Cent. Loan

    84

    …

    85½

    Italian Three and three-quarters Per Cent. Rentes (formerly Five Per Cent.

    103

    …

    103

    Spanish Four Per Cent. Sealed Bonds

    94¾

    …

    95¾

    Sir F. BANBURY: Am I to gather that every foreign security has risen except ours?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes; I believe that is so, owing to the uncertainty as to whether the Budget will be passed.

  DEVELOPMENT BILL.

    DANGEROUS HIGHWAYS.
    Dr. RUTHERFORDasked whether provision is made in the Development and Road Improvement Funds Bill to improve roads which form part of the great highways and which, through congestion of traffic, have become a public danger, but which the local authorities cannot afford to improve?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I may perhaps call my hon. Friend's attention to Clause 6 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Bill, which provides that the Road Board shall have power, with the approval of the Treasury, to make advances to highway authorities towards the improvement of existing roads which appear to the Board to be required for facilitating motor traffic.

  Land Purchase (North Tyrone).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Solicitor-General for Ireland if he will say how many agricultural tenants in North Tyrone have not yet purchased their holdings; how many of these have, since the second reading of the Irish Land Bill, expressed their willingness to purchase at higher prices and a higher rate of interest than their neighbours who have purchased are pay-
  398
  ing; and when and in what manner did they so express themselves?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): The Land Commission, whom I have consulted, are unable to state the approximate number of tenants in North Tyrone who have not yet purchased their holdings, as the statistics of the Commission are not compiled according to Parliamentary Divisions. I have no information with regard to the matters referred to in the concluding portion of the question.

  Small Holdings (Newborough).
  Mr. NICHOLLSasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if the Commissioner for the Board has concluded his inquiry as to the demand for small holdings at Newborough; if he is satisfied with the means and ability of the applicants; if the substance of his Report has been communicated to the county council of the Soke of Peterborough; if the council has given any indication to the Board that it is prepared to reconsider its decision not to supply small holdings to more than seven applicants; and, if no such indication has been given, what steps the Board now intend to take to supply small holdings to the men who have satisfied the Commissioner and for whom the council refuse to provide land?
  Mr. BOULTONasked the hon. Member for South Somerset if the Commissioner has reported to the Board on the inquiry as to small holdings at Newborough; if so, how many men has he interviewed; how many men is he prepared to recommend for small holdings; how many acres will be required to satisfy the demand by the men he is prepared to recommend; and as the county council for the Soke of Peterborough has declined to supply small holdings, what steps the Board of Agriculture intend to take to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioner?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): The Assistant Commissioner reports that he interviewed 20 of the applicants, and that in addition to the eight applicants whom the county council have approved he considers there are 16 others for whom holdings should be provided. He estimates that 344 acres in all are required for the purpose. We propose now to communicate these facts to the county council with a view to their taking the necessary steps to carry out the requirements of the Act.

  Co-operative Agricultural Credit Banks.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), having regard to the importance of agriculture, the small means of many undertaking it in Ireland under new conditions, and the necessity for protecting them against usurers, whether the Department will prepare a leaflet explaining the methods and advantages of a sound system of co-operative agricultural credit banks, and distribute this among purchasers of small farms and district councillors in all parts of Ireland?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (IRELAND) (Mr. T. W. Russell): The Department have already published a pamphlet on this subject. The Department's scheme under which assistance is given to agricultural credit societies is at present being considered with a view to revision. When the scheme is revised the question of issuing a leaflet will be considered.

  Tweed Fishery Poaching (Case of William Norris).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to the case of William Norris, a boy of 14 years of age, who was, on the 2nd instant, sentenced by Sheriff-Substitute Baillie at Jedburgh to be birched for taking trout from Bowmont Water; whether the prosecution was a private one or was initiated by any official acting under the Tweed fishery laws; whether any sentences of birching have up to the present time been passed as regards offences against the Tweed fishery laws; and if The Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, is applicable to such cases?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. A. Dewar): Inquiry has been made, and it appears that the prosecution was not a private one or under the Tweed Acts, but was at the instance of the Procurator Fiscal for contravention of the Trout and Freshwater Fish Acts by taking 42 trout by means of wire snares. Two boys were prosecuted, both of whom pled guilty. Norris, being under 14 years of age, was sentenced to four strokes of the birch. The Probation Act is applicable, but I am informed that the boy had been previously twice convicted of malicious mischief, and had been repeatedly cautioned by the police.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think that it is an atrocious punishment for a boy?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Will my hon. Friend take steps to see that the penalty of birching shall not be inflicted on small boys for catching trout?
  Mr. DEWAR: I am afraid the Act of Parliament says that birching may be inflicted in the discretion of the sheriff in certain cases, and here my hon. Friend will notice that the boy had been twice previously convicted.
  Mr. W. THORNE: To whom did the trout belong?
  Sir J. JARDINE: Was the boy assisted by any Probation officer at the trial, in the same way as is done in the Probation Count of Glasgow?
  Mr. DEWAR: I cannot say; but I shall be very glad to inquire.

  Barking Police Station (Fair Wages Clause).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the contractors building the new police station at Barking have sub-let the stone work; if he will state whether this is a violation of the Fair Wages Clause; and if he intends taking action in the matter?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): The contractors have sub-let the stonework at the new police station at Barking, and have done so without the Receiver's consent, as required by their contract. Full inquiry has been made in the matter, and it has been ascertained that the full trades union rate of wages has been paid. I am considering whether any further steps should be taken.

  Roll of Baronetage (Appointment of Registrar).
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Home Secretary whether he can now give a definite answer to the questions previously put in the House by the Member for the City of London, and also on a previous occasion by the Member for South Kensington, as to whether he has appointed a registrar to keep a roll of the

  401
  baronetage, as recommended by the Report of his Departmental Committee made so long ago as 12th December, 1906?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask who is the Member for the City of London? There used to be two. Has the Tariff Reformer swallowed up the other?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I regret that I am not yet in a position to give a definite answer. The matter is not altogether under my control. Perhaps the hon. Baronet will take an opportunity of speaking to me about it.
  Mr. MacNEILL: When the roll is ready will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a tax on baronetcies and hereditary titles?

  Post Office Clerkships (Competitive Examinations).
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked whether it is intended to abolish the present system of examination whereby Civil Service candidates are appointed to Post Office clerkships (supplementary establishment); and, if so, will competitive examinations still be arranged to give Civil servants an opportunity of improving their position?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): There is no intention of abolishing the system of examination referred to.

  Offensive Matter (Transmission through Post).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to an envelope which is being used by an anti-Socialist organisation, presided over by a Member of this House, and on which is printed in red ink the words socialism and murder; whether it is a breach of the Post Office regulations to make His Majesty's mails the vehicle for propagating an offensive innuendo against a political movement; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Postmaster-General has authority to stop in the post any packet on which there appears words of an "indecent, obscene, or grossly offensive character." The inscription in question, however, whatever may be thought of its taste, appears to me too inept and devoid
  402
  of meaning to be regarded as coming within these terms.

  Technical Instruction Giants (Ireland).
  Mr. CONOR O'KELLYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), if he will state the basis on which grants are allocated by the Department to the county committees for technical instruction; and whether he has received any resolution from the county Mayo committee on the subject?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: The amount of the grants made in aid of schemes of technical instruction are fixed by the Department, with the concurrence of the Technical Board, having regard to the necessities of the district and the nature of the scheme submitted. A resolution has been received from the County Mayo Committee to the effect that the Department's grant in aid of the Mayo scheme should be increased. The Department are not at present prepared to accede to this application, as the Committee have a large unexpended balance on hand, which is more than sufficient for their present schemes.

  Great Eastern Railway (Discontinuance of Passenger Service).
  Mr. BRANCHasked the President of the Board of Trade if it has come to his notice that the Great Eastern Railway Company have given notice to the district council of Enfield that as from the 1st October next it is their intention to relinquish the passenger service on their Edmonton and Cheshunt branch lines, including the stations at Churchbury, Forty Hill, and Theobald's Grove; and whether, in view of the inconvenience that will be caused to those living and travelling in these districts, he will use his powers to prevent this being done?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): The matter to which my hon. Friend refers is not one in which the Board of Trade has any jurisdiction, but I have communicated with the railway company thereon and have received a reply, of which I am sending him a copy.

  Irish Manufactures (Fraudulent Sale).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the recent convictions before a London police magistrate of persons exhibiting and selling as Irish certain articles not of Irish origin or

  403
  manufacture; and if he will say why the laws for the protection of British industries against such practices are not put in force by the Crown when the industries assailed in this manner are Irish?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Board of Trade are authorised by the Merchandise Marks Act, 1891, to undertake the prosecution of offenders under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, in cases appearing to the Board to affect the general interests of the country or of a Section of the community or of a trade, and are prepared at any time to consider applications to take such action, in accordance with the regulations framed in pursuance of Section 2 (1) of the Act of 1891. Their readiness to take action is not affected by the question of whether the industries involved are English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish. I may add that the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction are receiving the assistance of the Board of Trade in connection with prosecutions of the nature in question.

  Prussian State Railways.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state, for the Prussian State railways and the British railways respectively, for the years 1906, 1907, and 1908, the amount of net profit and the percentage of profit on the capital employed?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will have such information as is available printed in the Votes.

  Labour Exchanges (Appointment of Officials).
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make such arrangements for the appointment of officials to the new Labour Exchanges as shall altogether preclude Members of Parliament from either nominating or being asked to nominate persons to fill the situations?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already explained the procedure which I propose to adopt in order to fill the appointments to be made in connection with Labour Exchanges in the reply given on 9th September to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for the Market Harborough Division. No nomination by a Member of Parliament is necessary, and I would suggest to my hon. Friend that the most convenient
  404
  form of answering such requests would be to refer the applicants to the committee of selection who have been appointed, and who will deal impartially with all applications which reach them through the Secretary of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether in this, as in some other cases of appointments, the applicant should not be disqualified for bringing undue pressure?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I do not think that is necessary at all. I think the Committee will make their own rules for sifting the different applications, and will deal with them in their own way. I do not see why Members of Parliament should not have the right to make the same recommendations as others.
  Mr. MYER: What is the object of nomination by a Member of Parliament?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no nomination of any kind. The applications, which are sent to the Secretary of the Board of Trade, will be submitted to investigation upon a definite principle.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in connection with nominations for sub-postmasterships, any recommendation of a Member of Parliament disqualifies the applicant on whose behalf it is made, and whether it would not be a good rule to apply in this case also?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know that that is the practice of the Postmaster-General.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Other things being equal, will people who apply from the locality have first consideration?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have put the matter in the hands of a Committee, and I think that is much the better way. I will be bound by what the Committee do.

  European Through Freights.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the fact that Sir Francis Oppenheimer's Consular Report from Frankfort of 1909 states that a German trader can send 5,000 kilos of rails from Frankfort to Constantinople for a through freight rate, including railway and steamship, of a little over 2s. per 100 kilos, 220 pounds; and if he can state how much a British trader would have to pay for a similar service?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I will endeavour to obtain some information on the point referred to in the last part of the question and will communicate with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. MYER: Is it not part and parcel of the German system of assisting trade at the public expense? What would be the charge for goods of a similar weight carried for the same distance within the German Empire?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I could not answer that question off-hand.

  Railway Rates.
  Sir WALTER MENZIESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the trader can only appeal to the Railway Commissioners when a railway company proposes to increase rates, he will propose such legislation as will enable a trader to appeal to the Commissioners for a reduction of existing rates, which, in his opinion, and in new circumstances which may have arisen, are excessive and a hindrance to legitimate trade?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Whatever be the merits of the suggestion of my hon. Friend, its adoption would obviously involve a new departure of a serious kind, as it would virtually make the Railway and Canal Commission a rate-fixing authority within the Limits of the maxima prescribed by Parliament I do not think that the propriety of such legislation can be satisfactorily discussed in an answer to a question, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Board of Trade are fully alive both to the importance and the complexity of the whole matter, and that his suggestion will be duly noted.

  United States Revised Tariff.
  Mr. YOUNGERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the recent increase in the United States tariff took effect upon British goods the moment the Bill was signed, that German goods will not pay the advance till February, nor Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch till August next year; and that upon French goods six months' notice, antedated to April last, has been given; and whether he has made, or proposes to make, any protest against such preferences in the interest of British manufacturers?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The statement in the question is not correct. With the exception of spirits and one or two articles of no importance to British manufacturers, which were included in reciprocal agreements requiring notice of termination of varying lengths, the new rates came into simultaneous operation, and all British goods imported into the United States are at present subject to the same rates of Customs duty as those imported from the other countries named in the question. With reference to the temporary continuance of the discrimination against British spirits, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the questions addressed to him on 2nd and 13th September by the hon. Member for Worcester, to which I cannot add anything.
  Mr. HUNT: Is it not the fact that in the case of lace goods from Nottingham our manufacturers have to pay a higher rate to go to America than Germany and one or two other countries?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a question which is out of my jurisdiction.

  Automatic Couplings.
  Mr. MONDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to an apparatus for the automatic coupling of railway trucks called the Boirault coupler; whether he is aware that the French Minister of Public Works stated at a sitting of the Chamber of Deputies on 29th May, 1909, that it had given very favourable results after extended trials, and that this coupler has also been successfully tried in September, 1909, by the Swiss Federal Department of Posts and Railways and the general managers of the Swiss Federal Railways; and whether he will take steps to have the suitability of this coupler investigated with a view to its adoption on English railways.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The apparatus came under the notice of the Board of Trade some time ago, but I am not aware of the recent developments in regard to it to which my hon. Friend refers. The whole question of automatic couplings is discussed in a Memorandum prepared by Colonel Yorke, the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways, of which I am forwarding my hon. Friend a copy.

  Board of Trade Returns (Classification).
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the fact that, in the annual statement of trade of the United Kingdom, in the tables showing consignments from Germany a very large quantity of articles obviously not the produce of Germany are included, such as caoutchouc, cocoa, coffee, cotton, gutta-percha, jute, tin, ivory, etc., and if it is possible to classify separately such imports from Germany as are German special trade or German native produce or manufactures?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think it would be practicable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. Such a re-classification could not be confined to consignments from Germany; it could not be carried out completely even for Germany; and it would take no account of the manipulation in Germany of products originating elsewhere. The question of the countries to which imported goods should be accredited in the Official Trade Accounts was fully considered last year by a Departmental Committee, of which Sir Robert Giffen was chairman, who unanimously reported in favour of showing in the accounts the country from which the goods were consigned, irrespective of whether or not that country was the actual country of origin or manufacture.
  Mr. MONDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the following articles are included in the import list of the Board of Trade Returns among the articles classified as wholly or mainly manufactured, namely, tin, copper, zinc, piglead, quicksilver, indigo, barks for tanning, leather, skins and furs dressed, oil-seed cake, paraffin wax, and stone slabs and marble rough-hewn; and whether, in order to obtain a more accurate division of imports, these articles could be transferred to Schedule 2, raw materials or articles mainly manufactured?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend will remember that on 24th April, 1907, he addressed a similar question to my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sending him a copy of the answer then given, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. MOND: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself has stated
  408
  that we import £142,000,000 worth of manufactured goods, is it not time the Schedule was altered?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not a very easy matter to draw a distinction between the different grades of manufactured, partly manufactured, mainly unmanufactured goods and raw materials, and admittedly there are many cases in the classification to which exception might be taken. But we have not only to think of drawing the classifications accurately. We have also to think of the importance of comparing the statistics of one year with another, and the desire to keep a continuity of statistics which will enable comparisons to be made between one year and another, which has prevented those re Forms in the form of presenting statistics, which are no doubt highly desirable.

  Labourers' Cottages (Mitchelstown).
  Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the Local Government Board have refused to sanction the plan of cottages submitted to them by the Mitchelstown (No. 2) District Council; and, in view of the fact that the labourers as well as the ratepayers are at one as regards the suitability of the plan submitted by the district council, will steps be taken to have the plans submitted approved of, and thus allow the building of the cottages to go on?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): The plans submitted to the Local Government Board by the Mitchelstown (No. 2) Rural District Council did not comply with the Board's general standard of requirements cither as to cubic content or the height of the rooms in the cottages. On the 22nd ultimo the rural district council forwarded a new plan to the Board, which they are prepared to approve of subject to some slight amendments which they require the council to carry out.

  Evictions in Ireland.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say how many agricultural tenants have been evicted in Ireland since 1903?
  Mr. CHERRY: I am informed by the constabulary authorities that the total number of Irish agricultural tenants evicted between 1st January, 1903, and 30th June, 1909, was 1,296.

  Grehan Estate (County Cork).
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners can see their way to enter into communication with Mr. John J. Therry, junior, Mooresfort, county Tipperary, regarding his expressed willingness to give up the lands formerly in the occupation of Miss Clahane and other evicted tenants on the Grehan estate, Kildorrery, county Cork, with the view of their reinstatement as tenant purchasers, if the Commissioners can arrange to provide him with land of equivalent value elsewhere, and seeing also that the owner will place no difficulty in the way of the acquirement of these lands by the Commissioners?
  Mr. CHERRY: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member on 15th October last.
  Mr. W. ABRAHAM: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of Mr. Therry's expressed willingness to sell, the Estates Commissioners will make inquiry in the matter?
  Mr. CHERRY: The answer my right hon. Friend gave was that the Estates Commissioners were not aware that Mr. Therry was willing to surrender the farm, but that they were prepared to consider any representation he might make to them.

  Lands at Ballyhaunis, County Mayo.
  Mr. CONOR O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board propose to open negotiations for the purchase of the property of Mr. Austin Freely, situate at Course, Ballyhaunis, county Mayo, with the object of enlarging and improving the holdings on the property?
  Mr. CHERRY: If the owner institutes proceedings before the Estates Commissioners for the sale of this estate it will be dealt with in order of priority, but up to the present no such proceedings have been instituted, nor has the property been offered to the Congested Districts Board. That Board are not in a position to open negotiations for the purchase of any further estates owing to the want of funds for effecting improvements.
  Mr. CONOR O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have opened negotiations with Mr. Michael Delaney, of Ballyhaunis, for the purchase of the Carrownedin farm, in the county of Mayo, for the purpose of enlarging the very small holdings in the district in which the Carrownedin farm is situate?
  Mr. CHERRY: The farm in question has not been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board by Mr. Delany.
  Mr. CONOR O'KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Estates Commissioners the desirability of approaching this gentleman with the object of purchasing the property, seeing that the holdings in the neighbourhood are steeped in congestion?
  Mr. CHERRY: I will mention the matter. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Estates Commissioners have no power at present to make an offer themselves. They can only purchase if an owner is willing to sell.
  Mr. CONOR O'KELLY: I would suggest that in order to hasten the matter the Congested Districts Board ought to be asked to approach him.
  Mr. CHERRY: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is aware that under the Act as it stands there is no money to improve the lands. All depends on the passing of the Bill which is now before Parliament.

  Collooney—Belmullet Railway.
  Mr. CONOR O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a resolution from the Belmullet Rural District Council urging that the construction of the Collooney—Belmullet Railway should be proceeded with without delay; if he will say what are the obstacles that stand in the way of the construction of this railway, seeing that the county councils of Mayo and Sligo have passed resolutions, agreeing to the necessary guaranties; and that the Collooney and Blacksod Bill has received the Royal Assent?
  Mr. CHERRY: My right hon. Friend has not received the resolution referred to. I am not aware that there are any obstacles to the construction of the railway, except the want of money. The promoters of the undertaking are in; correspondence with the Irish Govern-

  411
  ment and the Treasury as to the conditions to be fulfilled before Government assistance can be given towards the construction of the line.

  Cloona Castle Grazing Farms.
  Mr. CONOR O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary if he will say when the Congested Districts Board propose to proceed with the distribution of the Cloona Castle grazing farms, near Ballinrobe, in the county of Mayo, among the local landholders?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Congested Districts Board have not up to the present been able to secure the possession of all the grass lands referred to. They have recently got possession of part of one farm, but the purchase is not completed, and they are not yet in a position to divide the land.

  Whaling Station, Blacksod.
  Mr. CONOR O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary if he will state whether he has received a resolution from the Mayo County Council protesting against the issue of a licence for the building of a whaling Station at or near Blacksod, in the county of Mayo; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (IRELAND) (Mr. T. W. Russell): My right hon. Friend has not received the resolution referred to, but he has been made aware of its tenour. The answer to the concluding portion of the question is in the negative. The licence to the Blacksod Whaling Company was issued after careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case, and the question cannot now be opened.
  Mr. O'KELLY: Has the Department of Agriculture in Ireland any power to revoke a licence once issued?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I would like notice of that question.

  Intermediate Examinations (Ireland).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that at a meeting in Dublin on Sunday last, attended by many thousands of people, a resolution was unanimously adopted protesting against what appears to be an injustice in connection with the results of the intermediate examinations in Irish, and
  412
  demanding that the papers be re-examined by other examiners; whether he has received any communication from the Board of Intermediate Education on the subject; and, if so, whether such communication will be laid before the House?
  Mr. CHERRY: I see by the newspapers that a resolution to the effect stated in the question was adopted at a meeting held in Dublin on Sunday last. My right hon. Friend has not received any communication from the Board of Intermediate Education on the subject.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Has he asked for any communication?
  Mr. CHERRY: No; he has no locus standi to ask for it.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Would he ask the Board of Intermediate Education what they intend to do in the matter?
  Mr. CHERRY: I do not think that the Board of Intermediate Education can be approached in that way. They are not under the control of the Irish Office.

  Grant to Evicted Tenant (County Limerick).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary if he can say what is the cause of the delay on the part of the Estates Commissioners in giving to James Dore, of Curraghnadeely, in the county of Limerick, evicted tenant on the estate of Lord Southwell, the grant to stock his holding which they promised him on signing the agreement to purchase his holding?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have sanctioned a grant for the purposes mentioned in the question, and an inspector has been authorised to supervise its expenditure.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the man be given the grant to spend or will it be spent for him?
  Mr. CHERRY: I cannot answer that question.
  Mr. DAVID SHEEHY: Is it the custom to give the grant to the evicted tenants to buy the cattle themselves?
  Mr. CHERRY: I think that they sometimes adopt one course and sometimes the other. As a rule I think they give the money to the tenant.
  Mr. SHEEHY: Why do not they do either one or the other?
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: For the purpose of stocking the farm will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Commissioners send an inspector to buy cattle, or give him the money to buy them at once?
  Mr. CHERRY: We really have no control over the Estates Commissioners in this. They do their own business, and we cannot be interfering in the details of the cases.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will he represent this matter as a matter of urgency?
  Mr. CHERRY: It is no more urgent than other matters of the same kind.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Has the right hon. Gentleman or the Chief Secretary any control in Ireland over any body at all?
  Mr. CHERRY: My right hon. Friend has control over the police.

  Adjustment of Purchase Agreements (Ireland).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners will take any action to adjust the financial relations between a landlord and his tenants who signed agreements to purchase their holdings between 1st November, 1908, and 1st January, 1909, on the basis that the landlord was to get a lesser bonus than 12 per cent., and who increased the purchase price to make up for the loss in bonus?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have no power to make any such adjustment as is suggested in the question.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: What is the position of the tenant who is paying 7 per cent. more on his annuity in order to make up for the loss which it was understood would be caused the landlord by the reduction in the bonus, and will the Commissioners take some steps to see that, if the landlord is now getting 12 per cent. bonus up to 1st January, 1909, the tenants are not charged the extra amount which was to be paid?
  Mr. CHERRY: The bonus to the landlord has nothing whatever to do with the annuity the tenant has to pay. He will have to pay whatever he agreed to pay.

  Soldiers' Pensions (Poor Law Charges).
  Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War what sum per week the Poor Law guardians can claim from an old soldier in a civilian hospital, that soldier having a life pension of eight-pence per day?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. F. D. Acland): The Poor Law authorities can claim the amount of parish relief advanced or expended on a man's account, provided that the amount is calculated at rates not exceeding the ordinary rates for pauper inmates and that not more than the daily rate of pension is claimed in respect of each day for which relief has been administered.
  Captain FABER: May we take it for granted that the Poor Law guardians would be wrong to charge more than a man's pension?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes. I do not think that they can charge more than the man's pension.

  Thoroughbred Horses (Military Purposes).
  Mr. RENWICKasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the shortage of horses for military purposes, he has considered the advisability of retaining in this country for the British Government some of the numbers of thoroughbred horses which, having been found unsuitable for racing, are sold in the autumn months, such horses being principally bought for military purposes in France, Germany, and Belgium, and for breeding and other purposes in South America?
  Mr. ACLAND: As there is no present shortage of horses for military purposes it does not appear necessary to consider the possibility of carrying out the hon. Member's suggestion.
  Mr. STANIER: Do not foreign Governments pay more for their horses than we?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes. They buy very largely a type of horse which is no use to us at all.
  Mr. RENWICK: Would not these horses which are suitable for foreign Governments be equally suitable for the British Government?
  Mr. ACLAND: We obtain a perfectly adequate supply of those that we want at a reasonable price.

  Rifle Ranges, Northumberland.
  Mr. RENWICKasked what number of rifle ranges suitable for shooting under the new conditions for rapid firing are at present available for the Territorial Forces in the county of Northumberland; and where such ranges are suitable?
  Mr. ACLAND: There are nine rifle ranges at present available in Northumberland for the Territorial Force shooting under the new conditions. The ranges are situated at Allendale Moor, Alnwick, Bellingham Moor, Chillingham Park, Hawkhope, Moor Laws, Whitley, Woodburn, and Wooler Common. As the Whitley range is used by the Regular troops, it has been closed to Territorials from May to August inclusive during the present year.
  Mr. RENWICK: Were these nine ranges in Northumberland already closed on account of the closing of others, and is it not the fact that there are no adequate facilities for the Territorials to carry out their firing?
  Mr. ACLAND: There are nine ranges. If the hon. Member indicates to us the places where ranges can be acquired at a reasonable price it will be considered.

  Soldiers' Defective Teeth.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked whether the 11 soldiers who were discharged during the week ending 19th September, 1909, at Colchester, on account of bad teeth, were discharged from the Army entirely, or only discharged from the colours to the first-class Army Reserve?
  Mr. ACLAND: Thirteen men of the 8th Hussars, who are under orders for service in India, were rejected as medically unfit on account of defective teeth. The sum of £1 per head is granted for dental treatment of men with defective teeth, but as the cost of such treatment was assessed at a larger sum for these men, they were given the option of paying the extra amount required to make their teeth sound or of being discharged as medically unfit for further service. Three men elected the former course and 10 the latter.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Were these men discharged entirely or relegated to the Army Reserve?
  Mr. ACLAND: They were discharged as medically unfit.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I understand that these men had passed through the earlier stages of their training, and would it not have been better, in consequence of these men being efficient soldiers for the Government to pay the necessary expenses and retain their services?
  Mr. ACLAND: The military authorities attach great importance to soundness of teeth, particularly when men are going on foreign service. If a man cannot get his teeth made sound it is very much better, especially considering the large number of suitable recruits coming forward at present, not to retain him.
  Mr. W. THORNE: They have lost the services of 11 men for the sake of £33?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Is the only reason for the rejection of these men the fact that it would have involved a certain amount of expense to the public to retain them?
  Mr. ACLAND: We do not think it justifiable, considering the other expenses we are put to, to pay more than £1 towards the expenses of putting a man's teeth right. If the teeth are so bad that the expenditure of that sum would not put them right, we prefer to dispense with the man's services.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Have you taken into consideration the amount of public money spent on these men to make them fit for service?
  Mr. J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Indian Government already have complained of the cost of the capitation charge, and that a soldier without good teeth is no use for India, as he cannot chew the tough mutton?

  Gordon Territorial Brigade at Aultmore.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that many complaints were made, both by officers and men as to the food, insufficiency of fuel for cooking, and scarcity of water at the camp of the Gordon Territorials at Aultmore this year, he will cause an inquiry to be made as to the reason for these complaints?
  Mr. ACLAND: No complaints from this brigade in regard to food, fuel, or water have reached the War Office. I have

  417
  already fully dealt with questions put by the hon. and gallant Member on the subject of food and water, and I do not propose to make any further inquiries.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the water was so short that many of the men had to shave with lemonade; and if things of that sort occur will it not have a very bad effect on recruiting?
  Mr. ACLAND: I do not think so. The only source of information in this matter is the hon. Member. I think that if affairs had gone wrong seriously we should have heard of it from the men themselves or their officers.
  Mr. HUNT: Will the hon. Gentleman not inquire in view of the fact that my information was straight from the camp itself?
  Mr. ACLAND: The hon. Member will remember that I gave a long answer previously, and the matter is by no means so bad as he would have us understand.
  Mr. HUNT: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the reply was extremely unsatisfactory?
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not the fact that if a man shaved with lemonade instead of water, the lemonade would take the edge off the razor?
  Mr. ACLAND: I do not doubt it.

  Military Officers (Superannuation).
  Mr. HUNTasked whether, in the case of an officer who had passed his captain's examination and was superannuated since the new scheme came in until this year, the grant of £20 will be given in order to meet the expense of the change of uniform?
  Mr. ACLAND: A supernumerary officer when absorbed in the force becomes eligible for a grant on the usual conditions to meet the cost of necessary replacements of serviceable volunteer uniform, which he has to discard, up to a maximum of £20.
  Mr. HUNT: If an officer is superannuated who has passed his captain's examination, and is taken on again, and he expends a sum of money, will he not be allowed the £20 in that case?
  Mr. ACLAND: I do not think we have any system of superannuating people and then taking them on again.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to inform the House as to the course of business next week?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease): I anticipate that the first days of next week will be devoted to the continuation, and I hope the completion of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. The Prime Minister has asked me to say that he hopes to be able to make a statement to-morrow with regard to next week's business.

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT.
Mr. C. BELLAIRS: I desire to ask your ruling, Sir, on a question of procedure in connection with questions to-day. The First Lord of the Admiralty, on a question which raised a very grave issue, said he would refuse to answer any further supplementary questions.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is in error in saying that. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not reply to any further supplementary questions from the hon. Member for Andover.
Mr. BELLAIRS: My question equally applies. I submit that it is not within the discretion of a Minister to refuse to answer questions which he has never heard; that he can only refuse to answer questions on the ground that they are not in the public interest, and that whether a question shall or shall not be answered rests with you, Sir.
Mr. SPEAKER: If an hon. Member asks a question, and then, when he receives an answer, jeers at it, he cannot expect to be very courteously treated by the Minister. If he wishes to be courteously treated by the Minister he should equally treat the Minister with courtesy.
Captain FABER: I feel I ought to say a word in consequence of the ruling from the Chair. The last thing I should wish to do would be to jeer at a Minister on any subject.
An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you?"
Captain FABER: I did not mean to jeer at any Minister, and if it was thought I did so I unreservedly say that I am very

419
sorry. I am afraid that I displayed some sign of amusement, because I could not help being amused at the reply, but I certainly did not mean to jeer.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[32nd Day.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

FINANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 52.—(Stamp Duty on Conveyances or Transfers on Sale.)
  The Stamp Duties chargeable under the heading "Conveyance or Transfer on Sale of any Property" in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891 (in this Part of this Act referred to as the principal Act) shall be double those specified in that Schedule: Provided that this Section shall not apply to the conveyance or transfer of any stock or marketable security as defined by Section one hundred and twenty-two of that Act.
  Mr. J. W. HILLS Mr. J. W. HILLS moved to leave out the word "double" ["double those specified"], and to insert the words "one-half of."
  I wish to make an appeal to the Government in respect to this duty. The Section doubles the Stamp Duty on all sorts of property, except stocks and shares. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in has speech on the Budget expressly said that he intended extra taxation to fall on landed property; and, in fact, it is quite clear that it will. If you except stocks and shares, by far the larger part of transactions are transfers of landed property, and therefore there is an extra tax being put upon landed property. In the first place, all economists are agreed that this is the worst form of getting your tax, because it will restrict and hamper the transfer of property. In this Budget we have already increased the tax on land, and now we are going to put a further tax on transfers of land. The Stamp Duty will be paid by the purchaser of land. Take the case of a small purchaser. In the first place, I quite agree that the exemption of £500 is something, but it does not go far enough. There are a great many small transactions which go over that limit.
  Take the case of a man who buys a few acres of land and spends a thousand pounds on it. He has now got to pay £5 taxes, and, if this Clause is passed,
  420
  it is increased to £10 for Stamp Duty. When you think of what happens, it is a very large proportion to the money that passes. Of that £1,000 the man will borrow the bulk of it on mortgage to the bank, and all the money that passes is £100, so that the tax you are imposing is 10 per cent. on the cash he has got to find. Surely all parties in this House wish to cheapen the transfer of land, and now you are going, in face of that fact, to impose extra taxes on the transfer. All it brings you in is about three-quarters of a million, and for that very small return you will do a vast amount of harm. What we want is to make the land pass freely from hand to hand, while this tax will very greatly restrict that operation. All economists, without exception, say that the worse time to collect a tax is in the form of a stamp on sale. I will quote one who is an authority. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) quite recently published an interesting book, "The Socialist Budget," in which he proposed very drastic changes in the fiscal system. Amongst those changes he proposed to take off the whole of the £8,000,000 of stamps, because he said it is a tax on business. I think, when you get opinions in all quarters against the tax, that it does give ground for inquiry. In my opinion the tax is too high already, and it is a suicidal proposal to double it. It does not affect the big landowner, the big buyer who can afford to pay the tax, but it falls very hardly on the small landlord, on the man who buys land for a £1,000 or so. I am afraid after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last night that we cannot expect a concession on this, but I do hope the Government will consider it. I believe they do want to cheapen the transfer of land, and I am perfectly certain that this is a bad way of doing it.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The proposal of the hon. Gentleman, if carried, would halve the already existing charge on transfers of land. As the hon. Gentleman knows as well, if not better, than any Member in the House, the charge has existed in its present form and to its present extent for more than half a century—since 1850. I think it was imposed in the time of Sir Charles Wood, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it has remained at that rate ever since that time. Though a great number of Ministers followed each other, and though great

  421
  fluctuation in the price of land has occurred, no Government on either side has ever reduced it. I think it would be necessary for the hon. Member to make out a very much stronger case than he has done not to prevent the rising, but to diminish the duty to one-half. His main arguments were these, that you are raising the charge upon land by this Clause, but you are not raising the charge in respect of stocks and shares. That is true so far as this Clause is concerned, but it is not true in so far as the rest of the Stamp Clauses are concerned, because there the Stock Exchange transactions have a very considerable increase placed upon them. Therefore those who deal in stocks and securities have an increased charge placed upon them, just as those who deal in land have a somewhat larger charge placed on them. I think he has also omitted—quite unintentionally, I am sure—to point out to the Committee the relief that is proposed to be given by the Amendment, which will be accepted by my right hon. Friend, with regard to transfers under the value of £500.
  Mr. HILLS: I did mention that.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think it was enforced, and that it is very important he will at once admit. He has entirely omitted to mention that there are very substantial concessions, not to those who pass land from hand to hand, but to those who hold land, made by the Bill by the alteration which has been promised in respect to Schedule A, and certainly by the relief which is given to local authorities for rating purposes by the transfer to them of half of the Land Duties we realise under this Bill. In addition to that there is the likelihood, which will eventually come to pass, of relief in respect to the charge for the aged poor. I think, having regard to those circumstances, that really no case has been made out for halving the duty, which baa been continued by every Government of whatever political complexion for more than half a century. In view of all those facts, the hon. Gentleman will see that it is impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: I understand my hon. Friend has moved this Amendment really more with a view to raising the general question than with the idea of any expectation of the Government accepting the proposal. I myself think perhaps it would be better to reserve any general remarks I have to make on this
  422
  particular Clause until the question, "That the Clause stand part." I regard the reply to my hon. Friend as extremely inadequate, and I can only give the impression it made on me, and as having some little practical acquaintance with land, I am bound to say that all those benefits which we are to receive, with the exception of that as to Schedule A, are illusory. I cannot help again pointing out, and I do hope we shall not again have it repeated, how is it possible to claim at one and the same time that this amount which is going to be given to the local authorities out of the Motor Tax, which is to be solely devoted to new roads for motorists, how that at the same time is to benefit the taxpayer? [An HON. MEMBER: "The Land Taxes."] It is to be in respect of the share of the Land Taxes, but that is a very small matter, and I think it will take a long time to filter through to the owner of land. I note the admission of the right hon. Gentleman that the burden of the rates and taxes does ultimately fall on the owner. I take it that that must be implied, because unless the burden of the rates, to which this relief is to be given, does fall indirectly on the owner, there can be no possible connection between the two items. With regard to old age pensions, I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that we have a right to ask that the benefit shall be actual before the return that he asks for is made operative. So far I have not become aware of any benefit gained by local rates through old age pensions. I do not think it is possible to prove financially that any such advantage does arise. Unemployment has increased, and is increasing throughout the country, and any advantage obtained through the operation of the Old Age Pensions Act is more than compensated for by that increase of unemployment, which throws a heavy burden on the ratepayers.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: If it is understood that we are to have a real Debate on the merits of this Clause, and that any question which could be raised on this Amendment will then be in order, I shall not be desirous of continuing the present discussion.
  The CHAIRMAN: There is no objection to raising the point on the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. J. W. HILLS: Under the circumstances I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. Still, I think the increase is mischievous, and the relief to land from

  423
  old age pensions is entirely illusory. We have had practical experience on that point in Victoria, showing that the granting of old age pensions does not diminish the cost of the relief of the poor.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. FREDERICK MADDISON Mr. FREDERICK MADDISON moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Schedule" ["specified in that Schedule"], to insert the words "except in cases where the amount or value of the consideration for the sale does not exceed five hundred pounds."
  I gathered this morning that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to accept this Amendment, with the addition of words to safeguard the Inland Revenue from the tax being evaded by the division of property into lots of under £500. I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for that concession. It is one which I think all Members, whatever their views on the general question of the Stamp Duties, will welcome. A large number of workmen in building societies, co-operative societies, and, to some extent, trade unions buy their houses, and most of them do not possess the whole of the purchase money of the property; therefore 30s. or £2 is a real deterrent to such transactions. But it was from the point of view not so much of the individual as of public policy that I placed this Amendment on the Paper. I hold the theory that no man ought to live in another man's house, and that the foundations of the State will never be so secure as when there is a large distribution of actual property in the country. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a handsome, but, I think, just concession to the landlords—and, if necessary, I should support it in the Lobby—so he is now giving a concession to a totally different class, thus showing how well balanced a Budget this is, doing fairly by all classes.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): I cannot go into the interesting question raised by my hon. Friend as to the advisability of every man living in his own house; but, dealing with this particular Amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to accept it in spirit.
  Mr. MADDISON: The right hon. Gentleman accepted more than the spirit; he accepted the substance.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The spirit and the substance. It is directed to freeing
  424
  from the increased Stamp Dunes transactions in the transfer of property of under £500 in value. The only reservation made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the transactions must be genuinely separate transactions; that is to say, that a transaction which in the aggregate amounts to £10,000 cannot be split up into 20 small transactions in order to get this relief in the matter of Stamp Duties. The question whether or not it is a separate transaction must be one for the Commissioners.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I understand that the Government have accepted not only the spirit, but the words of this Amendment?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: No; the substance.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Then this Amendment is not to be accepted?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: No.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The Government will propose a subsequent Amendment?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Yes, in another place in the Bill.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Will it be in Committee or on Report?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: On Report. It must come in this Clause, and, since by the arrangement come to last night this Clause will pass almost immediately, and it is better that the words should appear on the Paper, our Amendment will be put down for the Report stage.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The Amendment refers to the value of the consideration, and I understand the Solicitor-General to refer to the value of the property. The meanings are not exactly the same. Is the Amendment to be based on the value of the property or on the value of the consideration? I take it that when the Solicitor-General referred to the value of the property he meant the amount of the consideration in cash or the value of the consideration if it is in kind? I wish to raise the question of the instalment mortgage, whether it is charged on a house purchased under the Building Societies Act, or on a farm purchased under the Land Purchase Acts. When the hon. and learned Gentleman refers to the £500 consideration, does he refer simply to the amount which goes into the vendor's pocket? In other words,

  425
  suppose the owner of a house that has been bought under the Building Societies Acts sells his house for £500, and puts the money into his pocket. Will that transaction be exempted; will it come within the scope of the proposed Amendment?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANSnodded affirmatively.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I am glad of that assurance, because the effect of it will be that in considering the amount of consideration in that case the amount of the instalment mortgage will be exempted.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I do not wish to be misunderstood. The hon. Gentleman put to me a case of a man selling his house for £500. I think the consideration there may be £500, but it is not quite the same case.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: All these transactions are in effect the same, an equitable redemption. Technically it is not so. For instance, in the case of the Irish tenant there is no question of equity of redemption at all. The State advances the money. It is not as if you were giving a mortgage, an equity of redemption. The money is secured by the annuity charged on the land, which of course the tenant purchaser is called to pay, and may pay off. But there is nothing in the shape of an equity of redemption at all. In the case of the ordinary building society mortgage there is as a rule an equity of redemption. The man who gets the money conveys the property to the Building Society, and there is an equity of redemption, and then there is a further clause providing that the amount of the mortgage shall be received in instalments. But the question as to whether there is an equity of redemption or not does not affect the substance of the transaction. But what exactly is the Government position in the matter? What I want to ask is this: Suppose a man has purchased his house under the Building Societies Acts, and is selling it for the sum of £500, which he gets into his own pocket. I am supposing he sells it subject to the mortgage, so that the mortgage will continue to subsist, which most building societies allow. In that case, will the consideration be taken at £500 for the purposes of this Amendment, or in estimating the amount of the consideration for the purposes of this Amendment will he add to the £500, or whatever the consideration is which goes into the pocket of the vendor, the
  426
  amount which is still due to the building societies? The same question arises in the Irish case, namely, the case of the tenant purchaser. If the tenant purchaser sells his holding for £500, the holding will still remain liable to the annuity; and I ask, in order to ascertain whether or not the tenant purchaser will come within the limits of this concession, will you to the £500, or other consideration, which goes into the pockets of the vendor, add the amount that still remains due to the State in arriving at the conclusion as to whether the man comes within the benefit of this Amendment or not?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The answer I have to give is this: The intention of the Government is that wherever the Stamp Duty, which is now to be regulated at 10s., and the amount governing it is under £500, that these transactions will be exempted from this increased duty. We are making no difference at all in the amount which regulates the amount of duty at present. We merely say, supposing you had a document which before the operation of this Act would be stamped on a consideration of £500 at the rate of 10s., it will still be stamped at 10s.; but if it exceeds £500 for the purpose of the calculation of the Stamp Duty then it will be subject to the increased duty under this Section.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has, as I understand, answered the question in the negative. In other words, what he says is this: That the existing system will be allowed to continue. To that system we are absolutely opposed. I want to know why it is that the English building society case is going to be met, and the Irish tenant's case is not going to be met. That is what is going to be done. You are going to help the English working classes, and you are going to leave the Irish working classes unhelped. That is the whole story. I will illustrate it. Take the case of an ordinary working man who buys his house from a building society. Five hundred pounds may be taken to be the maximum of what an ordinary working man—the ordinary man who is, say, a member of a trade union—will give for his residence. That £500 in England includes both the consideration money and the mortgage money. In Ireland it is not so. What are you going to do in Ireland? I must say—I do not like to use the word "dishonest"—but I think it is mean to give every advantage you possibly can when there is a pressure from England,

  427
  and to deny the same concession, no matter what remonstrances or representations are made, from Ireland. Why should £500 be conceded? Because the demand comes from the English trade unions. That is the reason. There is no other. Because you propose to meet every case where the ordinary English Liberal has a grievance. What is the Irish case? The Secretary for Ireland has admitted that the landlord gets, altogether apart from the tenant right, an average of at least £400, and this in tens of thousands of cases. Take the case of a farmer who sells his farm for, in round figures, £500. He buys out the landlord's interest, which is another £500, and gets probably a reduction by so doing of £1 a year. How much does that add to the sale value? If he lives till 70 years have rolled over he would be no better off.
  What you are doing is this: You discount that £500, and you make him pay £500 for his tenant right, and £500 for the landlord's right which he has purchased. You make him pay for the first time £1,000 consideration money, whatever in effect the money that he is getting in the open market is worth, instead of the £500 that his tenant right was worth. He probably will not get more as a maximum than £550, because the purchase—if you are to believe the story of all these tenants: that is, the "Freeman's Journal" story—they give twice too much for their holding. You increase the grievance because that money which would not be paid to the State for 70 years the State takes toll of at the present time. Is that fair? Remember, this Bill proposes to double that grievance. Why not treble it? Why not quadruple, quintuple it? Where is the magic equity in doubling it? Why not halve it? The right hon. Gentleman may say: "I want 'Dreadnoughts.'" What are "Dreadnoughts" to us? What have we got to do with "Dreadnoughts"? We are not afraid of invasion. [An HON. MEMBER: "No more are we."] Would not a fair thing be this, that the actual consideration money which passes should be the only thing subject to duty? But instead of taking the actual consideration money which passes as the subject-matter for your duty, you are actually making a man pay something which is never to be realised in his lifetime, namely, the value which will only become real in 70 years' time. There may be another Chancellor of the Exchequer wanting more "Dreadnoughts." He will not only then double, but perhaps sextuple the duty. Practically what you are doing
  428
  is this: You are saying to the Irish tenant farmer, "You are getting the benefit of British credit. Look at the glory of being annexed to a great Empire like this." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, you enjoy it; we do not. You enjoy being annexed to us; we do not enjoy being annexed to you. It is a question of taste. Very well, you say, "Look at the great advantage you have from British credit, and all the time this grand advantage will only accrue to this man in 70 years' time! The moment he wants to sell his farm and enjoy the advantage of British credit he finds his taxes are not merely doubled, but doubled on a fictitious quantity. I respectfully say that I think in very many cases it would be far better for the Irish tenant to forego his advantage, because at present he has got at least a liquid asset. He has got his tenant right, and can dispose of it in the open market and get a decent sum for it. You propose to come down and double his taxation. Remember this: You are not only proposing to do it in the case of the ordinary man who sells in the market place, but also in the matter of gifts inter vivos. That is to say, an old man and woman get tired of working their farm, and propose to hand it over to the young men, their sons, or to apportion it out among their girls as a marriage portion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "We will treat the transfer from father to son as if it were a sordid sale in the open market, and as if you were clearing out and getting the whole advantage of the conclusion of a sale, and leaving the district"; although in fact no money whatever passes. Look at the hardship of that?
  The CHAIRMAN: Had we not better wait till we get to the Clause before we go into that point?
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: But it is doubling this tax! I respectfully say that you cannot discuss the second Clause without referring to that which doubles the tax.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: This only doubles the tax in cases which are chargeable under transfer by sale. The transaction from father to son will not be chargeable under it at all.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is it clear that you are not to double the tax in the case of the transaction between father and son?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: When we get to the next Clause.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am dealing now with the double tax, and I assent you are

  429
  doubling it in the case of father and son. I shall confine myself to the Section now before us, as I wish to keep within the ruling of the Chair, and I will exclude the case of gifts inter vivos. I ask is it fair to exclude practically all English transactions and to leave the peasants in Ireland, who are in exactly the same position as the English working man, liable for the increased duty? He is the owner of every stone in his home; he has built this home himself. The English tenant does not build his house or make improvements, but the Irish tenant does. Every stone in the farm is his, and in many cases, as will be remembered by those who listened to the Debates on Irish Land Purchase, the peasant proprietor is buying back his own improvements, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer seizes upon this occasion to double this tax in the case of the poor Irish tenant. I respectfully say that the magnitude of this transaction is not appreciated by the House. If you take the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland—I do not agree with it, but I am willing to take the official figures which he gave—the money for Irish land purposes amounts to £180,000,000. It is conceded that the tenant's right is at least equal to the landlord's, and having doubled both you propose to put a double Stamp Tax upon both. That is the position taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, of course, we cannot but remember that this is done by a Government whose admission, according to their own Royal Commission, is that we are already unfairly taxed to the extent of two or three millions a year. I respectfully submit that this case is one of the greatest hardship. You tax people by Death Duties, you tax them on their beer and on their tobacco, and now the only liquid asset which the Irish tenant farmer has is to be hit by a double Stamp Duty. You are giving the English working man who happens to be engaged with building societies a valuable concession which you deny to the Irish tenant farmers, because they are not in the same position towards you that the English working classes are.
  Mr. JOHN MULDOON: I really think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to meet us by giving something more than he has done in connection with this concession. I do not agree that in this Clause you are applying a different law to Ireland from that which you apply to England. The law is precisely the same, but he clear claim in equity which we have—and that is
  430
  what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not sufficiently grasped—the clear claim in equity which we have is this. We have 200,000 purchase tenants in Ireland, and, as compared with that, the number of people holding under the building societies will not be more than one where we have 100, I would like to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there will be many sales in Ireland where the actual consideration may be put at £200, but where there will be still more than £300 due to the Irish Land Commission. Where you write down under this Clause £500 for England as the figure for exemption, and thereby grant an effective exemption from this increased Stamp Duty in 99 cases out of 100, in Ireland in practice it is the same as if you said the limit shall be £200. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try and come the whole way and to define the "consideration," and if he does that we will be perfectly satisfied. I make a clear offer now. We do not base our chief objection at all to the question of doubling. When this Resolution came before the House in May last all the speakers admitted that if the Stamp Duty was to be doubled in England we could raise no fair objections against it being doubled in Ireland. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in the case of this exemption to go this length. Let him say that in all such cases the consideration shall be the actual amount that the vendor has put into his pocket by reason of the transaction, and if he does that we shall raise no further trouble about it, even though we think the concession ought to go further. We have a reasonable and a fair case, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take the bull by the horns and meet us. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the Resolution was before the House, said he was willing to make a concession to these small tenancies. The British Parliament has spent millions of money in making peasant proprietors in Ireland, and, therefore, do not let it be said that what you give with one hand you take away with the other. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we who know this subject thoroughly, and who are dealing with it every day, assert, if the concession in Ireland is to be equal to the concession which is made in England, this provision will work inequitably with the greatest possible injustice to our country.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The Amendment now under discussion is that of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr.

  431
  Maddison). It will be withdrawn in a few minutes because the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised last night that he was bringing in an Amendment practically to the same effect, but he guarded himself in a very important direction. I think the Chancellor ought to be thanked by all people entering into small transactions of this kind for not increasing the duty upon them. I am against the increased duty altogether. I think it is entirely uncalled for, and there are many other reasons which we shall be able to give against it when the Clause comes before us, but I think this is a substantial concession. I should like to point out one or two matters that might be taken into consideration. One is the present inequality, which, I think, could be removed by the Chancellor's new Amendment. The point is not satisfactorily dealt with in the Amendment before the Committee. These inequalities are these: The scale starts at £5; it goes up gradually to £25; then it takes a jump to £50; then from £70 to £75, and then to £100. The effect is this: If the consideration is £25, the Stamp Duty is 2s. 6d.; if the consideration is £25 10s., the Stamp Duty is 5s. That is being felt in these small transactions to be a very abrupt rise, and what I want to point out is this, that if he could see his way to rub out these inequalities by rising by £5 he would remove hardships felt in conjunction with the existing scale. The next point I would like to indicate is this, that in a very large number of these transactions the parties are only dealing with margins. The man buying the property has frequently to borrow the greater portion of the money, and the man who is selling the property has very often to pay somebody else seven-eighths or almost the whole of what he has received. The consequence is that these sums for Stamp Duties which on the face of them look to be a small percentage are upon the actual transaction a very large item indeed.
  We cannot help sympathising with a demand made so persistently from hon. Members below the Gangway. At all events, I sympathise with it. I feel there is a great deal in it. At present, as the law stands, and as it is not proposed to alter it by a clause or by Amendment, I was under the impression that the whole discussion was out of Order. In England, when a man has borrowed from a building society, that sum is to some extent free from
  432
  stamps, but when a man in Ireland owes money of the State that money is brought into account as part of the consideration. Of course, that is the point we have lost sight of in these matters. Take the case of a transaction where a man is selling off property for £1,100. There is a mortgage of £1,000 upon it, and the actual amount the man receives less expenses is £100. The Stamp Duty upon a transaction of £1,100 is £5 10s. It we pass this Clause it will be £11. The Amendment now before the Committee does not touch that at all. The Amendment does not alter the state of the law as we find it to-day, which says that the whole transaction, whether purchase price or mortgage money, must be aggregated for the purpose of the duty. It is not proposed to alter the law either in the Finance Bill or in this Amendment, and if hon. Members desire to raise this point their only method of raising it would be by a new Clause. At any rate, I cannot see how that point can really be discussed upon its merits before the Committee now. I do think it is not so much a case for giving a concession to people whose total consideration is under £500, but the real concession should be in the case of a poor man who wishes to sell his property, and who still owes a lot of money to the Government, and who when that sale takes place finds he is obliged to pay Stamp Duty on the whole of the money as well as on the paltry amount he is able to put into his pocket. That is the case, I think, which is practically made by hon. Members below the Gangway, and I am only sorry it is not the case which is really raised by this Amendment. I think it would be much more satisfactory in an exceedingly important case like this if we could get the Clause for discussion in Committee. Here we are proposing a most important tax touching the whole of the transactions of the community, doubling the ordinary Stamp Duty on transfers over £500. Thousands of these take place every week in the United Kingdom. Yet we are asked to take this matter blindly. We are told that the substance and spirit of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley is going to be accepted, but, seeing the importance of the matter, I, for one, raise a protest against a Clause of this kind coming before us, not in Committee, but probably for the first time on the Report stage. I am not saying this in any hostile spirit, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be ready to admit that we are justified in a matter of this sort in raising the protest.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I approach this question from a different standpoint to that taken up by hon. Members who have spoken. The hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Watson Rutherford) has represented some of my views, but I would like to ask whether the statement is true that the proposal of the Government makes any difference between the law of England and the law of Ireland?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: No.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Then I understand it does not. Let me take for a moment the class of people represented by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Maddison), who are mainly workmen who have taken a house from a building society and are paying certain instalments of money. I take it, if the half-owner of one of those houses gets £250 and still owes £250 to the building society, the Stamp Duty would be on the £500 and not on £250. I understand that it is the same in Ireland. If £250 is obtained by the tenant and £250 are due to the State he also will have to pay on £500, just as the English householder has to pay. I think our case in that respect is strengthened by the fact that the law, although it applies equally, applies to a larger class of people in Ireland than in England. There is, however, a great difference, which I strongly press upon the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When you consider the question of a tax of any kind in England and Ireland you must start from the proposition that the economic condition of the two countries is dissimilar, and, therefore, the same tax may have quite different results. A tax on beer will have comparatively little effect in Ireland as compared with England, but a tax on whisky in Ireland has a much greater effect upon the people of Ireland than a tax on whisky in England. As we have 200,000 owning occupiers of land in Ireland you cannot make any comparison between this class and the class referred to by the hon. Member for Burnley, because these transactions in Ireland are very widespread, whereas the transactions with which they are compared in England are comparatively a small number. I know that in England the number of workpeople who are acquiring their houses is already very large, and I am glad to say it is becoming larger every year. I think, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be wise to pay attention to the very important point raised by the hon. Mem-
  434
  ber for the West Derby Division of Liverpool in regard to cases where the owner only receives a very small margin of the purchase money. In the case the hon. and learned Member gave us where a man sells nominally for £1,100, and only gets £100 himself because he owes £1,000, he receives that £100 under very onerous conditions. If you take £11 from his £100 it will make the transaction a Very hard one. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider this question of the great difference between the number of these holdings in Ireland and the comparatively small number of similar transactions in England. I wish to say in conclusion that I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced a very considerable concession in this matter.
  Mr. MADDISON: Having regard to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to insert words on the Report stage to meet my point, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY Mr. MAURICE HEALY moved to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words "five hundred pounds," and inserting instead thereof the words "one thousand pounds."
  I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman opposite, having got all he wants, is willing to withdraw his Amendment. The hon. Member has done good service to those he represents. I wish to point out that this concession, although it is a very valuable one for England, will have only a very small operation in Ireland. I do not make this proposal as being at all adequate to meet the Irish case. I am of opinion that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer acceded to this Amendment he would still leave the Irish case largely untouched. At any rate, if you raise the limit of the Amendment from £500 to £1,000 you will do something to equalise the conditions between the two countries. Stress has been laid upon the fact that the law in the two countries is the same. That statement happens to be one of those truisms which is worse than falsehood. The law is in form the same, but in substance it is quite different.
  The theory that similarity of law represents equality of burden has been quite exploded in Ireland. Everybody knows that a tax takes a great deal more money in proportion out of Ireland than it does out of England. This point was discussed ad nauseum on the Financial Relations Commission, and I should have thought

  435
  at this hour of the day no one would have pretended that the operation of a tax was the same in both countries. In Ireland the operation of this tax will include half the land, and ultimately nearly the whole of the land of Ireland, whilst in England this question of the instalment on mortgage does not touch one 10-thousandth part of the property in England. Another important distinction is that in the case of a building society mortgage it does not extend to a period of more than 10 or 20 years. I do not think any building society extends the terms of repayment beyond 10 or 20 years, and 12 or 15 years would be about the average. Therefore the purchaser of a house in England who pays for it by these instalments on mortgage will complete the transaction within a period of 12 or 15 years, whereas in Ireland the instalment mortgage has to be paid in close upon 70 years. Accordingly, the Irish tenant farmer cannot hope to be the owner of the freehold in his own lifetime, and probably not even in the lifetime of his son. In the case of the ordinary workman's house in England, £500 might be taken to be the outside value, but that is not the case with the small farmer in Ireland. In Ireland an instalment mortgage of £300 represents only a £10 holding. I am rather overstating the state of things in the majority of these cases, and I should think the disproportion between the amount of consideration money which goes into the pocket of the vendor and the amount paid by the instalment mortgage would be still greater. I am considering this matter not merely as between the individual vendor or purchaser in England, but I am taking into account the amount of money which this proposal will take out of Ireland every year in taxation. I assert that for every £1 which this particular tax will take out of England in taxation it will take £10 out of Ireland.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: No.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The Solicitor-General disputes that argument. No one can say that there is anything at all in England comparable to the extent to which these land transaction purchases have prevailed and will continue to prevail in Ireland. Therefore, leaving out of consideration the question of the individual vendor and individual purchaser, English or Irish, the extent of taxation will be wholly disproportionate to that which will be taken out of England. In addition to the disproportion which this tax will set up as be-
  436
  tween the amount payable in England and the amount payable in Ireland, there is the additional fact that the tenant purchaser in Ireland has the privilege of the so-called local registration of title, and has not only to pay the ordinary Stamp Duty payable in England, but also the very heavy duties fixed under the Local Registration of Title Acts. The area, therefore, over which this grievance operates is enormously greater in Ireland than in England. I agree this question would be more properly raised on another Amendment, but we must take such opportunity as the discussion affords. If we waited we probably would not have the opportunity at all, or at any rate we should not have the same attention given to the matter as we have by raising the question at this stage. The right hon. Gentleman must, in order to do for Ireland anything comparable to what is done for England by this Amendment, raise the amount in the Amendment from £500 to something like £1,000, and I therefore move to make that Amendment.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I have really nothing new to add, but out of respect for the hon. Member I will endeavour to make a reply to the speech he has made. The adoption of this Amendment would mean a very considerable sacrifice of revenue. If you exempted all transactions throughout the whole of the United Kingdom between £500 and £1,000 in addition to transactions below £500, it would mean a very great sacrifice of revenue, and a sacrifice which my right hon. Friend has warned me could not be made. The hon. Member has admitted what is perfectly clear, that the law is exactly the same in England as it is in Ireland, but he has stated that by reason of the local circumstances in Ireland that law bears more hardly upon a great number of people there. There are, however, many things which one might mention in connection with this very matter where the Irish tenant purchaser is in a much better position than the small owner who buys his house and mortgages it in this country. If a workman desires to acquire his cottage in this country, he has to pay Stamp Duty on the purchase, but in Ireland the vesting order transferring the property to the tenant purchaser is entirely exempt from Stamp Duty. That is a considerable difference in favour of the Irish tenant purchaser. The hon. Member further stated that there was this inequality bearing hardly upon Ireland. A tenant purchaser in Ireland, when he sells, has to pay fees in the local registry called the Registration of Title. True, but to use

  437
  the hon. Member's own words, "That is a truism which is worse than a falsehood." It means that thoughout the whole of Ireland these tenant purchasers have the great advantage of local registration of title.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: It is a great disadvantage; it is a curse and a nuisance.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It has at any rate the advantage that it saves solicitors' costs.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Not at all.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Then it ought to do so.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: In 99 cases out of 100 the fact of registration in Ireland does not give a title. The tenant's title is not investigated, and you cannot go to the register and be satisfied. The title has to be investigated.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I have the honour of serving on the Royal Commission which has inquired into the registration of title in this country.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I wish it would inquire into the question in Ireland.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That was not within its terms of reference. There is already in London, which has a population of five or six millions, compulsory registration, and, if registration of title is worth anything at all, you should be able to transfer land more cheaply and expeditiously. That, at any rate, is the intention. The next point the hon. Member made is that a larger number of people in Ireland will be affected than in England. We have not got the figures accurately of the people who deal in these small properties in this kingdom, but scores of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, in this part of the United Kingdom own their own houses. It is not, therefore, true to say that it will only affect a small minority in England.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Relatively.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Relatively, no doubt, that is so. The speech of the hon. Member and some other speeches would almost give anyone not acquainted with the subject the impression that we are placing a tax on these 240,000 people when we are doing nothing of the kind. It is only where people who have become tenant purchasers wish to sell their property that this Stamp Duty will be payable. I am
  438
  told, and I gather the hon. Member will not deny, that a considerable majority of the 240,000 tenant purchasers in Ireland, even supposing they want to dispose of their property, will be covered by the exemption which we make to my hon. Friend (Mr. Maddison). I do not, of course, know that, but I gather it is so from the intimation I have received. Practically every case where the rent is less than £10 would come within the exemption of transactions under £500, and the hon. Member will not deny that, at any rate, there are a very large number of those cases.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Before this Question is put, I desire to make a short comment on what I grieve to say is the hostile, adverse attitude of the Government Bench. It takes my mind back over a long period of time. I have witnessed measures of reform introduced into this House from time to time for many years. I have heard appeals made to successive Governments from these benches, appeals to their judgment and to their reason on behalf of the Irish people, and I have witnessed these appeals ignored as they are ignored to-day. Acts of Parliament passed into law over 20 and 30 years ago have proved to be inadequate to the occasion, because the representations made from these benches were not listened to by successive Governments. I remember well the introduction of the Act of 1881 and of subsequent Acts, and I remember some hon. Members who are still sitting on these benches making representations to the Government to modify a clause here or to extend one there. Those representations were disregarded, with the result that further legislation was necessary, and you have been led step by step and from mistake to mistake until it was absolutely essential to introduce a law to enable tenants to purchase their holdings altogether. That is the result of the fatal obstinacy of successive Governments in not listening to the representations made from these benches. We have been told that vesting orders are not charged with the tax. It was to facilitate these transactions that the vesting orders were allowed to be made without the usual Stamp Duty. We are also told that the law is the same in both countries. Our suggestion is that the law should be made different in one country from that which it is in the other. That is no novel proposition. You are doing it every day. The laws of the three Kingdoms are not identical in many respects, and with regard to the holding

  439
  of land in Ireland, you have, by reason of its past history, been passing laws which outrage all the old principles under which property has been held. Is there anything unreasonable in the suggestion that the law should be made different in the two countries? It has been pointed out how that can be done. I do not intend to repeat what has been urged upon that point. The way has been made clear, and I trust that the Government will follow it.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Almighty never shuts one door, we are told, unless He opens another. But as regards this House I confess my impression is it never gives relief in one direction unless it steals in another. Let me trace the course of these transactons. When the Resolution was passed in reference to this Clause it included all Stock Exchange transactions. There was immediately a clamour from the Stock Exchange at that proposal, because it would have netted from the Stock Exchange hundreds and thousands of pounds. The right hon. Gentleman tells us we must remember that this proposal of ours would involve enormous loss to the Treasury, but when the Stock Exchange raised its voice he at once gave way without even getting the value of a pound of tea in return. This Clause, in its present shape, which is a defiance of the Resolution passed by the Committee of this House, enacts that this Section shall not apply to the conveyance and transfer of any stock or marketable security as defined by Section 122 of the Act of 1891. The Committee, therefore, passed a Resolution which captured all Stock Exchange transactions, but, because of the clamour which arose from the City of London—from the deadly enemies of the Liberal party—the Government at once yielded, and chucked that revenue into the Thames. What is the next stage of the transaction? Having satisfied the Tories, the Government found that the Liberals began to clamour, and hon. Gentlemen who represent English working men pointed out that all building transactions will be hit by this Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, having met the Tories in the City of London, then proceeded to meet the Liberals—I do not complain of that, it was only right that they should be met under the circumstances—and he excluded all building society transactions. Lastly came the Irish.
  440
  Of course, it is quite right that the Irish should come last, because I notice that great things are going to be done for the Irish in the sweet by and bye on this Budget. They are going to be done on the third reading, or it may be on the Report stage, or perhaps in the House of Lords. I always notice there is something to be done for Ireland at some future date, which is not stated, by some statesman who has not yet appeared on the Treasury Bench. Accordingly we heard the suggestion made to-day that the right hon. Gentleman should allow the Irish claim to be passed over until after the Report stage; that, without absolutely refusing to yield, he should keep this matter dangling over the heads of the Irish tenants, and then we could go on voting gaily with him on the various stages of the Bill. I must say that the Solicitor-General is too frank and honourable a man to fall in with such a plan. He put his foot down and said, "You Irish fellows, I do not care one jot about you. I have given way to the Stock Exchange. I have released all their transactions from this duty. I have met my Liberal friends, and they are satisfied, and it is only the Irish Members who remain, but we shall get their vote no matter what we do, although their constituents will be hit by our present proposals." Let me deal with the arguments advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that the building society man has to pay a Stamp Duty on the initiatory transactions, while the Irish tenant does not pay any Stamp Duty on his vesting order. That seems reasonable on the face of it. But to whom do the Irish tenants owe this relief? Do they owe it to the Liberal party? No. I will give you the reason why they have it. In 1903 the Conservatives were anxious to get done with all the trouble in Ireland, and to facilitate land purchase, and knowing that the Stamp Duty would be an obstacle in the way of a tenant, who would weigh carefully his position before he handed out any money for the purchase of his holding, the Conservative Government provided that there should be no Stamp Duty on the initiatory transaction or vesting order. Why? Because it would have been an obstacle to land purchase. That was the sole reason.
  Let me remind the Committee also that when the English working man buys his house he sees that he has got value for it. He sees that value in the bricks and mortar with which the house is con-

  441
  structed; he knows, therefore, that he has got worth for his money. But what is the case with the Irish tenant? He is buying a holding which forty or fifty years ago had an annual value, it may be, of £2, £3, or £4, but by your furniture system of legislation you have allowed these tenants to be robbed of the improvements on their lands, and they are now paying £40 or £50 a year rental for those holdings. The tenant has to buy his holding upon that state of the market. The English working man when he buys his house is not charged more than the value of it, and he only pays Stamp Duty on that value. But the Irish tenant is not merely buying his holding. He is buying back practically his own sweat—the ditches and fences which he has made and the houses which he has built. It is said the law is the same in the two countries, and that, in fact, the Englishman is worse off because he has to pay a Stamp Duty on transfer, whereas the Irishman is practically relieved of that. You are engaged in passing a measure which worsens the position of the Irish tenant. You are passing it by means of the Closure, which has prevented us from pointing out how much worse you are making the position of the tenant purchaser than under the Act of 1903. Is it wise at the time you are worsening the terms of purchase to double the tax you place upon the tenant? The right hon. Gentleman says it must be remembered that this is not coming into immediate operation. What do you want it for? Is it not to raise taxation? You would not propose it if you did not intend to raise money by it. It may be that in the present financial year it will only hit a certain number of heads, but at the same time you would not propose it unless it was going to bring a certain number of sovereigns into the national purse. I know it will not give a quarter of a million men a slap in the eye at once. It will not take off all their heads at once, but it will do it gradually, and that is always what the tax collector bargains for. If he hit every one at once, there would probably be a revolution. He does his spiriting gently, and the
  man who pays to-day may not think it worth his while to fight the case in the interests of the man who may not be called upon to pay until two or three years have elapsed. But I will tell you, however, what it does do. It decreases the value of every man's property. It decreases his estate, it decreases the asset he leaves to his children, it decreases the property which he may wish to sell, if anybody comes down upon him in bad times. We know that these concessions to Ireland, which are going to be made on this Budget, are not going to be given to us at this stage of the Bill. I congratulate the Government that, in the face of what is practically the united opinion of Irishmen, they, while yielding to the Stock Exchange and to English Liberals, insist on fastening this further taxation upon the Irish people.
  Sir E. CARSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that all sections of the Irish people and all Members of this House from Ireland are in favour of differentiating in this matter with regard to Ireland, bearing in mind the state of things obtaining under the Land Purchase Acts. I spoke upon this question at an earlier stage of the proceedings, and I gave my reasons for pointing out that that was so, but I am bound to say I think all these demonstrations by Irish Members below the Gangway are the merest sham, because they do not intend, as a party, to give a vote which would make their views felt. I do not therefore propose to argue this question further. I will only point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he and his Friends have made their bargain; they have got their Land Bill, and they do not care one hang about the Budget. What is the use, when we are trying to finish these Clauses, as was suggested last night, of all this tremendous talk below the Gangway, seeing that it means nothing at all.
  Question put, "That the words 'five hundred' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 67.

  Division No. 700.]

  AYES.

  [5.15 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bell, Richard

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barker, Sir John

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barnard, E. B.

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

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Branch, James

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Brigg, John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Bright, J. A.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

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

  Robinson, S.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jenkins, J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Chance, Frederick William

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rowlands, J.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Clough, William

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Seddon, J.

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Seely, Colonel

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cox, Harold

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Snowden, P.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Crossley, William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Maclean, Donald

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Summerbell, T.

  Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Erskine, David C.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Essex, R. W.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Marnham, F. J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Massie, J.

  Toulmin, George

  Falconer, James

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Findlay, Alexander

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Verney, F. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Middlebrook, William

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Walsh, Stephen

  Gibson, J. P.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Gill, A. H.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Wardle, George J.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

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

  Waring, Walter

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Myer, Horatio

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Glover, Thomas

  Nicholls, George

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gulland, John W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Partington, Oswald

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Paulton, James Mellor

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

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rees, J. D.

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

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

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

  NOES.

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

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

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Oddy, John James

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, J.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Healy, Timothy Michael

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

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hills, J. W.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Winterton, Earl

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Younger, George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Maurice Healy and Sir W. Bull.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think it is necessary that a few words should be said upon the bearing of this Clause upon the agricultural problem. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has in substance given us a somewhat important concession in regard to sales of under £500 in value, but I think the, Committee will generally agree with me that while that concession is of very considerable value in regard to small houses, especially where members of building and co-operative societies purchase houses such as those referred to by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Maddison), it is of little or no value in regard to agricultural property, and particularly in regard to small holdings. I can, I think, make that statement good. In regard to small holdings the purchase usually takes place by the county councils. A very considerable amount of land has already been purchased by the county councils, and a very large amount of land is still under negotiation, and will be purchased by those bodies. I do not know whether when the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other Member of the Government replies in this Debate he will give us any estimate—because I think it is rather important that we should have an estimate—of what is expected to be the sort of sum which county councils are likely to expend upon the purchase of land under the Small Holdings Act. I think it must be a very large sum indeed, and will certainly amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not more, and now by this proposal the Government are imposing upon the county councils who are to purchase land under the Small Holdings Act a duty of no less than 1 per cent. Surely that is rather an extraordinary proceeding, and the whole of that additional burden of 1 per cent. would be spent under the Small Holdings Act, and would fall upon the tenants of those small holdings. Then, again, if the occupier of a small holding desires to purchase his holding, he will again have to pay this duty, or if he sells his holding after purchasing it he will pay the duty.
  No agricultural holding on which a man can live can be of the Value of less than £500. I do not say that there may not be exceptions to that, but, generally speaking, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks at the matter he will see that it is inconceivable to suppose that a man can bring up a family and live upon a holding
  446
  of less value than £500 in England. We have had considerable Debate on Ireland, and I am touching England only. I do not pretend to any knowledge whatever of the conditions of Ireland, and I make no sort of observation whatever about that country. In England the standard of living is higher, and it is perfectly certain that no considerable number of small holdings, or hardly any exist, on which a man can live and which are of a less capital value than £500. A holding will either have to be of considerable acreage, where the land is of no value, or, if the acreage is small, the only conditions under which the occupier can live would be that the land should be of high quality or of very considerable value; so that whether the acreage be large or small—I cannot conceive a holding of less than 50 acres for this purpose—it is obvious that the £500 limit is practically inoperative in the case of agricultural land, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear that in mind when he comes to consider the Amendments on Report which he has undertaken to accept. I will make a suggestion, and it is this, that instead of giving this exemption to transfers under £500 he should exempt the first £500 of any purchase. The amount might be limited if you were to exempt the first £500 of any purchase up to a certain sum, and say in regard to all transfers below £5,000 or £2,000 the first £500 should be exempted. That would be some relief to the small holders. I am only talking of the increase of the duty; I am not talking of the old duty. As it is, it is no relief to the small holders, and an extraordinary heavy burden is being put upon the local authority, who have to purchase large blocks of land, and would be unlikely to come under any exemption which is given. Therefore, the whole burden will fall upon the occupiers themselves in case they get a transfer.
  There is another hardship, and that is the case where property has been mortgaged. In regard to that I will repeat the figure which was given in the Debate on the recent Amendment. A man has a property worth £1,100, and he mortgages it for £1,000. When he sells he has only £100 to receive. He then pays duty on the whole £1,100, and that leaves him on the new scale £11 out of the £100, which be is going to receive in addition to lawyers' costs. I can quite understand that there will be great difficulty in altering that principle, but may I point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that

  447
  there is also a Stamp Duty on the mortgage, and that at least ought to be deducted? There is a Stamp Duty, I believe, of 2s. 6d. on mortgages, so that when there is a transfer of land under those circumstances and it is subject to mortgage, the man has not only to pay 2s. 6d. on the mortgage but an additional sovereign on the transfer in regard to the sale, so that the whole duty that he has to pay is really £1 2s. 6d. per cent. on the transfer of his property, and it is a very heavy impost. In regard to the burden itself, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was introducing to the Committee the Resolution covering this particular impost, used this expression:—
  "The greater part of the additional revenue under this head will be derived from transfers of real property. As such property will benefit largely from the decrease of the poor rate, which must necessarily follow as the result of the adoption of a State system of old age pensions and other schemes of social reform, it is equitable that it should be called upon to contribute."
  It is perfectly clear that no proof whatever has been given us that the Old Age Pensions Act is going to have any effect in reduction of local rates. It is not for us to disprove it. The statement is made by the right hon. Gentleman as a justification for the imposition of this tax, and it lies with him to prove it, and if he makes that suggestion surely it is for him to see that the compensating burden which he proposes to put upon real property is not exacted before the benefit is received. Where is the benefit? Can he show us that there is any benefit? We have at present none, but we understand that the duty has to be paid forthwith on every transfer, and we should like to be assured and satisfied that the benefit is going to be received before the compensating burden is placed upon us. What is the next sentence? Not only is this to compensate for the benefit received by real property under the old age pensions scheme, but it is also to compensate for the benefit which is to be received owing to the reduction of rates through other schemes of social reform. I do not quite know what schemes of social reform are likely to reduce the rates. I do not think it is the experience of ratepayers that schemes of social reform reduce rates. But there is another side to the question. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that when he and his party introduce any further schemes of social reform no extra burdens are to be put on real property to meet them? If he will not give that undertaking, what does this mean? The
  448
  argument that the Chancellor of the Exchequer uses is that his new schemes of social reform are going to actually result in the relief of real property. The schemes are nebulous. Is it reasonable to impose a tax now in order to compensate for the relief which we are to get from schemes of social reform which are not even named? I really think it is impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to maintain that argument. It is quite obvious that we are getting no relief under the Old Age Pensions Act, and that we are not likely to get any relief in regard to any schemes of social reform. The real fact is that this is simply an additional burden upon realty and a burden in a very unfortunate form, because if there is one principle which has been debated in this House and throughout the country on every platform, and which has been perpetually discussed and enforced from every side of politics, it is that it is desirable to cheapen and facilitate the transfer of land. Here is a direct burden upon the transfer of land, and it is nothing else. I can conceive no more unfortunate form of attempting to raise money. I can see no advantage in it in any way. I quite understand that the burden of taxation must be increased, but you could not imagine anything more inconsistent or more unfortunate than to increase it in this way by making it more difficult for a man who cannot make the best use of land to transfer it to a man who can make a better use of it. So far we have had no sort of justification for it.
  Invariably in these Debates the Government treat every tax based upon realty as though it were the only tax. Here is a tax which will mainly fall on real property. It is in compensation for some nebulous advantage which you are going to get under a nebulous scheme which no one has ever yet heard of or seen in any concrete form. We have received some concessions on Schedule A of the Income Tax to the extent of half a million, but that will not go mainly to agricultural property. If that half-million were confined, which it cannot be, to agricultural property, it would be a very sensible relief, and would very largely cover the ground, but it is on all repairs and maintenance of realty throughout the country, and the bulk of it will go to house property in towns. If half a million is distributed over all the property of the country, very little of it, in proportion, will go to agricultural land. But, in addition to this burden, we have Increment Value Duty, we have the Undeveloped Land Duty, we have the

  449
  Reversion Duty, and we have the enormous increase in the Death Duties, which is not only an increase in rate on agricultural property, as it is in regard to all other forms of property, but it is an increase in the method of assessment. Not only has the rate been increased on all property, but the method of assessment of agricultural property has been altered, so that a double extra burden is placed upon real property under the Death Duties. Under this Budget, therefore, we have been given half a million, a proportion of which will go to agricultural realty—a nebulous relief which I cannot count as worth anything at all. Per contra, we are to have this oppressive and badly considered duty, we are to have Increment Value Duty, Undeveloped Land Duty; we are to have the double increase of the Death Duties in addition to all the heavy burdens and the special Land Tax which realty already bears, and it is a great and unnecessary aggravation of the burden upon agricultural land to impose this duty now, and we most strongly protest against this, and we regard it as one of the worse features in this Budget.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must at once clear up one misconception the hon. and gallant Gentleman is labouring under, and no one will be better pleased than he to know that he is mistaken. He is under the impression that this half-million is going to house property in towns. It is confined to cottages, and it will go to cottages and to agricultural land.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Rural cottages?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The real test that we propose is £8 valuation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's first criticism was with regard to the £500 limit which we propose to insert on the Report stage. He suggested that that was inadequate to meet the case of a small holder. I agree—a small holder over and above a certain figure—but every small holder with a £20 holding will come under it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says a man cannot live on a holding of that sort in England. A £20 holding will be exempt, and, after all, these small holders are not men who devote the whole of their time to their holding. They are very often men who have other rural occupations, agricultural labourers or rural artisans, and, therefore, though it may be perfectly true that a man cannot live on a £15 or £20 holding altogether unless it is quite near a market, a very large number of these holdings are
  450
  under that amount, and will be completely exempt. When they are over that amount it means that when there is a sale the purchaser pays. In my own experience the purchaser always used to pay the stamps. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that the Government might exempt the first £500 up to £1,000. This concession will mean the abandonment of a very considerable portion of the revenue, which I thought might be derived from this tax. I do not know what the further concession would mean. I will make inquiries, and I will see before I make up my mind whether the revenue can afford to extend that concession. With regard to the third point, as to mortgages, I am not proposing to alter the general law at all. It is the present position, and it is right, otherwise you might get property worth £100,000 transferred, and not a penny paid on it. If it were sold subject to the mortgage there might be no value attached to the equity of redemption.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I only suggested deducting the mortgage stamp.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is a totally different transaction. It might have been entered into 10 or 15 years ago, and I do not see any reason why the mortgage stamp should any more be deducted than you would deduct the 10s. duty upon the sale. Now I come to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's general observations against the whole of our proposal. He asked if it is a revenue-raising proposal. I only defended it on that ground. I am not defending it as a proposal to encourage small holdings. The first thing I said was that even after deducting the duty it is the lowest stamp in Europe. Take France, which is a country with small proprietors—smaller even in many cases than in Ireland—the Stamp Duty is 7 per cent. In Italy, I believe, it is 5 per cent.; in Belgium it is 4 or 5 per cent. I know it is very considerably higher than this proposal. In Italy, in addition to that, gifts inter vivos are charged double—I think 10 per cent. In Germany the charge for local purposes is 2 per cent., and for Imperial purposes I think it is 1 per cent. The tax we propose is the lowest in the whole of Europe. It is really a very legitimate means of raising revenue for Imperial purposes. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) criticised what I said in defence of the tax that it is perfectly legitimate to impose it, because it is to raise money for objects which will have the

  451
  effect of reducing local charges. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the onus is on the Government of proving that the effect of the old age pensions scheme will be to reduce the poor law charges. All I have to say is that it certainly ought to reduce them.
  Earl WINTERTON: It has not done so yet.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Possibly, but there has hardly been time yet to show what the nature of the change will be. I should have thought that in the nature of things the effect would be to reduce local charges. What does it mean? There is no doubt at all that scores of thousands of poor people who would otherwise necessarily have gone on the poor rates will come on the pension fund, and if you relieve the poor rates to the extent of scores of thousands a year, then, if there is no reduction in the poor rates, the local ratepayer ought to begin to inquire the reason why. It must necessarily result in a reduction of the number of people charged on the poor rates. The local ratepayers are themselves to blame if it does not bring about a reduction in the rates. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that we should wait until that is brought about. We are raising money for that purpose. The Imperial Exchequer has a charge of £8,000,000 for that specific purpose, and I have to get the money in order to liquidate that demand. It is perfectly right that I should go to the source which will derive a considerable measure of relief from that particular proposal of the Government. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked what are the other schemes of social reform which will have the effect of reducing the rates. I am afraid it would be out of order to embark on that at present, but they are by no means nebulous. I think I indicated them almost at ordinate length in the Budget statement. There was provision for sickness, invalidity, widows and orphans, and the unemployed. All these things involve charges which do undoubtedly increase the burden on the rates, and in so far as the sums which we propose to raise by this Budget are devoted to these objects, the schemes are not nebulous. They are quite definite schemes, and they will, or they ought to have, the effect of reducing the local burdens of the ratepayers. On these grounds, I think, when we are raising money for these purposes, it is quite legitimate for the Government to
  452
  resort to an increase in the Stamp Duty on conveyances and transfers on sale, apart from the general scheme of raising revenue.
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: I feel that I ought to protest formally against the whole scheme of this tax. I am convinced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be aware of the very great harm which will be done in the country if the doubling of the Stamp Duty is carried out. I put down an Amendment which was ruled out of order. The object of my Amendment was to relieve pure personalty—such subjects as sales or transfers of life policies, reversions, goodwill, and patents.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Amendment was not in order, a discussion of it would not be in order.
  Sir W. BULL: I am now suggesting an alternative method to that proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: What the hon. Member proposes would involve a considerable alteration in the revenue, especially when you comes to sales of goodwill. In these cases very often considerable sums of money are involved, and these are just the transactions in which the revenue does come in for a good share. I am afraid the leaving out of these would involve a loss which I could not agree to.
  Sir W. BULL: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has answered in that way, I will not pursue the matter further.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Chancellor of Exchequer has justified the Stamp Duty on land transactions on the ground that it is smaller than corresponding duties in European countries. He gave us the figures for Belgium, France, and Italy. I wonder if he has considered what the taxes are on Stock Exchange transactions in all the countries in Europe, and if he has, will he kindly tell us why he is exempting gambling from taxation? I mean exempting it in the sense that he is not raising the duties which are at present levied in connection with Stock Exchange transactions.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not merely doubling, but I am almost quadrupling the tax on what the hon. and learned Member calls gambling transactions.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am dealing with transfers. The Clause says: "Provided that this Section shall not apply to the

  453
  conveyance or transfer of any stock or marketable security as defined by Section one hundred and twenty-two of that Act." What I want to know is why the right hon. Gentleman, when he gives us the advantage of letting us know the European charges on land transactions, does not give us similar information with regard to Stock Exchange transactions which are exempted by this Clause? I do think it rather strange that the right hon. Gentleman should have put in a proviso to exempt certain Stock Exchange transfers. When he is taxing real property he should at the same time give us information how the law stands in foreign countries as to the transfer of personalty. I take note of the fact that when he proposed to tax this class of property he got a Resolution with the assent of an enormous body of the opinion in this House, and I do think that when he came to the Clause he should have told us why he did not adhere to his original proposal to hit everyone all round, and why the tax is left to hit Irishmen chiefly, or very largely at all events. Why has an exemption been made in the interest of a particular class owing to the clamour in the City of London? This was the occasion when I expected that the right hon. Gentleman would have entered into a defence of his concession to the City. We do not know what goes on in the private parlour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when dealing with these matters. I have endeavoured to follow this very tangled scheme with as much closeness as I could, and I have not found any explanation from the right hon. Gentleman why he gave this exemption to the City. It is very desirable that we should know. I am sure he has a most valid reason, but we do not know it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I really must remove the misconception under which my hon. and learned Friend seems to be labouring. I am not departing a hair's-breadth from the proposal I made in regard to this matter in the Budget statement except that I am accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Maddison) by relieving cases under £500. That is the only alteration I have made. There has been no concession to the Stock Exchange under this proposal. The concession made in regard to contract notes will come on later, but it has nothing to do with this tax. I am not receding here in the slightest degree from the proposal I made originally.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I desire to associate myself with the observations which have fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. T. M. Healy) in regard to the exemption of stocks and shares from the operation of this Clause. If I understand the Bill, there is no proposal to increase the Transfer Duty on stocks and shares. The only increases contemplated are on contract notes in regard to the sale and purchase of stocks and shares, and what I wish to impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that under the present system of stock and share business in this country about 90 per cent. of the total transactions entirely escape all contribution of Transfer Duty, and knowing that the right hon. Gentleman represents the Government which, above all things, is pledged to the suppression of gambling, I do put to him the suggestion that if he will consider the application of some provision of this Bill to the Transfer Duty on all contracts for the purchase of stocks and shares he will reap a very rich revenue. Quite 90 per cent. of the people who purchase stocks and shares purchase them solely as gambling transactions. They buy them and receive their contracts, they carry them over, as the phrase goes, and ultimately they sell them.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that this question arises. I do not know whether it is relevant to any clause later on, but it does not seem to me to arise here.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: You are the best judge of that. The point I was endeavouring to make, subject to your ruling, is this: That there should be no exemption, as there is in this Clause 52, of transfers of stocks and securities, because the majority of those transactions are essentially gambling in their character; and I was going to urge that the Chancellor should apply an increased Transfer Duty to shares and marketable securities.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that that does not arise here.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I have sent for the Resolution, but I am positive that it is wide enough to cover a charge on these stocks and shares. I will probably have it in a moment, and meantime I would like the House to know and the country to know that the right hon. Gentleman is doubling the tax on the bogs of Ireland by a clause which exempts these securities as defined by the Act of 1891. The

  455
  Section says: "This Section shall not apply to the conveyance or transfer of any stock or marketable security as defined by Section 122 of that Act," that is the Act of 1891. Here is what the Act of 1891 says: "The expression 'stock' includes any share in any stocks or funds transferable at the Bank of England or at the Bank of Ireland, and India promissory notes, and any share in the stocks or funds of any foreign or Colonial State or Government, or in the capital stock or funded debt of any county council, corporation, company, or society in the United Kingdom, or for any foreign or Colonial corporation, company, or society. The expression 'marketable security' means a security of such a description as to be capable of being sold in any stock market in the United Kingdom." So that any security that can be sold in any stock market in the United Kingdom is not caught by this Clause, but a miserable bog in Ireland is, and not only is caught by it, but the tax on its transfer is doubled. What is the defence by Radical Governments? They say, "If we tax these securities, people would go to France, to Russia, to America, for their gambling transactions." I say let them. I am not concerned for the prosperity of the London Stock Exchange. It is nothing to me. I am concerned for the prosperity of my country, my county, and my parish. I would like to know what the right hon. Gentleman's own people in Wales would think about the proposal that the little bit of mountain land in Wales, when it comes to be sold, is to have double the tax on it, but if you have a marketable security capable of being sold in any stock market in the United Kingdom, that is to be exempt from the operation of this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has denied that the Resolution which was passed in Ways and Means would have enabled these transactions to be captured which are excluded from this Clause. Here is the Resolution of 18th May:—
  "Motion made and Question proposed, 'That the Stamp Duty charged on conveyance, or transfer on sale of property or leases, shall be double those now chargeable.'"
  It did not say "real property." It says "property," and therefore I am well within the bounds when I say that the Resolution which was extracted from the House of Commons would have enabled you to tax personal property, and that
  456
  you have simply confined your Bill to property in land. I do not wish to state this perhaps absolutely, but I believe I am right in saying that this is the first time that any special distinction has been made in a Finance Bill for 50 years. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing is this. Every wretched peasant that is selling his farm in Ireland will have his tax doubled upon him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while the man selling Bank of England stock, Bank of Ireland stock, Indian 3 per cent., railway stock, mining stock, and everything else on which the wealth of this country is built, even brewery stock, is exempt. Oh, where were the temperance principles of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? What a chance he had of hitting the distillers and the brewers by at least singling out their stock for doubling! But we know why he did not do so. It is because he could not have hit the distillers and brewers without hitting the railway men and the bankers, and all the rest of them. And so the right hon. Gentleman is reduced to this residium of taxing the ordinary transfer of land, most of which takes place in Ireland. He is doubling the tax, and I have pointed out in a former portion of the Debate that he is doubling the tax not on the consideration money, but on an imaginary consideration money which never passed. If he were to charge the banks or the brewers or the corporations only the actual consideration money, then, suppose I sold £1,000 Bank of England stock, I would only pay a tax on that £1,000, but if I sell land for £1,000 and there is a mortgage for £1,000 upon it, although I only get my £1,000, he levies his tax on £2,000. A more unfair thing could not possibly be imagined. "Oh, but," he says, "it has been the law of England." Yes, in the case of large mortgage transactions in the past; but when you come to deal for the first time with the small man, the annuitant, do you not think that the tax needs differentiating? Even as it is you will capture the tax from this mortgage annuity. Does it need doubling it? Could not you draw a distinction and have the incidence of the old tax in the case of the mortgage annuity and only double your tax upon the consideration money? That at least would give us some relief. Leave us the old tax. It is not a great deal to ask from the Liberal Government, that when you double your tax you should double it only upon the consideration money. Although I was contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to

  457
  the scope of the Resolution in Ways and Means, its terms, I say with great deference and respect, fully bear out everything I said.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In view of your ruling on the point I wished to raise, may I respectfully ask, inasmuch as Clause 52 is the only Clause which in any way refers to Transfer Duty on marketable security, how can I deal with the matter on any other Clause?
  The CHAIRMAN: Clause 52 deals with Stamp Duties on conveyances or transfers on sale, but what the hon. Gentleman was
  dealing with was what he called gambling transactions, which I think are not conveyances or transfers.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I understood you to say that the point I wished to raise could be raised on a subsequent Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: I had not time to look into when it could be raised. I simply stated it might possibly be raised on another Clause.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 98.

  Division No. 701.]

  AYES.

  [6.15 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Maddison, Frederick

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

  Falconer, James

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Agnew, George William

  Findlay, Alexander

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Marnham, F. J.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Massie, J.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gibson, J. P.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Gill, A. H.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Middlebrook, William

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Glover, Thomas

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Barker, Sir John

  Gulland, John W.

  Myer, Horatio

  Barnard, E. B.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nicholls, George

  Barnes, G. N.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Bell, Richard

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Harwood, George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maidon)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Branch, James

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Bright, J. A.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rees, J. D.

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

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Robinson, S.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jenkins, J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Chance, Frederick William

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cleland, J. W.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Clough, William

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rowlands, J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lamont, Norman

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Cox, Harold

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Seddon, J.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Seely, Colonel

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Snowden, P.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Maclean, Donald

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyuiph (Cheshire)

  Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Erskine, David C.

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Summerbell, T.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wardie, George J.

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Waring, Walter

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Toulmin, George

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Verney, F. W.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Wadsworth, J.

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

  NOES.

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

  Gordon, J.

  Muldoon, John

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Nolan, Joseph

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Oddy, John James

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hazieton, Richard

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  O'Malley, William

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hunt, Rowland

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bull, Sir William James

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Radford, G. H.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Reddy, M.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lundon, T.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Valentia, Viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

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

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Winterton, Earl

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Kean, John

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Meagher, Michael

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. J. W. Hills and Mr. Leverton Harris.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mooney, J. J.

  Ginnell, L.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  CLAUSE 53.—Stamp Duty on Gifts inter vivos.)
  (1) Any conveyance or transfer operating as a voluntary disposition inter vivos shall be chargeable with the like Stamp Duty as if it were a conveyance or transfer on sale, with the substitution in each case of the value of the property conveyed or transferred for the amount or value of the consideration for the sale.
  (2) Notwithstanding anything in Section twelve of the principal Act, the Commissioners may be required to express their opinion under that Section on any conveyance or transfer operating as a voluntary disposition inter vivos, and no such conveyance or transfer shall be deemed to be duly stamped unless the Commissioners have expressed their opinion thereon in accordance with that Section.
  (3) Sub-section (2) of Section fifteen of the principal Act, which enables certain instruments to be stamped after execution, shall apply to conveyances or transfers
  460
  operating as voluntary dispositions inter vivos as if those conveyances or transfers were specified in the first column of the table in paragraph (d) of that Sub-section, and the grantor or transferor were specified in the second column of that table.
  (4) Where any instrument is chargeable with duty both as a conveyance or transfer under this Section and as a settlement under the heading "Settlement" an the First Schedule to the principal Act, the instrument shall be charged with duty as a conveyance or transfer under this Section, but not as a settlement under the principal Act.
  (5) Any conveyance or transfer (not being a disposition made in favour of a purchaser or incumbrancer or other person in good faith and for valuable consideration) shall, for the purposes of this Section, be deemed to be a conveyance or transfer operating as a voluntary disposition inter vivos, and (except where marriage is the consideration) the consideration for any

  461
  conveyance or transfer shall not for this purpose be deemed to be valuable consideration where the Commissioners are of opinion that by reason of the inadequacy of the sum paid as consideration or other circumstances the conveyance or transfer has been made with a view of conferring a substantial benefit on the person to whom the property is conveyed or transferred.
  (6) A conveyance or transfer made for effectuating the appointment of a new trustee or the retirement of a trustee, or under which no beneficial interest passes in the property conveyed or transferred, shall not be charged with duty under this Section.
  Mr. HILLS Mr. HILLS moved to leave out after the word "transfer" the words "operating as a voluntary disposition," and to insert the words "purporting to operate as an immediate gift."
  This Clause proposes to place for the first time a Stamp Duty on gifts. A few nights ago we proposed to tax gifts made within three years. We now mean to extend that principle, and to tax all gifts that pass between people. The object of my Amendment is to obtain from the Government a definition of the class of transactions that they intend to cover by this Clause. Its words are extremely wide, and would include a large class of transactions which I do not think the Government mean to include at all. Take the ordinary case of disentailing and resettling a family property. The disentailing is a disposition of the property, for which at present a stamp of 10s. is sufficient. Take a second case: Assuming a man has made a will which is not very clear, and that after his death the family meet round the table and come to an arrangement which is embodied in a deed. That is a disposition of property between many people which at present only bears a 10s. stamp. If this Clause becomes law as it now stands, the charge will be doubled. I think it is not asking too much to request the Government to confine the Clause to real gifts, where property really does pass between living persons. It cannot be their intention to impose this tax on transactions which are in the sense of a disposition of property. For myself, I think the whole of the tax on gifts is bad, but if we are to have it surely it ought to be confined to actual gifts. I think the Solicitor-General will agree that the words of the Clause include a large class of transactions which are not gifts at all, but are arrangements or dispositions of pro-
  462
  perty under which in a technical sense the property does pass, although there is no actual parting with the interest. In the disentailing of a family estate the property does not pass in the technical sense as if the fee simple was moved on to somebody else. The property is there. And similarly in a deed of family arrangement—in that case the shares of the different people are valued, but the whole property does not pass in the sense of a gift passing from one hand to another. I am not bound to the words I move though I think they meet the case. I ask the Government whether they intend to confine this new Stamp Duty to real gifts, or do they intend to include all sorts of transactions that are not real gifts.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is to leave out certain words and insert the words "immediate gift." The bulk of his speech, however, was not directed so much to what he proposes to insert as to what he thinks should be left out of the Clause. He no doubt raised a point of legal importance, which I leave my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to deal with; but I should like to deal with the actual Amendment as it stands on the Paper. If the words proposed by the hon. Member were inserted as they stand, the effect of them would be that a person would only have to say that the gift from the donor to the donee was not to be "an immediate gift," and, therefore, the duty would not be payable. It is quite clear, from the purely fiscal point of view, that a Stamp Duty upon these voluntary dispositions cannot be allowed to be the subject of evasion by the introduction, for that is really what it would mean, of the words "immediate gift." Therefore, I think the hon. Gentleman opposite will agree that these words could not be inserted in the Clause.
  Mr. HILLS: I do not want to bind the right hon. Gentleman to the words at all if he will agree to the principles of my Amendment.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman in raising this particular question does so because he disapproves of the principle of imposing the Stamp Duty on voluntary dispositions. I think, having regard to other duties already passed by the Committee in this Bill, it is quite clear that evasion should be prevented. Perhaps evasions is not the best word. [An HON. MEMBER:

  463
  "Avoidance."] Yes, avoidance is the better word. It is quite clear that we must have a Stamp Duty on dispositions of property. That is a very important principle to which we on this side of the House attach the greatest value. Undoubtedly, if the Stamp Duty were not imposed on these dispositions of property, it would enable people to avoid the duties already passed by the Committee; and, therefore, whether it is the principle which is insisted upon by the right hon. Gentleman or whether it is the words "immediate gift" that he proposes to put in the Clause, I am afraid, either in one case or the other, the Government would be unable to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman probably may modify his view with regard to an Amendment I have on the White Paper as follows:—
  "(6) A conveyance or transfer made at the request of beneficiaries under a will, settlement, or trust for sale effecting a distribution of the property in specie, shall not be charged with duty under this Section."
  The point is a very simple one and a very common one. The case may occur where a man gives his property to his children, so much stock or so much in Consols, and, instead of having the property sold, the family say they would like to have it divided between them. I am afraid by this provision such transactions might be subject to the duty which the Clause imposes. It is not an uncommon case. The property would have already just immediately before that paid a State duty, and under the provisions of this Bill would also have to pay 1 per cent. Legacy Duty, so that it has already fully contributed to the general Exchequer of the country. If the children sell it again, of course there would then be Stamp Duty on the sale. I submit that this is a very reasonable Amendment. I do not stick to the exact words, but I think it is a bonâ fide case which might be met, and one which if it were not met would hit the family very heavily.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Sub-section (6) deals with the case of the appointment of a new trustee, but does not deal with the case where a trustee gets rid of his trust and where the trust is discharged. I suppose that is only a lapse or omission, because it is certainly not covered in the words of the Clause. I only rise to ask the hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General
  464
  whether I am right in thinking that this Clause does not cover the case where marriage is portion of the consideration? I have heard it does not, but I am not quite clear about it. I infer from Sub-section (5) that it is intended that this Clause shall not cover a settlement where marriage is portion of a consideration, and that it shall where marriage is not a portion.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is so.
  Sir E. CARSON: The question before the House is one of very vast importance, because the Motion is really to leave out the words "operating as a voluntary disposition." That raises the very wide question as to how far we are going to tax voluntary arrangements as between parties who are owners or who are interested in property. The Committee is aware that up to this the law has never thought right, as regards taxes, to interfere in any way in the voluntary disposition of property. Therefore we are now for the first time engaged in putting a tax upon voluntary arrangements in connection with property if the property passes. What it is proposed to do seems to me to be a matter which requires very grave consideration, and that is that we should put them on exactly the same position as in the case of sale, or rather in a worse position. In the case of sale you have an arrangement and you have money in hand, while in the case of a voluntary disposition you will have in some way or other to raise the money to pay these duties which are being put on the transaction. That seems to me to be a tremendous change in dealing with property, because it necessitates, as there is no purchase and sale, the raising of money for the purpose of carrying out a gift, and it may be a large amount. You are putting enormous burdens on the subject and enacting that you have on each occasion on which you wish to give a voluntary gift to your son, or family, or anybody else, to have a valuation, and the Government have to have a valuation, and you have to come to terms as to what is the value of the property. That is why I said that henceforward, if this Bill passes, in the case of a voluntary gift of any property the person making the gift is in a worse position than in the case of a sale. Of course, in the case of a sale and purchase, you have an index of what the Stamp Duty would be by the consideration, and you have money in hand for the purpose of paying the tax, and you have no necessity for a valuation. If this tax is to be applied to a mere voluntary gift,

  465
  as far as I can see, in every case, having regard to subsequent provisions, even where there is a consideration, the Commissioners will be entitled to say that they will not accept that consideration, and insist on a valuation of their own to determine what the purchase money should have been. That is a great revolution in regard to the matter of making gifts, and even as regards conveyances on sale to various parties.
  Let me point out another matter to show how matters become cumulative under this Budget. The Secretary to the Treasury says you must draw distinction in some way or other to avoid avoidance, evasion, or whatever you like to call it, of Death Duties. Suppose I give a gift of property to my son, I have to double the present rate of Stamp Duty upon transfer of that voluntary gift, and supposing I die within three years the Death Duties must be paid as well. While the Secretary to the Treasury says that the Government must take care that the revenue is not defrauded by these gifts, I think the House went very far the other night in the Clause which they have already passed, and by which they extended the limit for these gifts from one to three years. Here we are now making an addition to the Death Duties on a transaction that may have taken place when the people were in perfect health and without any anticipation of death. You are also enacting that double the present Stamp Duty must be paid in relation to voluntary transactions. It may be right or it may be wrong to do that, but the Committee ought to do it with their eyes open and to see the extent to which they are going in practically putting an end to the possibility of carrying out anything like voluntary gifts, even between relations. The only solution, probably, is never to have anything but bonds or cash, and if I may give a hint to parties who are considering how to deal with the cumulative provisions of this Budget I advise everybody to have bonds. They can pass by delivery, and then the Government say, quite properly, they should not be taxed. What is to be the meaning of the words "operating as a voluntary disposition"?
  There were two cases put, and I should like to ask the Solicitor-General how this Clause will affect them. The first was the disentailing case. Is that a conveyance "operating as a voluntary disposition"? That is a matter of extreme importance, because, of course, all the settled estates, all the large estates, are entailed estates.
  466
  I believe the Whigs do not entail, but they are a vanishing quantity in politics. There you have undoubtedly a voluntary conveyance; you convey for the purpose of disentailing the property to the trustee. Is that to come under this Clause? And if not, what are the words in the Clause which limit it? Then there was another case, the ordinary case of persons making arrangements as to the division of property where the parties are all interested and where they arrange a conveyance one to the other. Is that a conveyance "operating as a voluntary disposition" and where are the words which limit in this matter? I think that the Committee ought to see that they are now on a part of the Bill which is an entirely novel proceeding. It is very necessary for us to have very full explanation as to how those words "operating as a voluntary disposition" are construed by the Government, and how far the questions which are on the Paper have been met by any alteration.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has quite correctly stated what the object of this Clause is. The object of the Clause is to make Stamp Duty payable upon a disposition of property, and I use the word "property" in the meaning of property in the same sense as a conveyance—
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Do you mean land and houses?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: We are now dealing with conveyances which are voluntary and of the same character as those which we have already dealt with in the preceding Clause. You have in law two kinds of consideration, namely, good consideration and value consideration; and the right hon. Gentleman says, quite rightly, that we are now imposing Stamp Duties upon transfers of property of the latter description. Take the case of a gift from father to son or of settling property more than three years before death. Up to now there has been no Stamp Duty, except the Deed Duty, payable in respect of transactions of that description. Under this Clause Stamp Duty will have to be paid, just as in a case of transfer on sale. That is a question of principle. That is the proposal of the Government, and I am prepared to argue that it is perfectly sound and right. I see no reason at all why a gift of property of a considerable amount from a father to a son 21 or 22 years of age should escape Stamp Duty. You can give reasons against it, but so you can for not taking Stamp Duty upon transfers on sale.

  467
  The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) said that we are imposing an enormous burden upon transfers of that kind. We are not doing anything of the kind. He must have been thinking of something else. He said that we were making it necessary to raise money upon such proceedings. The duty is only £1 in every £100. Supposing a man has an estate of £10,000 which he wishes to transfer to his son. One may assume that he could put his hand on £100 if he is willing to transfer £10,000 worth of property. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman was rather exaggerating the effect of placing this Stamp Duty on voluntary dispositions. As to the question of valuation, there are provisions already in the Stamp Act, 1891, enabling the Commissioners to assess the duty. There is no difficulty about it. An affidavit by a person interested is usually accepted. There is a reference to that provision in Sub-section (2) of this Clause. It will not be necessary to have a valuation. The Commissioners need only be satisfied. It will not be necessary to translate the property into money for the purpose of calculating the Stamp Duty.
  Sir E. CARSON: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point as to death occurring within three years after Stamp Duty has been exacted?
  Sir S. EVANS: The Stamp Duty would be payable under this Clause.
  Sir E. CARSON: And the Estate Duty?
  Sir S. EVANS: If it comes within the provisions of the Act with regard to Estate Duty. In reply to a further question put to me, a disentailing assurance may be simply a disentailing deed, or it may be a disentailing deed plus a transfer of property or a settlement of property. I am authorised to say that if it is merely a disentailing assurance for the purpose of barring entail, an exception might and ought to be made, and I am quite willing to insert after the words "inter vivos" some such words as "other than a disentailing assurance merely by way of barring entail." But if the disentailing assurance is also a transfer of property it comes within the provision. The next question put was what would happen in case there was a distribution of property which might be sold by the trustee under the will, but where the distribution took place amongst the beneficiaries instead of there being a sale of the property. I am
  468
  not at all sure that that would be a voluntary disposition. But I think there is a case for that, and I think the case could be properly met by excepting in express terms the deeds necessary for carrying out such a distribution as I have described.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: On the broad question of principle the Solicitor-General and the Secretary to the Treasury have given us the sole defence which has ever been offered of this Clause, namely, that it is intended to do something to stop the avoidance of Death Duties by transfers inter vivos. Does the Solicitor-General say that is not the intention of the Clause?
  Sir S. EVANS: It is one of the intentions.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is the only intention so far declared. That also was the purpose which the Government gave for extending the 12 months' period to three years. This is a most extraordinary way of facilitating the distribution of property about which hon. Members opposite are so fond of talking. The Government are attempting to facilitate the distribution of property by imposing heavy Estate Duties after death, and by doubling the Stamp Duties on transfers made while the man is alive. The Solicitor-General says that after all there is no particular reason why a son should have any special and indefeasible claim to property more than anybody else. I do not know how the case may be in England, but in Scotland a son or a wife has such an indefeasible claim. In English law I believe there is a process by which you can cut off your son with a shilling. The Scottish law, in a more humane spirit, says that you shall do no such thing. In Scotland if a man dies leaving a son and a wife, the son must come in for one third of the money; nothing can stop him. If a man leaves money in his will to his son you make him pay Estate Duty. If he transfers the money to his son by an inter vivos transfer, you make him pay Stamp Duty. If, having transferred the money to his son, he happens to die within three years, you make him pay both Estate Duty and Stamp Duty. I say that that is an utterly indefensible proposition.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The Solicitor-General said that this Clause dealt with the same kind of property as the preceding Clause. Does he mean that? In the preceding Clause stocks and shares are expressly exempted, but they are not exempted in this Clause, I believe.
  Sir S. EVANS: I think the hon. Gentleman is right.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: When the Solicitor-General is considering the exemptions which he has promised to make in favour of disentailing deeds and so on, will he also consider two other cases; one is a conveyance to a beneficiary on the conclusion of a trust, and the other is the conclusion of a partnership.
  Sir S. EVANS: The question of a trust is dealt with in a subsequent Sub-section.
  Mr. RIDSDALE: I understand that "conveyance" means a legal document. But if I simply hand over property, or, say, a cheque for £500, to another person, that is a conveyance in ordinary language. Would that come within this Sub-section?
  Sir S. EVANS: The conveyance is a document. If a man likes to hand over his property to his son in the manner suggested by the hon. Member, and his son is content to accept it in that way, there is no deed upon which Stamp Duty can be claimed.
  Mr. HILLS: I do not think these words ought to be left in the Bill. The Solicitor-General himself admits that they go too far. If I omitted the word "immediate" from my Amendment, and confined its operation to actual gifts, I think it would meet the objections which have been raised. The intention of the Government is only to tax gifts. You do not want to tax the machinery at all. Do the Government accept the words with the omission of "immediate"?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS'Sreply was inaudible.
  Mr. HILLS: Will they accept any words at all?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: A voluntary disposition of property is a very well-understood thing.
  Mr. HILLS: It includes a great deal more than the Government wishes to tax.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 72.

  Division No. 702.]

  AYES.

  [7.5 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Agnew, George William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Clough, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithnessshire)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

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

  Harwood, George

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsury, E.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cox, Harold

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barker, Sir John

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Crossley, William J.

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

  Barnes, G. N.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Hooper, A. G.

  Bell, Richard

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Bennett, E. N.

  Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jardine, Sir J.

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

  Erskine, David C.

  Jenkins, J.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Essex, R. W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Falconer, J.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Findlay, Alexander

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Branch, James

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Brigg, John

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Bright, J. A.

  Gibson, J. P.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Lament, Norman

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Glover, Thomas

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Chance, Frederick William

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Gulland, John W.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Radford, G. H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Maclean, Donald

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rees, J. D.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Maddison, Frederick

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Toulmin, George

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Verney, F. W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Massie, J.

  Robinson, S.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walsh, Stephen

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Roch, Walter FF. (Pembroke)

  Wardle, George J.

  Middlebrook, William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Waring, Walter

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Myer, Horatio

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

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

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Nicholls, George

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Seddon, J.

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Seely, Colonel

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

  Partington, Oswald

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Snowden, P.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Steadman, W. C.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Pointer, J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Strauss, B. S. (Mile End)

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

  Summerbell, T.

  NOES.

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Oddy, John James

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Keswick, William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Winterton, Earl

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Younger, George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. J. W. Hills and Mr. Courthope.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Mr. RADFORD Mr. RADFORD moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "vivos" ["a voluntary disposition inter vivos shall be chargeable with the like Stamp Duty"] to insert the words "not being a conveyance effecting a resettlement of real estate."
  Perhaps after what the learned Attorney-General has said on this matter it is not necessary to move my Amendment. I understand the construction put by the Government upon the matter is that if the deed is one of disentailing pure and simple, then in that case it does not come under the operation of this Sub-section; but, if it is a resettlement of the estate—
  472
  that is, a gift inter vivos—the duty will be payable. If that is so, I venture to suggest that it is desirable to insert words to make it clear. Whether those words should be inserted or not is a question of high policy which I do not venture to interfere with, but I do say that this is really a very important matter from the point of view of the family life of this country. I happen to know a case which has recently come before the Commissioners for stamping, and where the resettlement of the estate has been stamped at 10s. If this Bill had then been law it would have been stamped

  473
  at £6,000. The owners of great estates are not always flush of money, and I have a reason to think in some cases if it had been a question of putting down £6,000—say on this occasion—there would have been no re-settlement at all, and the whole history of the family in the county would in future have been different. I put forward this Amendment with a view to suggesting that certain words should be inserted making it quite clear. I beg to move.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is thought that Sub-section (6) covers the point which is referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General; but, if it is necessary in any way to put more explicit words in in order to make it quite certain that the duty shall not be chargeable in the case of a disentailing deed—merely a disentailing deed—but shall be charged in the case of a re-settlement, then those words shall be put in. It is really not quite certain, under Sub-section (5), whether the case is not already provided for.
  Mr. CAVE: Are we to understand that it is intended to charge this duty upon the re-settlement of an estate?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes; that is so.
  Mr. CAVE: If so, it is a very serious matter indeed. The point is raised directly by this Amendment, and I had intended to raise it later on. As everybody knows, estates are settled on the present owner for life with remainder to his issue; generally entailed. It is a common practice when the eldest son comes of age to have a re-settlement under which the eldest son gets an immediate allowance, and the estate is then re-settled upon the father for life, and then upon the son for life, and then upon the issue of the son. The result, of course, is to make the son, instead of being a tenant-in-tail, a life-tenant after his father's death, so that the estate remains in the family. I believe it is a beneficial practice, and one that has saved many inheritances from being spent by young men when prematurely entrusted with large fortunes, and it is adopted throughout the country with regard to large estates and some smaller estates, and I have not heard any one objection to the practice, but I have heard a great many who said it is a beneficial practice to families and to the community at large. The effect of the Bill, without this Amendment, would be that on the re-settlement of an estate worth £100,000,
  474
  £1,000 would have to be paid in Stamp Duty. That is absolutely prohibitive. Taking a large estate of £200,000, Stamp Duty amounting to £2,000 would have to be paid for every re-settlement of an estate upon future members of the family in order to prevent it from being sold, and not only to protect it from being sold, for that could be done in spite of re-settlement, but to protect the remainder-man of 21 or 22 years of age from selling his reversion before he comes of age. We all know it can be done. The remainder-man-in-tail can sell his future estate, subject to certain limitations, without the assent of his father and without the assent of anyone. The case is common of young men who at a certain age are entitled to a large estate anticipating their fortune. It is a very serious matter to put an end to this practice. I do not know whether it is deliberately done or not. If it is deliberately done it is the greatest mistake that was ever made; if it is done inadvertently, of course, we shall have some Amendment, but I would like to point out that it would be a revolution to put upon the practice of re-settlements a prohibitive charge. I do hope the matter will be reconsidered. It is a very serious thing indeed, and certainly a change which ought not to be made. I strongly support the Amendment.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made, as he always does, a very reasoned and a very reasonable speech. But I think he has not considered the whole facts of the case. There is no intention on the part of the Government by means of statute to put an end to the settlement that is necessary in the case of the re-settlement of landed property, but it is thought fair that where adequate protection is given there should be some contribution from that estate. What is the extent of that contribution? Take the case which the hon. and learned Gentleman put. He took the case of an estate worth £100,000, which, under this proposal, would have to contribute £1,000. How often would that have to be done? It would be done in the ordinary average life of father, son, and grandson, which would be about once every 42 years. That is to say, a re-settlement will cover the course of two lives. [An HON. MEMBER: "It would have to be settled for every life."] Not for every life. I do not think it would be necessary, but I am prepared to argue it even upon the term of years suggested by the hon. Member opposite. Supposing it went on every 24 years, that

  475
  is after all a very short period of individual life. Say it went on every 24 or 25 years. Then in the course of a century the estate would pay about 4 per cent. I really think in the case of considerable landed property value £100,000, to require it to pay every 25 or 30 years a sum of £1,000, or 1 per cent., is really not a very serious tax upon it.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is perfectly childish.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman uses strong and vehement language, but settled estate, like every other form of property, ought to be required to make a contribution to the State.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am sorry if I misled the hon. Gentleman in making use of a rather strong observation. My reference was not to the taxation suggested, but to the idea of treating this particular tax as if it were the only duty payable. I do repeat the expression that it is childish to talk of this or that particular burden as not being excessive as if it was the only burden which the estate has to bear. I tell the right hon. Gentleman from my own experience that agricultural landed property under the present law has to bear a total burden amounting in many cases to the whole income of the property when the expenses and maintenance are taken into consideration. Here are enormous additional burdens in the aggregate which are placed upon it. Each one in itself may not be crushing, but in the aggregate they are crushing, and the result in a great many cases may be that the right hon. Gentleman will find that instead of over-estimating what these revenues are going to give him he under-estimates them because this duty will not pay at all, as the property will be disentailed. Is that the object of the Government? They have denied that is what they are doing. I heard signs of approval when I said that was the object which would be attained. After all, what we have to do with is, not what the Government's objects are, but what their legislation is going to produce.
  I venture to suggest that those who, like my hon. Friend who spoke last and others of us who have actual knowledge and acquaintance with agricultural estates, are better judges as to what the effect of this legislation is likely to be than hon. Members who are theorists in the matter, and
  476
  who "compartment" their legislation, and whose horizon is limited to the particular item under discussion, and who do not seem to see in a matter like this beyond the radius of their own hats. I say that it is a most serious matter, and I desire to emphasise most strongly the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston against interfering with the present practice of the settlement of landed estates. The effect would be a very serious one, and whatever the object of the Government may or may not be, it will largely tend to put an end to the settlement of landed property.
  Mr. COURTENAY WARNER: I think the speech which has been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is rather severe. A great many of us who have had some experience not only in ordinary estates, but of estates which are tied up, find these estates are injured very often quite as much by the strain in the tying up. In spite of the powers given of selling with the consent of the Court of Chancery, the enormous damage which is done to the property by tying up is quite as great in the opinion of some of the holders of land and quite as bad as the damage that might be done by a spendthrift. For the benefit of landowners throughout the country it would be a great thing to do away with this system of tying up, which is a relic of the feudal times, and which is thoroughly ill-adapted to the work of the estates proper. Of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite are attached to the old system and do not like any interference with it, but whether it is the object of the Government or not, anything that discourages in any way the tying up of estates would have my sympathy and that of a great many landlords throughout the country.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: If settled land is feudal, unjust and bad, why not put a much higher duty upon it, and say the settlement of land is wrong, and make it penal altogether?
  Mr. COURTENAY WARNER: I never advocate revolution!
  Colonel WILLIAMS: That is exactly what all this taxation does. It advocates revolution; it wants to do away with settlements. I believe in settlements, and I very much deplore this extra tax on settled property. If settled property is right, why tax it at all? The right hon. Gentleman opposite said settled property should bear

  477
  its just share of the burdens of the country. I do not think that anybody wants to get out of bearing his just share of the burdens of the country, but why should so much be required from settled property? The man to whom the property belongs may pay his fair share of the taxation of the country. Why should the settlement be hampered by this extra 1 per cent.? I know from my personal experience that this extra tax is a very considerable extra burden, and will make these Land Taxes a crushing burden.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I myself am somewhat of a heretic upon the question of settled property, although I do not agree with the violent denunciations we hear from the other side. I doubt myself whether it is such a great advantage as some of my hon. Friends think, but that does not in the least make me more in favour of this proposal. It seems to me that what we have to do is to consider this Bill as a Revenue Bill. The question is whether it is fair to tax such re-settlements as if they were gifts inter vivos. We have nothing to do with whether the settlement is good or bad, and I should certainly be violently opposed to the Government's proposal more violently than I am if I thought they were trying to destroy
  settlement by this rather petty form of persecution. But why I do not think it is right to tax settlement is this. They are not gifts inter vivos in any sense of the word. They are not going to convey anything to the recipient. Nobody gets any advantage by this, and it is merely a device, bad or good, for securing a particular method of the devolution of land. That being so, upon the mere ground that you are going to tax a gift, you cannot justify this tax. Can you justify it on the ground that it is necessary to discourage the avoidance of the Death Duties? Equally you cannot, because they will be payable just the same. It appears to me that on neither of the grounds on which this tax can be justified, from a revenue point of view, can it be right to tax a re-settlement, and on that ground I shall support the Amendment.
  Mr. RADFORD: I ask for leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Leave to withdraw withheld.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 217.

  Division No. 703.]

  AYES.

  [7.35 p.m.

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hills, J. W.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Keswick, William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

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

  Cave, George

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

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Younger, George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hunt and Sir William Bull.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Oddy, John James

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barnard, E. B.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barnes, G. N.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Branch, James

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Brigg, John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bell, Richard

  Bright, J. A.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

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

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Barker, Sir John

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Reddy, M.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Rees, J. D.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Jardine, Sir J.

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

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Jenkins, J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cough, William

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robinson, S.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cowan, W. H.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Cox, Harold

  Lehmann, R. C.

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Seddon, J.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Seely, Colonel

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lundon, T.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Lupton, Arnold

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Snowden, P.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Maclean, Donald

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Erskine, David C.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Essex, R. W.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Summerbell, T.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Maddison, Frederick

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Falconer, J.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Marnham, F. J.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Massie, J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Toulmin, George

  Gibson, J. P.

  Meagher, Michael

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gill, A. H.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Verney, F. W.

  Ginnell, L.

  Middlebrook, William

  Wadsworth, J.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Glover, Thomas

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

  Wardie, George J.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Myer, Horatio

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Gulland, John W.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nicholls, George

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Nussey, Sir Willans

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

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Harwood, George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Partington, Oswald

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

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

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pointer, J.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

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

  Hooper, A. G.

  Radford, G. H.

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

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

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved, in Sub-section (1), to insert after the word "vivos" the words "not being a disentailing assurance, or an appointment under a special power of appointment."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I regret that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. A general appointment is one thing but a special appointment is quite different.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: I put it to the Solicitor-General that this is not giving any gift at all.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: If it is a case of that kind, it would be covered by the words of Sub-section (6).
  Mr. CAVE: I think the words ought to be inserted in a wider form than has been suggested. The estate may be limited by a future deed, which, of course, will bear the proper Stamp Duty. I think it would be monstrous to charge an ad valorem duty on appointments under special powers. A special power of appointment may arise where the property is settled. The property is settled among children, and the only power of the father is to select among

  481
  the children. You are not giving the property to new persons, but only redividing it. The property has already borne duty, and it would be monstrous, when you are only redividing it, that it should be charged an ad valorem duty. That is why I want to put these words in.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I hope my hon. and learned Friend will persist in his Amendment. It surely cannot be the intention of the Government to exact two settlement duties on what is practically the same transaction, and that will be the case if the Amendment were not adopted. With regard to the point as to the special power of appointment the intention is clear. Take the case of property which has to go to the children of A in such manner as A by will may appoint. He may execute a deed whereby one of the children comes into some part of the property at once. Under this Clause, as it stands, there would be no relief under Sub-section (6), because it would be perfectly clear the beneficial interest would pass in the property dealt with, and it would, therefore, be charged with the duty. When property has been settled and has paid all the duties it ought to pay and when it has to come to certain children, it cannot be the intention of the Government to impose this heavy duty again on the mere division of a property.
  Mr. CAVE: Will the Solicitor-General accept these words, either here or in Subsection (6): "Disentailing assurance not limiting a new estate."
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think it had better come in Sub-section (6), because that is where the exemptions are made.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "vivos" ["voluntary disposition inter vivos"], to insert the words "not being a conveyance or transfer for a charitable or other public purpose."
  I want to exempt conveyances for charitable and other public purposes. Supposing land or other property is given by deed to charities, the Bill taxes it 1 per cent. I want to exempt that. You could not ask the donor not only to give the property, but also to pay the Stamp Duty upon conveyance. He would expect the Stamp Duty to be paid by the charity, and that would be very hard upon the charity. They have other uses for their funds, and I think they ought to be exempt from this new Stamp Duty. The
  482
  same applies to conveyances for public purposes, and I think they ought to be exempt.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A somewhat similar Amendment was moved the other day, when it was suggested that gifts made for charitable and national purposes should be exempt. The Government were unable to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite on that occasion, although they recognised there was some force in their argument, and they are also quite unable to meet them here.
  Sir E. CARSON: Do I understand that if a man transfers £5,000 stock to a hospital, 1 per cent. would have to be paid?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is so.
  Sir E. CARSON: Then, I think it would be much better to sell out and give the money.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Take such an institution as the Liverpool University, to which many donors have given buildings and lands. Hitherto it has passed with a 10s. stamp, because no consideration passes between the parties in the way of money. If I understand the effect of the Bill, unless this Amendment is adopted, there will be 1 per cent. duty payable on the value of that property. We had a case the other day where a man gave land and buildings to the value of £15,000. Who is to pay the duty of £150? The university is hard up for money, and struggling along doing its best. I think it would be a very great mistake to impose any tax whatever upon gifts of that description, and I support the Amendment.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: There is the case where money has been subscribed to build a church or a chapel. The property is temporarily vested in trustees. Later, there is a further transfer of the property to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or to the governing body of the denomination. Is that second transaction to bear duty? In my opinion it is not saved by Subsection (6). The second transfer is a mere transfer for administrating purposes, and I would ask the Government whether it is saved by Sub-section (6) or whether it is not necessary to prevent it being hit by a second ad valorem duty?
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 206.

  Division No. 704.]

  AYES.

  [7.58 p.m.

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Oddy, John James

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Baring, Capt Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hills, J. W.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Keswick, William

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

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

  Younger, George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Cave and Sir Wm. Bull.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Maclean, Donald

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Elibank, Master of

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Erskine, David C.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Everett, R. Lacey

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

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Falconer, J.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Barker, Sir John

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Barnes, G. N.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Marnham, F. J.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Massie, J.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Gibson, J. P.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gill, A. H.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Bell, Richard

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Middlebrook, William

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Molteno Percy Alport

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gulland, John W.

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

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Myer, Horatio

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Nicholls, George

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harwood, George

  Nuttall, Harry

  Branch, James

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Brigg, John

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bright, J. A.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Partington, Oswald

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

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

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

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

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pointer, J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Cleland, J. W.

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

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

  Clough, William

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Radford, G. H.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

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

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rees, J. D.

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

  Jenkins, J.

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robinson, S.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Crossley, William J.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lehmann, R. C.

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

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

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Seddon, J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Seely, Colonel

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  484

  485

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Tomkinson, James

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Toulmin, George

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Snowden, P.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Walsh, Stephen

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Walters, John Tudor

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wardle, George J.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Summerbell, T.

  Waring, Walter

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

  Sir F. BANBURY Sir F. BANBURY moved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words, "Provided that where any conveyance or transfer has been charged with duty under this Section, and where the donor or transferor dies within such period that the property so conveyed or transferred is included as property passing on the death of the deceased the sum paid as Stamp Duty shall be deducted from the Estate Duty, if any, levied in respect of such property."
  The object of this is to ensure that where a man gives property away during his lifetime, and has to pay 1 per cent. Stamp Duty on it and then dies within three years of the date of the gift, his executors shall be allowed to deduct that 1 per cent. from the Estate Duty, if any, that may be due. That seems to be a reasonable Amendment, which does not need to be argued.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I regret I cannot see my way to accept this Amendment. I do not think it is really a case for the deduction of Stamp Duties. These gifts are made with a view of avoiding the Death Duties, and if a person is to be in a position to make such a gift knowing that his estate will suffer in no event, it will be a great inducement for him to enter into transactions of this kind. In other countries similar and, indeed, very high duties are imposed in these cases in order that they may act as a deterrent. May I make an appeal to hon. Members opposite. I think I have some right to complain. I consented to adjourn early last night on an assurance that we should be allowed to get these clauses by seven o'clock, and I asked that that should be made a firm offer, as a previous arrangement had broken down. Of course, I do not expect seven o'clock to be literally adhered to, but now we are over an hour beyond that. I agree, too, we must make some allowance for the fact that several hon. Members below the Gangway inter-
  486
  vened unexpectedly; but I think the time has now come for me to make an appeal in the interests of Parliamentary understandings which during an experience of 20 years I have seen made and adhered to without complaint. I do hope we shall be allowed to get on.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I entirely assent to the general statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, but may I point out that we above the Gangway are not responsible for the prolongation of the Debate. There was an unexpected intervention lasting nearly two hours. As a result of that unexpected discussion, I communicated with the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joseph Pease), and informed him it was quite impossible for us to conclude the discussion in the time arranged. It was understood we were to be allowed three and a half or four hours for that discussion, and that that would take us up to seven o'clock.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The words used were seven o'clock. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wellington Division of Somerset (Sir A. Acland-Hood) if that is not so. I know how scrupulously he adheres to these arrangements, and I will willingly accept his interpretation of the arrangement.
  Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. I said I thought the Debate would last until seven o'clock, and that would allow three and a half hours for it. The information given me was that three and a half hours would be sufficient. But Members of another party, for which I am not responsible, intervened. I cannot be expected to answer for all sections of the House.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 192.

  Division No. 705.]

  AYES.

  [8.15 p.m.

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hills, J. W.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Keswick, William

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cave, George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

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

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Oddy, John James

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Fell, Arthur

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  F. Banbury and Sir W. Bull.

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Falconer, J.

  Middlebrook, William

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fullerton, Hugh

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

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Myer, Horatio

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Gibson, J. P.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Gill, A. H.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Barker, Sir John

  Glendinning, R. G.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Glover, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Partington, Oswald

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Gulland, John W.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Pointer, J.

  Bell, Richard

  Harwood, George

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

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

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Malden)

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Rees, J. D.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Branch, James

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Brigg, John

  Hooper, A. G.

  Robinson, S.

  Bright, J. A.

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

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Jenkins, J.

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Seddon, J.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Cleland, J. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Clough, William

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Snowden, P.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Scares, Ernest J.

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

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Summerbell, T.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Lupton, Arnold

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Davies, David (Montgomery, C.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Maclean, Donald

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Tomkinson, James

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

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Toulmin, George

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

  M'Callum, John M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duckworth, Sir James

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Wadsworth, J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Walsh, Stephen

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wardle, George J.

  Elibank, Master of

  Marnham, F. J.

  Waring, Walter

  Essex, R. W.

  Massie, J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  488

  489

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Cork—[To insert at end of Sub-section (1) the words "Provided that, in estimating such value, there shall be deducted the amount or value of any debt, money, or stock upon which Stamp Duty is chargeable and paid under Section fifty-seven of the principal Act"]—is outside the scope of the Clause. This Clause deals with gifts, and Section fifty-seven of the principal Act deals with debt.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I think, Sir, you have misconceived the scope of my Amendment, which only carries out the intention of the Government on this Clause. I do not wish to extend what the Government desires; I only wish to secure that they shall not get more than they want. This Clause applies to voluntary dispositions, practically all the Clauses of the Stamp Act relating to conveyances on sale.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I quite understand the hon. and learned Member's point, but obviously the subject is not on this Clause specifically, and if it is to be gone into, it would have to be put down as a new clause.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: May I again suggest to you, Sir, that Clause 53 as it stands applies for the purposes of the imposition of this duty on voluntary conveyances, all the sections of the Stamp Act which relate to conveyances on sale. That is quite clear. It provides that, "Any conveyance or transfer operating as a voluntary disposition inter vivos shall be chargeable with the like Stamp Duty as if it were a conveyance or transfer on sale, with the substitution in each case of the value of the property conveyed or transferred for the amount or value of the consideration for the sale." I am simply endeavouring to correct the wideness of that general enactment by providing that one of the clauses relating to conveyance on sale shall not apply. I do not see why that should not be in order.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That would have to be provided for by a new clause. When we are upon a special matter of this kind which will affect not merely voluntary dispositions, but others, it would have to be done by a new clause.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: That objection does not at all apply to my second Amendment providing for the deduction of any Stamp Duty payable in respect of any charge or covenant created by the conveyance or transfer. Do I understand you, Sir, to rule against my second Amendment as well as my first?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's second Amendment is practically the same thing.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Oh, no; it is wholly different from the first Amendment, and is in no sort of way related to it. My first Amendment deals with a charge existing at the date of the transfer, and my second Amendment deals with a charge created by the transfer—a wholly different thing.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will proceed I will consider the point.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY Mr. MAURICE HEALY wished to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "Provided that from the amount of the Stamp Duty there shall be deducted any Stamp Duty payable in respect of any charge or covenant created by or contained in the conveyance or transfer."
  If a man conveys property worth £5,000 to his two sons he pays under this Clause a duty of 1 per cent., that is, £50. If he conveys the property to one of his sons and charges it with £2,500 there will be, first the duty of £50, and secondly there will be the duty of £1 5s. per cent. on the £2,000.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This is really a point which will involve a serious alteration in the general law, and it has been discussed over and over again. It means that you are to eliminate the charge before you arrive at the consideration money upon which you charge the stamp.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misconceived the position. I do not intend to raise the point which was discussed earlier in the evening. I am supposing that the property is free from any charge when the vendor makes his conveyance, but that he himself creates the charge.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is really the same point, and the discussion on it would only be a repetition.
  Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "been made with a view of conferring," and to insert instead thereof the word "conferred."—[Sir F. Banbury.]
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In any case the words depend upon the previous words "in the opinion of the Commissioners." They are quite as capable of determining whether it is with a view of conferring or whether it actually confers.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Supposing the Commissioners think it has been done with a view of conferring benefit, and it is found that no benefit has been conferred. If my words are put in it limits it to the fact that a benefit has been conferred, whereas now it is left uncertain.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will consider the matter. I do not think there is any substance, but I will consult the draftsman about it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have an Amendment to insert at the end of the Subsection the words: "Provided that a conveyance or transfer made for a nominal consideration shall not be charged with duty under this Section where such conveyance or transfer is made to secure the repayment of an advance or loan." Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking on Report stage to insert these words, or words to carry out the object of the Amendment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN Mr. PRETYMAN moved, at the end of Sub-section (5), to insert the words, "or a disentailing assurance not limited to a new estate."
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press it exactly in these words, because they were very hurriedly stated, and I do not think they are right. The intention of the Government is that a disentailing assurance should not pay duty. I am afraid if these words are used a lot of them will have to pay.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The intention of the Government is that they should not be charged. The best plan is to have these words inserted now, and we will have them amended afterwards if necessary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I have an Amendment on the Paper in Sub-section (6) after the first word "trustee" ["appointment of a new trustee "] to insert the words "whether the trust is expressed or implied."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We have passed that part of the Sub-section, and we cannot go back upon it now.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Then I shall move the Amendment in the form of a proviso at the end of the Sub-section. I beg to move the next Amendment I have on the Paper to insert after the words last inserted in Sub-section (6) the words "or from a trustee to a beneficiary." I understood from what the Solicitor-General said at an earlier period of the evening that he was disposed to accept these words.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think I can accept these words subject to consideration on Report.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: They cannot be inserted here, but if the hon. Gentleman will bring them up on the Report stage they will be inserted.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I will withdraw the Amendment on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that they will be inserted on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to move to insert at the end of the Sub-section the words, "Provided that this Sub-section shall have operation whether the trust is expressed or implied."
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If it is at all necessary I shall have these words inserted on Report.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I thank you very much for that assurance, and I shall withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 47.

  Division No. 706.]

  AYES.

  [8.45 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Athertey-Jones, L.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Barker, Sir John

  Barnard, E. B.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pointer, J.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Harwood, George

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

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Radford, G. H.

  Bell, Richard

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rees, J. D.

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Berridge, T. H. D.

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robinson, S.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

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

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Branch, James

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Brigg, John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Bright, J. A.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Jenkins, J.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Seddon, J.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  King, Alfred John (Knutstord)

  Snowden, P.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Clough, William

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Steadman, W. C.

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Summerbell, T.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Crossley, William J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Maclean, Donald

  Tomkinson, James

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Wadsworth, J.

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

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

  Walsh, Stephen

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Maddison, Frederick

  Walters, John Tudor

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Wardle, George J.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Waring, Walter

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Massie, J.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Essex, R. W.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Middlebrook, William

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

  Falconer, J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fuller, John Michael F.

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Myer, Horatio

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Gibson, J. P.

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Glover, Thomas

  Partington, Oswald

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Gulland, John W.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hills, J. W.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Keswick, William

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

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

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

  Corbett, T. L. ((Down, North)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Oddy, John James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  F. Banbury and Sir Wm. Bull.

  Fell, Arthur

  Pretyman, E. G.

  CLAUSE 54.—(Amendment of s. 12 of the Stamp Act, 1891.)
  Sub-section (5) of Section twelve of the principal Act (which relates to the assessment of duty by the Commissioners) shall have effect only so far as respects the duty in relation to which the opinion of the Commissioners has been required under that Section.
  Mr. J. W. HILLS Mr. J. W. HILLS moved to omit the words "only so far."
  The present law is that in the case of an ordinary deed the person who applies to stamp the deed puts the amount on, and the deed is stamped without question. He takes the risk if the stamping is wrong. If he is in doubt about it he sends it to the Commissioners, with an abstract of its contents, and they determine the stamping; and that stamp is good against all the world. As far as I can see, the law is exactly the same as it would be if the Section was passed, and I cannot suppose that the Section is useless.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am perfectly willing to admit it is quite possible that the language of the Clause may require consideration before we reach the Report tage. The Clause limits the admissibility as evidence of an instrument which has been stamped under Section 12, Sub-section (5), of the Act of 1891, to that part of the instrument which has been adjudicated upon, and stamped, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, to the extent that it has been adjudicated on, the stamping is good against the world. But the Clause intends to provide against that being carried any further than the amount of the stamp which has been affixed. There may be some doubt as to the exact happiness of the language chosen for carrying out this proposal, and, if so, we will be able on Report to make any alteration that is necessary.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: If there is one thing more astonishing than the Clause itself it is the extraordinary speech which we have just heard from the Government Bench. We are told that the Clause does not mean what it says, that it is going to be considered, that the people who have drawn it up do not quite understand what they want, and that somebody else is going to consider something, though what it is is going to be considered, before Report, we have not been informed. I confess when I read this Finance Bill through and came to this
  496
  Clause I was astounded. I asked myself. What is the meaning of the Clause, and what effect is it going to have if we pass it? The meaning of the Clause is that a deed which bears an adjudication stamp, which to-day is absolutely conclusive that it is properly stamped, is in future not to be conclusive that it is properly stamped, because there may be all sorts of points raised as to all kinds of questions that are supposed to be omitted.
  The original Section referred to of the Stamp Act of 1891 reads as follows:—
  "Every instrument stamped with a particular stamp denoting that it is chargeable to no duty, or is duly stamped, shall be abmissible in evidence and available for all purposes, notwithstanding any objection relating to the duty."
  That was the sheet-anchor of the Stamp Law. That sheet-anchor is now to be taken away. When a person dealing with property came across a deed that had got an adjudication stamp upon it he knew that he need not go any further with regard to the stamp, and that it had been admitted by the Inland Revenue to be right. There are frequently documents, and there are going to be a great many more documents in future, where very serious questions arise as to whether they are properly stamped or not, and the only safeguard which the purchaser of property has is the adjudication stamp showing that the Inland Revenue have examined into the question and have put the adjudication stamp upon it to indicate that they are satisfied the duty has been properly paid. The words on the stamp are "Adjudicated; duly stamped." The practice is this: You send your deed with the abstract to the Commissioners at Somerset House. They state whether it is correctly stamped or not. If it is, they put the adjudication stamp upon it. If it is not, they state the amount which they further require before they put on the stamp. That money is paid. When the stamp is put on there is an end of the matter. But when we read this Clause, what do we find? "Oh," say the Government, "this deed may have been left with the Inland Revenue to assess the duty upon some particular point, and some points may arise which the Commissioners have not been asked about, and therefore that adjudication stamp is not going to be final." The only point when we send the document is whether the stamp is right. If the stamp is correct, and the Commissioners put on the adjudication stamp to say so, why reopen the

  497
  matter? Why make it doubtful? Why reserve all sorts of points? I am bound to say, from the little experience I have had in dealing with these deeds for years past, that I have been satisfied whenever I have seen the Commissioners' adjudication stamp upon a document. It is the only criterion whether that is right or not. I am bound to say, further, that a man in buying or selling property in the future, if this Bill passes and becomes an Act, is going to bother and put a man to a great deal of expense and trouble, and perhaps he will have a bad title imposed upon him; because, for the first time since the Stamp Duties were imposed, we now find that the one criterion as to the document being correctly stamped is going to be withdrawn, and withdrawn without any reason whatever being given.
  I do protest against the proposal, which I think a most arbitrary one. Indeed, I should like to use stronger language, and call it a stupid proceeding, either on the part of the Inland Revenue or the Government, to put a Clause such as this in the Bill, and to bring it before the Committee in a speech of the kind which we heard from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  Mr. HILLS: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, if it be any convenience to the Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 48.

  Division No. 707.]

  AYES.

  [9.0 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Maclean, Donald

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Everett, R. Lacey

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

  Barker, Sir John

  Falconer, J.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Barnard, E. B.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Marnham, F. J.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Massie, J.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gibson, J. P.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Bell, Richard

  Gill, A. H.

  Middlebrook, William

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Glover, Thomas

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

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Myer, Horatio

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Gulland, John W.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Harwood, George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Branch, James

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Partington, Oswald

  Brigg, John

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Bright, J. A.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pointer, J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Radford, G. H.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hooper, A. G.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

  Rees, J. D.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Clough, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Jenkins, J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Robinson, S.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cowan, W. H.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Crosfield, A. H.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Crossley, William J.

  Laidlaw, Robert

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

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Seddon, J.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Snowden, P.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Summerbell, T.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Waring, Walter

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

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Tomkinson, James

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Toulmin, George

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

  NOES.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fell, Arthur

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bull, Sir William James

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Keswick, William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

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

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

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

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. J. W. Hills and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Oddy, John James

  CLAUSE 55.—(Stamp Duty on Leases.)
  The Stamp Duties chargeable under the heading "Lease or Tack" in the First Schedule to the principal Act, shall be double the duties which would have been chargeable immediately before the passing of this Act under that heading, but this Section shall not apply in the case of leases or tacks on which a fixed duty of a penny is chargeable under that heading.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Sir W. BULL: There is one point I wish to clear up. We are not certain whether, instead of doubling, it is not trebling the duty. Under Clause 52 the Stamp Duty on conveyances on sale is doubled; and Clause 55 doubles the Stamp Duty on leases. It is just possible the Clause we are now dealing with might be interpreted to mean that the stamp on the premium paid for the lease would be doubled twice over—once under Clause 52 and again under Clause 55. I want an assurance that that is not the case.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The Question put is whether a premium paid for a lease or
  tack would be consideration on a conveyance. Clearly it would not, and there is no overlapping at all.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: My hon. Friend's point was that it is not quite clear that what this Section does is to charge double the duty, and then double the new duty.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The saving words are "which would be chargeable immediately before the passing of this Act." That is not the duties doubled by the Act, but the duties which were chargeable before the passing of the Act.
  Sir E. CARSON: The real point was whether you were doubling or quadrupling the duty. I am inclined to agree with the construction of the Clause that you are only doubling the duty. I think we ought to be somewhat grateful to the Government that they are only doubling the tax and not quadrupling it.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 48.

  Division No. 708.]

  AYES.

  [9.13 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Barker, Sir John

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Bell, Richard

  Harwood, George

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

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rees, J. D.

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

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

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robinson, S.

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Branch, James

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Koch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Brigg, John

  Hooper, A. G.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

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

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Jenkins, J.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Seddon, J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Clough, William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Snowden, P.

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

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Summerbell, T.

  Crossley, William J.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery, Co.)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Tomkinson, James

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

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Toulmin, George

  Duckworth, Sir James

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Walsh, Stephen

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

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

  Walters, John Tudor

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Wardle, George J.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Waring, Walter

  Essex, R. W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Massie, J.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Falconer, J.

  Middlebrook, William

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Fullerton, Hugh

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Myer, Horatio

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Gibson, J. P.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Gill, A. H.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Partington, Oswald

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Gulland, John W.

  Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pointer, J.

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

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  NOES.

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Keswick, William

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clyde, J. Avon

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

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, George

  Cowan, W. H.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Oddy, John James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Castlereagh and Mr. J. W. Hills.

  Committee report Progress; Committee to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).

WAYS AND MEANS.

  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.
  [Mr. CALDWELL, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved the first of a series of Resolutions, of which notice had been given:—

  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.

    1.—MINERAL RIGHTS DUTY.
    "That there shall be charged for the current and every subsequent financial year on the rental value of all rights to work minerals and of all mineral wayleaves, a duty at the rate in each case of one shillling for every twenty shillings of that rental value.
    The rental value to be taken to be—

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

    (b) Where minerals are being worked by the proprietor thereof, the amount which is determined by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to be the sum which would have been received as the rent by the proprietor in the last working year if the right to work the minerals had been let, and the minerals had been worked to the same extent and in the same manner as they have been worked by the proprietor in that year; and

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

    These proposals represent an effort made by the Government, after consultation with many who are directly interested in mineral rights, to meet the objections which were raised to the proposals in reference to minerals originally included in the Finance Bill. It will not be necessary for me at this stage to enter into an elaborate explanation of the proposals; they have been on the Paper for some time, and hon. Members have doubtless examined them very carefully. The changes effected are in one or two respects considerable, but I think they are all in the direction of meeting the views of those who are interested in mineral property. The original proposal of the Government was—on the analogy of the charge upon the capital value of undeveloped land—first of all, on
    504
    ascertaining the capital value of minerals, worked or unworked, to charge a halfpenny in the pound on that value. It was represented to us by a good many of those interested in mineral properties that that would not work well. They suggest that it would be very difficult to ascertain the capital value. At any rate, there was a considerable element of doubt and apprehension as to the magnitude of the tax, and that they would infinitely prefer something which was definite and something which was ascertainable. They also represented to the Government that they would prefer a tax upon sums which they actually received from their mineral rights rather than upon an examination of the prospective interests which they have in those properties. Well, the Government have met their views in that respect by substituting for a tax upon the capital value of mineral properties a tax upon the royalties and way-leaves actually received by the owners of those rights. It is true that that doubles the amount which we expected originally to receive from the halfpenny tax on the capital value of these rights. My estimate of the amount received this year by the tax upon mineral royalties is £350,000. But in exchange for that the Government have made one or two very substantial concessions. We propose to drop the Reversion Tax and the Increment Duty in respect of mines being worked. A criticism passed upon these two duties was in the first place, a question of security, and that therefore in very few cases could there be any reversion which was taxable at all. A criticism which was passed, I remember perfectly well, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South-East Durham (Mr. F. W. Lambton), amongst others, was that this, being a wasting security, possibly the value of the property had been considerably diminished under the lease, and therefore a 10 per cent. tax on less than nothing would produce nothing. The criticism upon the Increment Duty was of the same character, that the mines, being worked, and the coal raised, the capital value of the property would possibly diminish from year to year, and that therefore no increment would be likely to arise. That is not the case in a good many mines. Many mines undoubtedly appreciate in value, even when they have started mining operations. But we were pressed by those interested in mineral properties rather to put on the royalty which we propose.
    Mr. LAMBTON: No, no.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In view of what we were asked to do, the Government made up their minds that the taxation of mineral rights should rather take the form of a royalty than the form of an Increment Tax. I think the hon. Member considers that that fairly represents the views of those interested in those mineral properties.
    Mr. LAMBTONdissented.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I gather that that at any rate is not the view of the hon. Gentleman, who would infinitely prefer an Increment Duty on existing values than a royalty of 1s. in the pound. I do not think that is a view taken by those interested in collieries. I feel perfectly certain that is not so. What I was informed by certain high authorities on this subject was that they infinitely preferred something which was absolutely certain than have the apprehension of a tax which was dependent entirely upon a valuation of the unknown. Therefore the Government have decided to charge a duty of 5 per cent. on all royalties and wayleaves actually received by owners of mineral rights from the mines. In respect of existing mines the Government have decided from the working of the mines to eliminate the existing Clauses in regard to Reversion Duty and Increment Value Duty. With regard to the mineral properties which are not worked, the minerals and mineral properties will be valued in the usual way. No Undevelopment Duty will be charged upon them, but an Increment Duty will be charged. So that if mineral properties are sold for a larger sum than that at which they are valued Increment Duty will be charged in the usual way upon them. The same thing would apply in the usual way to Increment Duty at death. In respect of future mines the proposals of the Government are that the Increment Duty shall take the form of an annual commutation—that Increment Duty will be charged upon the minerals actually received. The way that will be arrived at will be that first of all there will be a valuation upon all the mining properties of the country. The annual equivalent of that value will be ascertained on a basis of 12½ years' purchase, which I am told is the usual amount.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: There must be a valuation of ungotten minerals underground?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly, a valuation of all the mineral properties of the country.
    Sir E. CARSON: At the Government's expense?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly. This annual equivalent will be ascertained on a basis of 12½ years' purchase, which I understand is the rule in regard to these properties. Then when the minerals come to be worked, the actual amount which is received by the owner of the property will be ascertained. The annual equivalent of the value will be deducted from that, and that will represent the increment. Twenty per cent. of that will be taken annually. I will put it into figures. Take a property which is valued at £12,500. One thousand pounds a year will represent the annual equivalent of the value of the mineral rights. Supposing that property is developed, and the owner receives, say, £3,000 by way of royalties and wayleaves in respect of one year's working, the £1,000 is deducted from the £3,000, and represents £2,000—the increment. The Government charge their Increment Duty upon the £2,000. Next year the royalties may go up to £5,000. The same deduction will be made of £1,000 from the £5,000.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Of £1,000?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly, it is the original site value or, rather, the annual equivalent of the original site value. You take the Increment Duty as the difference between £1,000 and £5,000. If it goes down next year to £800 there will be no Increment Duty for that year, and if it goes down to £1,000 there will be no Increment Duty. Therefore, the owner is only charged in respect of what he actually receives over and above the annual equivalent of the original site value. Now, I think I have made that quite clear.
    Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: Will there be any taxes upon existing value?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, you compound them for the Increment Duty upon existing mines and reversions on existing mines and Undeveloped Duty upon minerals by these taxes upon royalties and these Increment Duties upon future royalties—5 per cent. upon present royalties and an Increment Duty of 20 per cent. upon all future mines opened in this country. These are the proposals which the Government will substitute for the Clauses which are incorporated in the Bill now. I think I ought to say the Government have given due weight to all representations made to them by Gentlemen

    507
    well versed in these things, and I ought to especially recognise the assistance given to the Government—but I do not wish to make it responsible in the slightest degree for the principle—I think it is fair to recognise the assistance given to the Government by two of the greatest authorities on mineral properties in the Kingdoms. Mr. Cooper, one of the greatest mineral possessors in the Kingdom, gave us invaluable aid. I do not say he is in the slightest degree responsible for suggesting the tax, possibly he would oppose it quite as much as any hon. Gentleman opposite, but he rendered the greatest assistance in framing the Clause. I must also recognise the assistance given us by Sir William Thomas Lewis, who knows as much about this subject as any man, and who has the very highest position in the coalfields of Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question or two. The first question is that he has said nothing at all about Sub-section (b), and he has given no explanation of that new feature where there is to be a charge upon minerals worked by the owner himself and where there is no royalty. Then I should like to ask: Did I understand clearly that, taking the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman, where the annual equivalent of, say, £1,000, and let us say that for two or three successive years the royalty on a mine worked by the owner himself is £3,000, so that the value estimated to the owner of the minerals, if working them himself, is £3,000, will the duty to be paid each year be on the difference between £3,000 and £1,000? If that is so, what is the meaning of these words in the Resolution upon the increment: "The increment value shall be taken to be the sum by which in each year the rental value of the minerals exceeds the annual equivalent of the capital value of the minerals, or the capital value of the minerals on the last preceding occasion upon which Increment Value Duty has been collected."
    Sir E. CARSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman also explain whether the taxes are applicable to quarries of granite and to iron?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That depends upon the interpretation of the words. I said these would be included, but when
    508
    the right hon. Gentleman puts a question which involves a matter of law, I think he should address it to my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General.
    Sir E. CARSON: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows the intention.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The intention is to charge minerals. I am only responsible for the policy, and all I can say is that a case of the interpretation about these minerals entails an interpretation upon a question of law, and I am perfectly certain the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General will explain that.
    Sir E. CARSON: This is a question of fact.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: What is your estimate based upon?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am trying to deal with the question of policy put to me by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. We are simply now dealing with the Resolution to authorise us to proceed. All these questions of details will be examined when we come to the Clause itself. I am simply suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman should assume what is always assumed upon a Resolution that you should discuss the general principle upon it, and that minute questions of detail should be reserved for the Clauses when we come to them.
    Sir E. CARSON: May I not discuss what is going to be taxed?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not want to enter into any sort of contention with the right hon. Gentleman about questions of that kind. I am desirous this question should be answered; but for the moment I should rather like to answer the main question, as I might call it, put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). The first question, he puts is this: "How do you propose to deal with mines where the mineral rights are owned by the colliery proprietor, who is owner of the rights and is colliery proprietor as well?" It might be the case of a quarry in another part of the world, where the owner of the soil is also the quarry proprietor, and the same thing applies to a good many collieries. With regard to that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has quoted the Resolution, but, as he knows, you do not put the whole of the various Clauses into a Resolution. He will find, if he looks at the Clauses, that that is dealt with in Sub-section (b) of the Clause itself.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I asked for an explanation of the policy.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In that case you ascertain what the rent would be. There is no real difficulty in doing that, and I am assured by practical men that an owner working his own colliery keeps two sets of accounts. He keeps his accounts as a colliery proprietor and he keeps his accounts as owner. I was told that by the representative of a very considerable colliery. He debits himself with the royalty and wayleaves exactly as if they were belonging to somebody else outside, and he credits himself as colliery proprietor and estate owner. Very often there are questions of trusteeship and others which render that necessary. There is no difficulty. Take a neighbourhood where the charge is 6d. a ton on coal. You charge the person who owns the mineral right with that 6d., and therefore there is no difficulty at all in ascertaining what ought to be charged in that respect.
    The hon. and gallant Member now asks me a question with regard to the Increment Duty and the case of £1,000 which I gave. He says that is to be compared with the last occasion upon which Increment Duty is charged. That means, supposing the site value of that property which I gave as an illustration had been £10,000 and before it was worked it was sold for £12,500, Increment Duty would be charged upon the capital of £2,500, and the last occasion, therefore, upon which Increment Duty would have been charged would have been that occasion. I want the Committee to quite understand what this means. Supposing the owner sells his mineral property for a larger sum than the valuation. The original valuation is £10,000, and he sells it for £12,500. In that case you charge, as I have already said, Increment Duty on the £2,500. Afterwards, when the mine is opened, you charge your annual Increment Duty by reference not to the original £10,000, but with reference to the £12,500, which is the last occasion upon which the duty was chargeable.
    Sir JOHN RANDLES: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that if £1,000 a year was the standard of basis and it came to £3,000, increment would be payable on the £2,000 in the year. That might possibly happen for one, two, or three years, but in the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, owing to the mine not being worked in the same manner, there would be
    510
    nothing or very little to tax, so that instead of paying on £2,000 or £3,000, there might not be more than £400, £500, or £600. Would there be an allowance made for the increment paid in the first, second, and third years over, the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, or in the later years running into the twelve and a-half years, because there might be an increment then which would actually on the average of the twelve and a-half years not have yielded more than £1,000 a year.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think that question will arise in practice, because there is always a dead rent charge. Suppose the mine has not been worked. I do not want to enter into an argument on these details, and my answer to the hon. Member's question now is that it will not arise, because there is always a dead rent charge; and I should be very much surprised if that dead rent would be less than the annual equivalent of what the property was worth before it was opened. The charge is made on exactly what they receive, and I think that is perfectly clear. I cannot help thinking that those interested in mineral rights will regard this as a perfectly fair transaction.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Taking again the figure which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, supposing the owner made an arrangement in the lease by which he limited the output to £1,000, in that case he would pay no Increment Duty at all.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not know whether there is any man who would do anything so absurd, but should there be such a person in the United Kingdom who is not going to receive £3,000 because he will have to pay this increment, I shall be very much surprised, and I cannot conceive there will be any such person.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: He spreads it over a longer period.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Well, if there is such a person I agree that is a way in which he might get out of it.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I wish to put a question to you, Mr. Caldwell. Only one Resolution has been put, and I wish to know if we are to understand that we can discuss both the mineral Resolutions in this Debate? The right hon. Gentleman went fully into the question of the Resolution that is before the House.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would suggest that we should follow the Rule we have

    511
    followed up to the present with very good effect on other Resolutions, namely, that where the duties hang together we should have a discussion which will cover the whole field. I think that course would be infinitely better.
    Sir E. CARSON: No, we have never done it before.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, we have done it before. If the Committee desires to discuss these Resolutions separately I shall not object, but if that course is adopted I shall object to the discussion being taken over the whole field now. In this matter I am entirely in the hands of the Committee.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I think it would be far better to discuss mineral royalties quite apart from the question of the Increment Duty.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is quite understood.
    Mr. F. W. LAMBTON: This Resolution contains an absolutely new principle, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not said anything about it. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that these changes are in favour of the mineral owners, and he rather suggested that those owners asked for these new duties. I do not know who the persons he alludes to are, but I am sure they have never spoken in this House. Who are the persons who have told him that they are in favour of these new duties?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the hon. Member is rather misinterpreting what I said. I never said they were in favour of it, because they are not in favour of these duties, and naturally they object to all these taxes. What I said was that they prefer taxes on what they actually receive to taxes upon the valuation which was provided in the original Clause.
    Mr. LAMBTON: I think the opening remarks of the right hon. Gentleman certainly went a little beyond that. Anybody would object to be taxed upon the problematical valuation which was originally introduced into the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he does not want to go into questions of detail, but his whole speech has been devoted to questions of details. He has asked us to go into questions of principle, and I propose to say a few words on the principle. The principle
    512
    the right hon. Gentleman is now introducing is not the same as that which was introduced in the earlier Clauses of the Financial Bill in Clause 12 and in Clause 15. I think the right hon. Gentleman might have said a word or two in memoriam of Clause 12, of which he was at one time so proud. I chink it was a beautiful Clause, and I do not know why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dropped it, because it seemed to me to be one of the best scenes in the whole farce. Those who require a monument of the statesmanship and the draftsmanship displayed by the Government in the Finance Bill only need to look at Clause 12. I maintain, as I have maintained before, that the land legislation of this Government is based on Socialistic principles. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself is a Socialist. He has too much sense of humour to be a Socialist, but there are Socialistic forces in this House—hon. Members below the Gangway, and they support this Bill entirely because it takes them a considerable step towards the realisation of their dreams, the nationalisation of land and of minerals, the destruction of family life, and other ideals which are dear to them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer makes use of these forces for the purposes of his own ambition, and he thinks he can check them when he wishes. I picture in my mind, with some degree of pleasure, the spectacle of the right hon. Gentleman standing on the edge of a deep pool struggling with an angry cormorant.
    Mr. H. MYER: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in Order in discussing Socialism on this Resolution?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): I understood the hon. Member was making a few general references, and that he was then coming to the Resolution.
    Mr. LAMBTON: The principles of Socialism underlie most of the provisions of this Bill. I shall, of course, have to go outside the House to find the principles upon which these Clauses are advocated. The Prime Minister is seldom in the House, and I must refer to two speeches made outside the House: one at Southport, delivered by the Prime Minister—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is really outside the Resolution. I understood the hon. Member was making a general opening remark, and was then coming to the Resolution. He is not in order in discussing the principles of Socialism.
    Mr. LAMBTON: Am I not in order in referring to a speech of the Prime Minister with regard to the taxation under this Bill?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must connect it with this Resolution.
    Mr. LAMBTON: How are you to know whether I am going to connect the speech of the Prime Minister with the Resolution until I have made some remarks?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, in discussing the Resolution, may make a short reference to any matter outside of a general character, but he must not go into it in detail.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. LAMBTON: The speech of the Prime Minister was delivered at Southport with reference to the subject of land taxation, to which I am going to allude, and another speech was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am going to try to prove that the principles the Chancellor of the Exchequer advocated in one case and the principles the Prime Minister advocated in another are contrary to the principles of this Bill and the Resolution before the House, and I maintain I shall be in order in doing that. The speech of the Prime Minister was delivered with his usual lucidity at Southport, and the other speech was delivered at Limehouse by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his style, decked out with all the choicest flowers of slang. The Prime Minister Minister at Southport laid down that the man who holds up land and minerals and does not receive the largest income he can ought to be taxed for not receiving that income. That is a principle of Socialism which leads a very long way. The Prime Minister imagines it is the duty of the State to see that land is used to the highest profit, and that the owner gets the biggest rent out of his property. That is going a long way towards Socialism. It is not only a question of money but of service to the State to which the principles of the Prime Minister might be applied.
    Under these principles a man not only ought to give his income to the services of the State, but he ought to do other matters for the State with regard to his family. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech at Limehouse, held up those who lot their land on leases—men who do not hold their land from the public use—as blacklegs; and in other portions of
    514
    speeches in this House he has said that all mineral lessors are rack-renters and extortioners. If the Prime Minister is right and the man who does not receive the largest income ought to be taxed for not receiving that income, he is using an argument absolutely contrary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who says those who do obtain the largest rent are rack-renters and extortioners. That is a serious charge for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring against a large class in this country, a class of men who only, after all, let their property and obtain an income to which they have a perfect right. It is a charge I resent. If they make it against me here, I am prepared to meet them on the floor of the House, and, if they make it against me outside, I shall immediately bring an action for libel. These are the sort of charges the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought against large classes in this country, and more particularly against mineral owners. In his speech at Limehouse—[An HON. MEMBER: "The very best speech ever made." Another HON. MEMBER: "It hurts them."] Hon. Members below the Gangway admire that sort of speech. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is no doubt an artist of the impressionist school, a style I do not care much about myself. In some of these schools of art you do not know whether you are looking at a picture of the sea or of a field. The Chancellor of the Exchequer draws a picture in the blackest and darkest colours he can find, and holds it up to his audience and says, "That is a duke." He comes down to this House, unrolls the same canvas, and says, "Behold a benefactor." The right hon. Gentleman really uses language inside the House and language outside the House so contradictory. He is most courteous here and most discourteous outside. I suppose the object of these speeches outside the House—
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): I really do not see how this is relevant to the Resolution.
    Mr. LAMBTON: The statement made with regard to mineral owners in the speech at Limehouse, to which I am referring, is that in which the right hon. Gentleman said that when he went to them and asked for a copper they turned upon him, called him a thief, and made their dogs bark at him. But is it true that the right hon. Gentleman is only asking for a copper? Upon what ground does he

    515
    advocate this new tax upon royalty owners? Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have endeavoured to point out that they only wish to place the burden on the shoulders of those best able to bear it. They seem to have got an impression, and they give it to the country, that the rich landowners and mineral owners do not bear the burdens they ought to. Hon. Members below the Gangway seem to think that is true, but I wish to ask why these mineral owners should bear a much higher rate of taxation than any other persons in this country? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that they bear their fair share of the burden of taxation at the present time, and I would like to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that only last Tuesday, in this House, in the discussion on the Death Duties, on the proposal to tax transfers of the property five years before death, he said:—
    "If hon. Members wish to strengthen the law in seeing that property does pay its fair share upon the occasion of death, which is the occasion seized by the successive Governments as the proper opportunity upon which to take that toll, then I say that the only way to do it is to strengthen the hands of the Revenue Commissioners by extending the period within which gifts inter vivos cannot be made without payment at all. After all, death id simply taken as the occasion upon which to tax property. There are countries where capital is taxed annually. In some countries there is a tax of a small percentage on property annually, but instead of taxing property and capital annually, we have chosen to tax it at death. If that is to be evaded by means of gifts inter vivos in the way some very wealthy persons have clone within the last five or ten years, the only alternative open to any Government which desires to put a tax upon property would be by converting that tax upon the occasion of death into all annual tax upon property, otherwise property escapes altogether. I do not think that would be in the interests even of property-owners. I have conversed within the last few days with men who have paid very heavy Death Duties, and they have said to me that they consider it to be the fairest way they knew to make a contribution to the State in respect of property."
    These words prove that capital is already taxed at death. My right hon. Friend the learned Member for Dublin University at an earlier stage of the Debate cast some doubt on the way in which this property was valued by the Commissioners on death, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was a fact that it was very easy to value ungotten minerals, and they certainly paid their share of the Death Duty to the Exchequer, like any other form of property. I maintain that mineral owners do now pay their taxes on capital value at the time of death, but, under this tax, you are going to make them pay something every year. You are going to charge them 1s. extra, in addition to the increased Death Duties, and also by this Bill, if they
    516
    are rich men, you are imposing a Super-tax of 1s. 8d. I do not know upon what grounds the taxation of royalties is imposed. The Royal Commission of 1893 reported against the taxation of royalties, and that Report was signed by some Labour Members representing coal mining constituencies in this country. It was pointed out by the majority of the Commission that a tax upon royalties is really a tax upon capital, and there is no justification for it on the ground that they hinder the development of coal mines or any other minerals. Yet the right hon. Gentleman comes down and proposes to put a tax of 1s. in the £ on all minerals in this country. It is quite possible the right hon. Gentleman may say there ought to be a duty on the income received from royalties, because they are a form of property on which freeholders really do not spend much money. He has in some of his speeches put forward the idea that the freeholders receive huge sums of money from lessees who take all the financial responsibility, while the miners risk their lives, and yet I see that this Resolution does not exempt those owners who work their own minerals. Therefore that argument entirely falls to the ground.
    I would ask what about the freeholder who works his own colliery, in which he sinks hundreds of thousands of pounds? He is treated under this Resolution in exactly the same way as the lessor of the colliery. That is the sort of argument which the right hon. Gentleman produces in the country when he speaks of the huge sums they realise. I must say I do not think the lessees have done so very badly on the whole, and in the counties with which I am more particularly associated I do not think it can be shown that the present system is responsible for one single acre of coal land being held up. Both the royalties and the wayleaves are reasonable. Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that he is not imposing a tax upon public railways in regard to these wayleaves? Are they to be charged under this Resolution? If so it will be a serious consideration for the railway companies of this country. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has thoroughly thought out this subject. These mineral Clauses have been drafted very hurriedly and have been brought in very hurriedly. Reference has been made to Mr. Cooper, who has suggested many Amendments. I must say, if the right hon. Gentleman had thought over these Mineral Clauses before he brought them in they would have been

    517
    better drafted. It seems to me that the only principle which actuates the Government in this matter is the principle of taking as much as possible from landowners and mineral owners. The right hon. Gentleman says he wishes to get so much cut of them, and he proceeds to do so. In the first place, he proposes to impose his extraordinary tax upon un-gotten minerals, and when that has to be given up he suggests this tax upon royalties, which is to bring him in a sum of £350,000. In this way he has taken one of the steps he had in view towards the nationalisation of minerals. I do not know why minerals should be nationalised more than any other form of property, or why mineral owners should have this very heavy tax put upon them. Some Members of the Government seem to think it does not matter how much they tax the propertied classes in this country. I think it was the Foreign Secretary who suggested that if they grumbled at these taxes it was open to them to let their houses, their shootings, and their fishings, with all their amenities. But who is going to take the houses, shootings, and fishings? Where are the rich men who can do that? And if they are in existence why are they not already taxed? If the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stroll any night round the Opera House at Covent Garden, and look at the names on the doors of the boxes they will see that land and mineral owners are not the only persons who enjoy amenities in this country. Why should these mineral owners be treated in this excessively harsh manner? It amounts to an increase of 1s. on their Income Tax, but why should they pay higher Income Tax than everybody else in the country? It is, however, not an Income Tax really, because minerals are a wasting property, and they ought to be treated as capital, and every shilling charged on minerals is so much out of a man's capital. It has been pointed out by Lord Cairns and others that minerals cannot be treated in the same way as either urban or agricultural land, because there the land is supposed to be returned in as good a condition as it left you. The case of minerals deals, however, with a wasting property, and yet the right hon. Gentleman proposes to tax the owners of it more than anybody else. I really do not know on what principle the right hon. Gentleman has proceeded, and I hope he will before this Resolution is passed get up and tell
    518
    us what it is. I want to know on what principle it is really possible to suggest that these minerals should be taxed. We had a Royal Commission on royalties, and a wild proposal was made by some hon. Member of this House, who pointed out that the Glasgow Trades Council passed a resolution for the nationalisation of minerals. It was suggested that in regard to mining royalties compensation should be given, but Mr. Keir Hardie said he would allow no compensation on the ground that no one has created minerals. I think the right hon. Gentleman has used some expression of the same sort here, but he did not use the same argument which he used with regard to the other Land Taxes that they were due to the community. That was the ground on which his Land Taxes were proposed, and this Resolution differs from the others in that respect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the value the landlord receives is through the exertions of the community, but it has been said that minerals were not made by the community, but were placed there by Providence for the good of the country. In the Commission it was pointed out to Mr. Keir Hardie that although some Colonies had taken the minerals, respect was paid to the rights already acquired, and he replied that he thought they took their traditions from this country when it was at its worst, and when the Lords recognised the rights of private ownership and made the law to suit themselves. But does the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that the minerals do belong to the country, and is he going to upset the law under which mineral property has been held in this country for the last 300 years or not? Does he mean that the State has the right to take part of these minerals or does he not? At the present moment he is only taking 1s. in the pound, or 5 per cent., but if he is entitled to 5 per cent. the State is entitled to 100 per cent., and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may point out that he is illogical.
    In all other countries and in the United States and the Colonies the position in regard to property in minerals is exactly the same as in this country, except in a very few cases, and there the royalty is recognised, and I maintain this is not taxation, but confiscation of the property of mineral owners, and there is no getting out of it. May I point out what was said by an American witness who was asked

    519
    about mining royalties in America when it was suggested that it would be a good thing for the State to resume possession of minerals by taking the property away from the rightful owner. If it was going to remain at 5 per cent. and extra taxation for one year was required to pay for "Dreadnoughts," I do not suppose mineral owners would object to it. But why should mineral owners pay for "Dreadnoughts" more than anyone else? All mineral owners are not rich. The right hon. Gentleman refused to define minerals at all. As long as he only hits a few Super-tax men it is all right, but the moment you come down on poor men who own them in small properties he is very shy of defining them. Dr. Raymond, asked as to the effect of the State asserting rights over these minerals, said it would mean confiscation and anarchy. In America they would have to go a great many hundred years further on towards ruin before the State would confiscate private property.
    I hope we are not getting towards ruin in this country. The Government is laying down principles which will be extended by hon. Members below the Gangway and their supporters opposite if ever they get the chance, which will amount to confiscation undoubtedly, and confiscation is what they desire. Why the present Government should throw itself into the hands of the Socialists in this manner I cannot conceive. Really, I think the right hon. Gentleman might show us some justification for this tax. When I see hundreds and thousands of rich men—richer men than mineral owners—escaping the extra taxation altogether under the Budget, there seems to be something behind the Resolution which is most suspicious. I honestly believe the reasons behind this Resolution are the reasons I have adduced, that the Government do not wish to maintain private property in land, and are advancing step by step towards the ideals of the Socialists below the Gangway—the destruction of private property. I believe the destruction of private property will lead to the destruction of the country, and I most cordially desire to see a Resolution of this sort thrown out by the House.
    Mr. A. B. MARKHAM: The Committee has listened to a very remarkable speech. Will they allow me to give the other side of the case, based more on the actual facts from the Report of the Royal Commission? The hon. Gentleman said these proposals were purely Socialistic, and were
    520
    an attack on the land-owning classes. What is the justification for that? What is the present tax paid by mineral owners towards the upkeep of the State, and towards meeting the proportion they ought to pay of the cost of old age pensions for which this money is required? The average amount of royalty, according to the Report of the Royal Commission, amounts to 6d. per ton. That Commission reported 17 years ago, and I believe that the average royalty has since that time considerably increased, but for the purpose of my argument I will assume that it is 6d. per ton. What does this Bill ask the landowners to pay on that royalty? Five per cent., which is equivalent to.3d. What do the colliery owners pay in taxes laid upon them by the State for the maintenance of the districts in which the collieries are situated, for the relief of the poor, and for the upkeep of roads, and also for compensation? A sum of not less than 3½d. in the £, taking the average profits made by colliery owners year by year throughout the whole country. I do not think that can be denied. My contention is that the landlord stands in equally as good a position as the colliery owner, while, on the other hand, the owner of the minerals risks nothing. He embarks nothing. He is a sleeping partner, taking his pecuniary profit without any risk. Be that as it may, my point is this. Taking an average of years the landowners are in as good a position for making money as the colliery owners, but then the colliery owners pay on the basis of 3½d. in the £, or twelve times more to local taxation, and they look after their people through the compensation fund. Now when you ask the landlords to contribute a little more than a twelfth of a penny towards the cost of old age pensions—towards the men who have actually won this wealth for them—we are told that that is confiscation and robbery.
    Mr. LAMBTON: The colliery proprietors are on the same plane.
    Mr. MARKHAM: They are both on the same plane in some respects. I am putting myself in the position for the moment of the colliery lessee, and I say that this tax on royalties only represents a twelfth of a penny to the landowners for the upkeep of the districts in which the collieries are situated. The hon. Member opposite referred a great deal to robbery. I do not wish to go into a historical review of the ownership of minerals. If I did so I would

    521
    occupy too long a time, but I will merely say in passing that under the Inclosure Acts passed through this House by a House of landlords enormous tracts of land have been enclosed by lords of the manor without a single farthing of compensation being given for the enclosures. In my own district of Nottinghamshire lands have been alienated from the public. These lands are to-day being worked as mineral properties. They are lands which were stolen from the public, and if the term "robbery" is to be used in regard to minerals it should be used with respect to the people in the country, the lords of the manor, who got these properties enclosed. We have heard a great deal lately about poor but honest dukes in relation to this question of minerals. I know very little of dukes. From what I do know of them they are honest, but to say that they are poor men, so far as mineral royalties are concerned, is to state what is not a fact. I represent a district called the Dukeries district, of which Mansfield is the centre. It is a highly mineralised district. Practically the bulk of the minerals is held by four dukes—the Duke of Newcastle, the Duke of Portland, the Duke of Devonshire, and the Duke of Rutland—so far as royalties are concerned. Take the case of the Duke of Newcastle. A few miles from where I live a colliery was sunk by the Wigan Coal and Iron Company, upon which, I believe, they spent no less than half a million of money. They have not calmed a single farthing upon this large capital, though the colliery has been working for something like 14 years, but the company who are working the colliery have overpaid to the landlord in royalties the sum of over £100,000. The minimum rents reserved in this lease granted by the Duke of Newcastle to the Wigan Coal and Iron Company are £10,000 a year. The company met with great difficulties—water rushes, faults, and so on, and owing to these difficulties the minimum rent has accumulated to over £100,000. Therefore the Duke of Newcastle is drawing from that one particular colliery alone £10,000 a year, and you only ask in this Bill that he should pay a small proportion of that rent to the State. While the people who are actually working the coal have not got one-tenth part towards meeting that rent, do you think that the Duke of Newcastle reduced royalties? Not at all. Application has been made to reduce these royal ties, but they have not been reduced.
    Come to the case of the Duke of Portland. As a landlord in my district he has fulfilled
    522
    his obligations in an admirable way to the public. But in referring to the dukes as poor men I think that Lord Rosebery was hardly correct in stating the facts, because in my Constituency the owners of one colliery alone pay the Duke of Portland £50,000 per annum. The Mansfield Colliery alone raises 23,000 tons of coal in a week, and that one week for that particular colliery represents £500 to the Duke. The Duke owns great numbers of collieries in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, the North of England, and Scotland. To say that these men are poor and cannot stand this tax is, to say the least of it, an exaggeration. The Duke of Devonshire, as a landlord, as far as I know, is always willing to do all he can for the public interest. We all know he is honest. I do not blame him for taking what he gets from me. I make more money than I pay the duke for the coal. But although he is an admirable landlord he has not embarked any of the capital. In the case of the Mansfield colliery I ought to say, though I do not know what became of the company afterwards, that the Duke of Portland is receiving a larger rental from the colliery than the owners are receiving in the shape of profits. The division of the burdens should be more equal as between the owners of minerals and the colliery owners. As to the question of wayleaves, I do not wish to be considered by the Committee as using an offensive term, for I do not desire to be offensive, when I say that wayleaves are neither more nor less, in an aggravated form, than legal blackmail, and the facts are sufficiently remarkable which show how a great industry of this country is robbed day by day by these people. The owner of a small piece of land is able to extort large sums for wayleave. If the hon. Member who last spoke would read the Report of the Royal Commission he would see that every other country in Europe 20 years ago, when this Report was issued, had dealt with this question of wayleave, but in this country it is not until 1909 that any proposal whatever has been made to deal with this growing evil of wayleaves. The Royal Commission condemned wayleaves as an injustice. Legislation was suggested, and it was proposed that a judicial tribunal should be set up; but for 19 years nothing has been done. The industrial side, the economic side, of the coal trade has never received from this House any consideration or any legislation whatever for many years past. I will read what the Royal Commission

    523
    reported in relation to this question. I think hon. Members, before they go about the country talking of robbery and spoliation, would do well to see what the Report of the Royal Commission, published 20 years ago, says on this question of wayleaves. On page 22 of the final Report of that Commission it was stated that it was seen, on reference to the mining system in foreign countries, that throughout the Continent of Europe there were compulsory powers to take land acquired for the purpose of carrying minerals to market obtainable after inquiry by a Department of the Government charged with the business, full compensation, in some cases double the ordinary value of the land taken, being charged to the proprietor of the land taken. I know of a case whore a piece of land not as large as this room to-day yields to the owner of that land £800 per annum. I do not wish to bring in the names of individuals in these matters relating to wayleaves, but if any hon. Member desires I can give him personally the name of a man who has made a large fortune by studying the maps of collieries, buying up small plots, and then blackmailing those companies and making money out of them.
    Mr. LAMBTON: There are sharp people in every condition of life.
    Mr. MARKHAM: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the question of Mr. Cooper on this very question of wayleaves at the Royal Commission. The question put was:—
    "You will correct me if I am wrong, is it your view that the amount of wayleave a man is entitled to should be equivalent to the injury done to the recipient of the wayleave, by the exercise of it, and should not be measured by the injury he is able to inflict on others, supposing it to be previously determined that the wayleave is a necessity for the property to be developed and worked?"
    The reply to that was:—
    "Exactly, I think so."
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Is the hon. Member in order in dealing with the relations of lessor and lessee when the Resolution deals with the relations of the lessor and the Government?
    Mr. MARKHAM: The Resolution proposes 5 per cent. on wayleaves. I am going, though I am not in order, to move a Resolution to increase the tax, before I sit down to hand to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Resolution which I hope he will personally move, where in cases of blackmailing that this tax shall be increased. My argument is directed to that.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the levying of a tax of 5 per cent. enables him to some extent to raise the question.
    Mr. MARKHAM: Even if these wayleaves were admitted by the Royal Commission, they recommended legislation should be introduced forthwith to deal with them, and that was 19 years ago. My contention is that the only possible way in which this matter can be dealt with is in the Finance Bill, because the only way you can deal with wayleaves is to tax the men who levy this blackmail.
    Mr. LAMBTONasked a question which could not be heard in the Gallery.
    Mr. MARKHAM: If the hon. Member will refer to other evidence, he will find that Mr. Cooper says that that is not so. When asked whether this fact was not taken into account by the lessee, Mr. Cooper replied that, in many cases, the lessee would not be able to take it into consideration. Personally, if I have to pay a wayleave, I endeavour to get the coal cheaper, but I do not always succeed. I make the best bargain I can. I do not say that a man should not have a fair rent for the right of wayleave; but this is a case where landlords are receiving something like half a million of money for the granting of a privilege which does not do them the remotest injury, which does not effect any severance of property, and which personally they do not even know is being availed of. The question is whether it is in the public interest that a man, by virtue of his rights as an owner of land, should be able to impose such heavy charges on the largest industry in the country. What I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider is some such Amendment as the following: "Provided, nevertheless, that where the mineral undergound wayleave rent exceeds 10 per cent. of the value of the royalty or mineral carried by virtue of such wayleave, an additional duty of 2s. for every 20s. of that rental value shall be charged, levied, and paid for each and every complete additional 10 per cent. paid in excess of 10 per cent. of the value of such royalty or mineral."
    Earl WINTERTON: Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer an Amendment which he himself cannot move, to read out such Amendment, and to proceed to discuss it?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is perfectly in order, in Committee of Ways and Means,

    525
    in a discussion of this sort, for an hon. Member to say that, whilst approving the tax as far as it goes, he would desire to see a larger tax proposed. That is what I understand the hon. Member to be doing. It would not be in order to go into the whole relations between lessor and lessee, but to suggest that the tax is not enough is quite in order.
    Earl WINTERTON: But the hon. Member distinctly read out an Amendment which he suggested the Chancellor of the Exchequer should move.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order in that. The hon. Member might just as well have put his suggestion into his speech instead of putting it into the form of an Amendment.
    Mr. MARKHAM: The effect of my Resolution—which perhaps if the Government cannot accept now they may find their way later to consider fully, which I think is fair—is that where a wayleaf owner charges more than 10 per cent. on the actual value of the royalty, that for every completed 10 per cent. of the actual value of the coal carried on his property an additional tax of 2s. shall be added, and paid accordingly. I have already shown that in every country in Europe the right which exists in this country of the landowners to charge these ridiculous, these monstrous wayleaves, is not allowed. Therefore I do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give due consideration to the matter, so that sooner or later this question may be dealt with. The only way possible to deal with it is by a Finance Bill.
    Let me say in conclusion that the kind of speech made by the hon. Member who last sat down does not help the cases of the landowner or the mineral owners. The royalty owner, let the House remember, does not even know of the existence of coal under the surface of his property until the mining prospector has got his nose on it. When the hon. Gentleman talks of robbery, the destruction of human life, and so on, he is unfair and unjust. We on this side of the House are treated as a kind of pirates and robbers; but there are people that go snivelling about the country. I believe that every duke that makes a speech and grumbles and growls against this tax is worth several thousand votes each time to the other side. I do not think that that can be contradicted. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is." Another HON. MEMBER: "That is your view."]
    526
    One word on the question of the definition of minerals. It is said that clay ought to be excluded from the operation of this Section. I believe hon. Members have been putting pressure upon the Government to let the owners of brick-clay free, but I do not see any reason whatever why they should be let off free. I know a case where the ordinary rate paid is eighteen-pence per thousand bricks—an hon. Friend says 2s., but I put it at eighteenpence—as the royalty the owner receives. I am working a quarry connected with a colliery where the amount received for clay comes to £1,500 per acre. The value of the clay is due to the proximity of a railway. All the increases in value of coal mines come with the building of a railway, and go into the pocket of the landlord. I know a case in Doncaster which is paying at the rate of £20,000 a year now out of land which four years ago the owner did not know contained any coal at all. Take the whole great coalfields of Nottingham, Derbyshire, and Yorkshire. Twenty or 25 years ago the coalfields there were of no value whatever, but these same coalfields to-day are paying incomes of tens and hundreds of thousands of pounds per annum, and as these mines hardly existed 20 years ago, they have not, in nine cases out of ten, paid Death Duties. In the great majority of cases the value of these minerals for the purpose of Estate Duty is practically nil. These great coalfields, extending for miles, possess minerals of enormous value, the very existence of which was not known 20 or 25 years ago. Therefore I say, so far as the future is concerned, let the people who have minerals on their land pay their fair proportion of the windfalls that come to them.
    11.0 P.M.
    Mr. F. B. MILDMAY: The coal question undoubtedly looms biggest in connection with this Resolution; but that question has been ably argued by the hon. Member behind me, and I will not dwell upon this branch of the subject except to say that it has been conceded that the original suggestion of a tax upon ungotten coal was impossible and absurd. But the tax now proposed as its substitute is not such an ideal tax as hon. Gentlemen opposite would have us believe. It is a tax on production, a tax which will ultimately be transferred to the consumer, not perhaps in connection with existing leases, but certainly as far as new leases are concerned owners will endeavour to charge extra royalties to recoup themselves. The tendency must be towards an

    527
    increased coat to the consumer, and so the tax will be felt in every industry throughout the country and in every household which uses coal. It cannot be denied that the Government has already done much by legislation to raise the price of coal. This increased price will of necessity be severely felt next winter by every buyer, and the resultant increased costs of production will be severely felt in every industry. Apart from the question of coal, I am strongly of opinion that the House ought not to consent to any such Resolution involving the taxation of minerals as long as the Government absolutely refuse to put any definition of minerals in their Bill. Without such a definition, considerable uncertainty must of necessity prevail in view of the discordant judgments of the court, and the very varying definitions laid down by authorities. Surely it is the first duty of the Government, it is the first duty of hon. Members, to see that no legislation leaves the House in an ambiguous form. I maintain it is wrong to leave any individuals in a state of uncertainty as to whether or not they will be subject to taxation. The new Clause does so leave them, and the House is aware that nothing so militates against enterprise as uncertainty.
    Apparently the Government contemplate with equanimity the necessity that the initial definitions of the term "minerals" should be ascertained by litigation. This is desperately hard on those individuals on whom is thrown the obligation of obtaining for others a legal definition of the term; and it is an obligation which the House has no right to throw on any individual. The Chancellor of the Exchequer just now, when asked whether granite and clay would be counted as minerals, said he did not think it was the duty of the Government to give a reply to that question. How did the right hon. Gentleman arrive at the estimate of £350,000? He must have included granite and clay. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to tell us definitely whether in that estimate he did include a return for granite and clay. Surely it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to make up his mind in regard to the definition of minerals and not refuse to answer these questions.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I never suggested that the questions should not be asked. I only suggested that the hon.
    528
    and learned Gentleman opposite, might ask questions of interpretations of law of the Attorney-General rather than myself.
    Mr. MILDMAY: The right hon. Gentleman has made an estimate, so he ought to be in a position to give us a reply. Perhaps he will kindly give us that reply later. We have, at any rate, by question and answer, gathered that common brick-clay and granite are to be looked upon as minerals. Is it right that common brick-clay should be looked upon as a mineral? It has never yet been held by the courts of law to be a mineral. During the past 20 years every effort has been made by the owners of common brick-clay to obtain compensation for it as reserved minerals in compulsory sales to railway companies, and such efforts have always been frustrated by the courts, which have consistently held that such clay is not a mineral. There can be no doubt whatever that at the end of existing ageements the owners of common brick-clay will take care they get a higher royalty so as to recoup themselves the tax, and thus in the end the cost of the production of bricks is bound to increase, and that increased cost will fall upon the consumer. In my own neighbourhood, in Plymouth, and the surrounding country, the building trade has been considerably depressed of late. There is no sign of improvement, and, in these circumstances, a tax on common brick-clay must mean the closing down of many brick works, and the throwing of many working men out of employment.
    Similarly, with regard to granite, we were led to believe that will be looked upon as a mineral, and will be taxed in the same way. The worst feature of these new taxes upon building materials is that foreign materials can, none the less, come into this country without being subjected to any similar tax. I cannot understand the ever-readiness of certain politicians on the opposite side of the House to clap fresh taxation on the home producer to any extent, while they are up in arms at the mere idea of submitting the foreigner to the same taxation. Cannot they see that by substantially taxing the home producer and allowing the foreigner to come in free of this taxation, they are to the extent of the tax protecting the foreign importer in the home market, and they are to the extent of the tax handicapping the home producer in his competition with the foreigner. It is not a question of protecting our own people; it is only a question of equal conditions of competition in our

    529
    own markets, and I have always been of opinion that it is the first duty of the Government to make certain its own industrial population shall compete on absolutely equal terms with the foreigner, at any rate in our own markets. I can only say further that the proposed taxation of coal will eventually increase the cost of production in every industry throughout the country; and it is certain by taxing bricks and other building materials you will hamper and handicap the building industry, which we all know is in a very serious condition at the present time, a condition which, if it is worsened, will bring about a state of matters which the House must look upon with concern. Under the circumstances I have described it seems to me the duty of the House to reject the Resolution.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: We had just now an interesting speech from the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division of Nottingham (Mr. Markham), in which he showed clearly that he was a very apt pupil of one Member of the Cabinet—the President of the Hoard of Trade. He evidently agrees that in imposing these vindictive taxes it is necessary to go to the sources from which income is derived. But when rent is so often mentioned it is well to remember that after all it is only a relative term. As applied to minerals it must be borne in mind that the money received is for the coal in the ground which can only be got once and paid for once. It should also not be forgotten that many of those who are affected by this tax will also have to pay the Super-tax under this Budget, and they will by that means be contributing considerably to the provision for the deficit. I should have thought it very undesirable for proprietors who work their own collieries and provide the necessary capital to be subjected to this additional taxation. With reference to the curious change of position which we have to face at the present moment. I think it is really remarkable that five months practically after the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in his Budget he should be proposing to the House two new resolutions in regard to new taxes. His explanation, as I understood it, was that he was endeavouring to meet the views of those who were interested in collieries, who preferred to pay something clear out of what they received. But what occurred on the occasion when a deputation of colliery owners waited on the right hon. Gentleman does not bear that out.
    530
    The right hon. Gentleman told the Mining Association that he assumed that they preferred a tax on rents and royalties to one on ungotten minerals. But Mr. Ellis, speaking for the deputation, said they had no authority to express that view, and he clearly showed that they neither asked for that nor deemed it the best plan at the time the Chancellor of the Exchequer was probably aware that his proposed tax on ungotten minerals was impracticable, and therefore it cannot fairly be said the change was due to the views of those interested in the question. Then he explained that although he was going to receive more money under this proposal, it was in consideration of the advantages he was giving to colliery owners. It seems to me rather remarkable that when he summed up these concessions, they consisted of the abandonment of the Reversion Duty and the abandonment of the Increment Value Duty on existing worked minerals. When I asked him only a week ago what was the estimate which was made with reference to these two matters, he said the yield of the mineral taxes was £175,000, but no definite estimate had been made in regard to the Reversion Duty or the Increment Value Duty, so clearly the amount of money to be obtained was not such a large quantity that it affected his estimates in any way, and I think we all know perfectly well from the discussions in this House and in the country that the Reversion Duty was really inapplicable to minerals at all, and that there was hardly a case which could be found in which the Reversion Duty could bring anything to the Exchequer. It would be a very large expense to find out the facts, and it could not possibly bring any revenue which was commensurate to the outlay. Therefore again I do not think his contention that he has been giving very much will stand.
    It is a very remarkable thing that whereas his Budget estimate was £175,000 it is double that now—£350,000; but then it has to be taken into consideration that he is to give away half to the local authorities, and therefore he gets £175,000 for the Exchequer still; while he takes £350,000 from the mineral owner, and while he does not lose by the transaction, he gets the same amount for himself as he did when he did not propose to give anything to the local authorities. Why should mineral owners have to pay twice over what, in the right hon. Gentleman's original Budget speech, he thought was sufficient to take

    531
    from them? They are already, in my opinion, very heavily taxed. There is no doubt that as far as those who come under Schedule B are concerned, they are enormously taxed at the present time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not allude very much to that particular point when asked a question. He only alluded to the fact that there was no difficulty in obtaining the royalty from the proprietors. I quite admit that it is perfectly easy to obtain particulars of what royalty value the proprietor takes, but that does not go to the principle. How are you going to explain why when a man buys coal under the ground he should be treated any differently to the man who buys coal above ground, when he is going to use it for exactly the same purpose. Take a proprietor who is at the same time an ironmaster. I can speak from experience. He does not always lease the coal; he may buy it outright. In a case which I specially know of we have very largely bought the coal outright, and, in our opinion, having paid for the value of the coal, we have just as much right to use it for the object we bought it for—namely, to make iron—and as the raw material of our industry as a man who buys the coal above the surface from any coal merchant in the country. We have bought the coal out and out under the ground; he has bought the coal above ground, but equally it is bought to carry on one of the oldest industries in this country, and I cannot for the life of me understand why this Government, which holds up its hands in horror at taxing raw material, in this instance put a tax upon iron and coal which is being used by the proprietor for the objects of his business, and without which he cannot possibly carry out that industrial proceeding. At all events it requires a good deal more explanation than the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us.
    I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how it is possible to make a valuation of all mineral property unless he has made up his mind what are minerals. I should like to hear how he can propose to tax minerals like stone, which is used for roads, or marl, which I believe is considered to be a mineral, or sand, because certainly in rural districts it will be found a great inconvenience in many places if people find they are going to be taxed upon the quarries for minerals which are used mainly for the convenience of people near by, and only a very small amount charged for them. This taxation
    532
    would compel owners to close them altogether, at great inconvenience to those interested. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider some proposal to exclude such very cheap minerals as these from the incidence of his tax. We have had no explanation as to the justice of putting this extra Income Tax on this particular form of material. It is really making the Income Tax 2s. 8d., and if you take into consideration the Income Tax, and the mineral Royalty Tax, and the Increment Tax, which we are now told is going to fall upon minerals in all cases, we must see that the Government are carrying out by a side wind the nationalisation of minerals. I was a little surprised not to see the President of the Local Government Board undertaking the defence of this part of the Budget. He once brought in a Bill for the nationalisation of minerals, and he would have been a very fit person to conduct a Resolution of this character, which is leading on, taken in consideration with the other taxes which fall upon minerals, to that nationalisation which was his ideal twenty years ago. After all, minerals are not a reproductive property. You can only take them once, and if you tax them constantly you may very soon get the whole value out of them. In endeavouring to gain popularity by inflicting taxation upon sources of revenue which may not be popular with certain classes of the country, we are following very different lines from what finance has followed in other years. I strongly object to this particular duty. I object to it quite as strongly as to the original proposal. It may be more easy to obtain, but I do not think that it is more just in principle. So much for the merits of the proposal. As to the details on which it is defended, I hope the Government will give us more information than they have done up to the present time.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson): The hon. Member for the Ash-ford division of Kent (Mr. Laurence Hardy) has asked the Government to give more definite information as to what will fall within the scope of the tax, and he said it would be difficult to estimate the amount to be obtained from the tax unless it was clearly understood how minerals are to be defined. I do not think the difficulty which has raged round the definition of the word "minerals" is altogether justified. There has not been very much doubt as to what is included in the term "minerals" except in the case of clay,

    533
    and there, I must admit, there has been in the courts considerable diversity of opinion, and there may still be some difficulty in applying the term to clay. I should be sorry to show any lack of appreciation of the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham), and yet I must say that I myself, and I think the Government, entertain considerable doubt as to the advisability of including clay in the category of minerals. There are reasons which I think entitle clay to something of differential treatment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Election reasons."] If hon. Members think we have considered the case of clay with a view to electoral possibilities, I am afraid I canot alter their view; but I do not think the country or any sensible man will pay the slightest attention to that suggestion. There are reasons why clay should not be included in the definition of minerals. It is a matter which the Government are ready to consider in the most favourable and sympathetic way.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Is it the intention of the Government to give us a definition of minerals?
    Sir W. ROBSON: The courts have given a series of definitions, and I think they will be quite sufficient for our purpose. What I said was that courts had shown some doubt on the subject, and that there is considerable diversity in the definitions they have given regarding clay. The difficulties which have beset the courts in this matter in the past may beset the administration and collection of this tax in the future.
    Mr. W. PEEL: May I ask what is the estimate of the yield of the tax?
    Sir W. ROBSON: I must ask the hon. Member to consider whether I am the proper person to whom that question should be addressed. I do not frame the estimates. That work is done by others. The hon. Member who spoke last put some questions which seemed to echo the argument of the hon. Member who spoke first. He said that we are on the way to the nationalisation of minerals by putting a tax of 5 per cent. on royalties. That is manifestly ridiculous, and I take it that criticism is quite in the spirit of hon. Members on the other side of the House. He also complained of the proposals not on any grounds special to themselves, but because he said they were obvious Socialism. He asked why should mineral owners be taxed more than any other people. The
    534
    same question was put by the hon. Member for Ashford. Why should a man who buys coal under ground be taxed more than the man who buys it above ground? Both these hon. Members seem to have in mind the same ideal abstract tax which is to fall with absolute equality upon all men of all ranks. I do not know where these marvellous taxes are to be found. We do not know of any such tax; we have not sought for such a tax. We recognise that taxes must take something out of somebody's pocket. Take the tax which almost all of the hon. Members opposite have supported, the Coal Export Duty. It was a sectional tax like every duty which we are proposing now. I would like hon. Members to apply to their favourite tax which they would like to reimpose the questions which they put on this tax. Why should the man who exports coal be taxed more than the man who sold the coal in the home market? Why should men who sold coal above ground be taxed more than the man who sold under ground?
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Why do the Government tax raw material when they buy it under ground any more than when they buy it aground?
    Sir W. ROBSON: They call the owner of the royalty a raw material. We tax the owner of the royalty. He is taxed in his capacity as owner. The questions against this tax are put without considering how the same questions should be applied in relation to the taxes of which they are the most ardent champions. If you are to have sectional taxes at all—and in my opinion you cannot do without it—you must have taxes which, by themselves, will fall in unequal degrees on different classes with different means. You cannot avoid it. There exists no tax which would satisfy all the questions put by hon. Members to-night. The hon. Member for South-East Durham (Mr. Lambton) said that if the State has a right to take 5 per cent. of the royalty it has a right to take the whole royalty. Did the hon. Gentleman really think of what he was saying when he put such a question as that?
    Mr. LAMBTON: Certainly.
    Sir W. ROBSON: Has he ever voted for a 5 per cent. tax on incomes, and did he regard that as showing an obviously vindictive socialistic intention to take 100 per cent.?
    Mr. LAMBTON: That applies to everybody.
    Sir W. ROBSON: If the hon. Member believes that to take 5 per cent. on the annual value of any class of property is Socialism, I think he will see, if he reflects, that, having voted for the Income Tax, he has been a Socialist all these years without realising it. I do not mean to take up any argument as to Socialism. I do not think there is any hon. Member on that side of the House more earnestly convinced against Socialism as a political scheme than I am, and I do not see why hon. Members should apply the term Socialism to these proposals. Here is a tax, not on raw material, not on trade, not on enterprise; it is a tax placed on a class of the community and a kind of property eminently fitted at least to share in the general burdens of the State. It is attacked because it falls upon property, and no other reason is given. Is it wise, is it prudent, to let the country believe that a tax of this kind is Socialism. If they convince the people of this country that this tax is Socialism then they may range themselves among the most effective champions of that political creed to be found in this country. I hope myself that hon. Members opposite will take that more carefully into consideration than they have done. The hon. Member for South East Durham and the hon. Member for Ashford ask why should the royalty owner pay more than other people. Let us put that question into the mouth of the colliery proprietor who works the colliery. He says, "Here I am paying a rent which is a very great and appreciable burden on every ton of coal I raise to the surface. Why should I pay rates when the owner pays no rates. [An HON. MEMBER: "He does."] The owner of the minerals pays a small amount, but the colliery proprietor pays a very large amount. Undoubtedly the latter is able in some measure to recoup himself from the consumers in a larger degree than the mineral owner is able to do, but that does not abolish the inequality. You have every kind of protest from hon. Members opposite when the tax is applied to the detriment of the royalty owner, but they do not protest when it falls as a burden upon the colliery worker. It is then an excellent thing.
    If hon. Members confined their remarks to the argument that it is already highly taxed, and that it is taxed according to their contention, and not by any means my own view, in a higher and greater measure than other kinds of property, at least they would have an intelligible argu-
    536
    ment. But when they try to put it on general grounds, what does it lead to? It leads to this, that you must not tax property at all, but you may tax trade, you may tax labour, but you must not tax property at all. What is legitimate fiscal policy when applied to labour, and trade begins to be Socialism and confiscation the moment it is applied to property. When hon. Members push their views and their claims of property to exemption I think we are bound to ask what do they mean. Do they mean that any further tax on property is confiscation; and that a tax can only be made on property by reason of Socialist views? If that is what they mean then let us have it stated in clear and explicit terms; and if it is not then let them admit that they agree that taxes on property are proper taxes, and that it is merely a question of degree whether or not they are fair. I could understand an argument based, as I have said, on the question of degree, but not an argument which seeks to fortify itself by first principles and appeals to what is not an argument at all, but a term of abuse in the mouths of those who use it. On those considerations I think the tax has not been successfully impeached in any of the speeches this evening. It has been criticised in a degree less than I expected, for a new tax where you have to devise new machinery and to consider all kinds of contingencies and possibilities that are not present to the minds of permanent officials because they have not administered taxes like it before, one is apt to anticipate a high degree of criticism, and to expect one would not have a perfectly drafted or very good scheme of tax. Judging from speeches this evening there is not much to say against our tax on that score.
    Mr. LAMBTON: Speak on the details.
    Sir E. CARSON: I think it is a somewhat remarkable thing that after the number of weeks we have been engaged in these Budget discussions we are now going back on the thirty-second or thirty-third evening to Financial Resolutions, nine in number, three upon the Paper, and six, I understand, in the right hon. Gentleman's pocket, and of which we know nothing, in order that we may try to prop up this Budget which no doubt was thoroughly considered before the right hon. Gentleman ever brought it in. I think it is a fair observation to make that one assumes that a Budget, of so far-reaching consequence as this is, was thoroughly considered and thoroughly thought out by the right hon.

    537
    Gentleman before he brought it into this House. And it is remarkable that almost without a word of apology to the House, or almost without a word of explanation to the House, the right hon. Gentleman gives the quietus to the thoroughly considered Clause 12 and the other ones relating to the ill-considered provisions as to the ungotten minerals, and now starts tonight this new and thorny subject as regards royalties. But perhaps the most remarkable thing of all when I asked the right hon. Gentleman in the few observations he gave us at the opening what it was he was going to apply it to, he said, "Really, that is a matter you must not ask me. I am only Chancellor of the Exchequer, and do not be mixing up your idea of my legal knowledge, which I have long since parted with, but turn your attention to the Attorney-General and ask him what it is we mean to tax by the provisions of this Resolution." The right hon. Gentleman said further, "Oh, that is a question of law." But it is not a question of law. It is a question of fact.
    This House wants to know what it is going to tax, and it has a right to insist on knowing. What, in the charming speech to which we have just listened, with its interesting though somewhat irrelevant dissertation on Socialism, did the Attorney-General say we were going to tax? He said, "It is all thoroughly defined by the decisions of the courts." I hope that conveyed a great deal to hon. Members. But is it so? Only recently there was a case in the House of Lords, occupying five days, and I am not sure whether it is yet over, in which their Lordships were trying to make out what were minerals. At present it is absolutely unsettled whether sandstone, for instance, is a mineral. What, then, are you going to tax? Why are you shirking the subject-matter of your tax? If the legal decisions are in this condition, surely the first thing we ought to do is to rescue the term out of the chaos and confusion in which it is, and to put its meaning plainly on the face of the Resolution and of the Bill. The Attorney-General knows as well as I do that everyone of these decisions in relation to minerals depends not on general principles at all, but on the particular document, whether a lease or an agreement, to which they happened to apply. The legal decisions which have been given do not in the least assist us when we come to consider whether under the term "minerals" we are taxing a particular kind of mineral under a taxing
    538
    Act, such as this will be. Do you mean to tax granite as a mineral?
    Mr. MARKHAM: Yes.
    Sir E. CARSON: The Member for the Government below the Gangway says "Yes."
    Mr. MARKHAM: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Report of the Royal Commission, he will see that granite is described as a mineral.
    Sir E. CARSON: I am aware of that, though I did not know that a Report was an Act of Parliament. But I will take the answer of the hon. Member, because he made a very able speech on the taxation of minerals, and gave us a great deal of information as an oppressed colliery tenant—
    Mr. MARKHAM: I did not say so.
    Sir E. CARSON: Who has done very badly in the matter of royalties—
    Mr. MARKHAM: I did not say so.
    Sir E. CARSON: And has apparently been unable to see that there is any justice in the receipt of royalties at all. He says that granite is to be included. Have hon. Members considered the sad and pitiable condition in which granite quarries in this country, and those who work them, are at this moment? Not long ago, when Solicitor-General, I had to attend an inquiry in Devonshire, where the War Office were taking land in which there was a granite quarry. We had several days' investigation as to the value of the quarry, and I wish the Attorney-General in his leisure time would read the evidence then given. It was proved as regards Norwegian granite that you can, not merely quarry the stone, but, what is a great deal worse for employment in this country, dress the stone and have it ready to be placed in its position in any building, even in Aberdeen, where there are good granite quarries, at a far less price than you can raise, dress, and work the mineral for in Aberdeen. An hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear." What are you doing? Under these conditions you are putting an additional tax upon the production of granite and the employment of men who work the granite in this country, while you are putting absolutely no corresponding tax at all upon the introduction of granite from foreign parts. You are giving foreign granite the preference. An hon. Member

    539
    behind me asked for a return of the diminution of employment in the granite quarries within the last two or three years. Within that period the diminution in employment has been about 7,000 men. It is in the face of facts like these that you single out this one class of property, minerals, for the purpose of putting an additional tax on, which, in either way you look at it, must in the end add to the cost of production, and make it more difficult to compete with the foreign producers. The same thing exactly applies to the ironstone quarries. If I am rightly informed the great majority of the ironstone used in this country is produced abroad. Here, again, in the face of facts of this kind, you are putting on an additional tax which makes it far more difficult in the future for ironstone to be raised in this country, and compete with foreign iron.
    Then there is the remaining question which the Attorney-General dealt with in a somewhat superficial way—if he will allow me to say so. According to him, we are going to have differential treatment with regard to clay—I suppose he means brick earth and that kind of thing. He told us there were reasons for it. He gave us none. Personally, as I dislike the whole thing, I am very glad that there should be exceptions, but why one particular kind of mineral is to be exempted I fail entirely to see. The Attorney-General gave us no reason, but very much resented an interjection of somebody who suggested that it was on account of votes. I do not know that that is a matter that any Government need resent. I suppose we are all here to try as far as possible to fulfil the wishes of the people. I have no doubt that the Government have thought that a larger number of people, perhaps, were interested in clay than in granite, and they take that as their permission to deal with the matter thus. I hope they will not be offended with us when we translate what they call the policy of the people into a policy of votes. That is all. I am surprised that in dealing with the account of this tax so much has been said about royalties. So far as the argument goes there is nothing properly to be said about royalties except for the purpose of confusion. The owner working his own mine is placed in exactly the same position. You are going to tax them both. It used to be a question of ungotten minerals and royalties, and I remember the graphic way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    540
    used to say: "Could not these men who have not spent anything throw us a copper and give us something towards the revenues of the country." But that is all abandoned now. It is the man who does everything, who pays everything, who risks his capital and his liabilities in opening up a mine who pays. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any experience of the risks involved in the opening of these mines. I think if he had he would know that a man who spends £100,000 or £200,000 in the opening of these mines very often runs very great risks. Let us get rid of the cant about the man who does nothing and risks nothing. You are selecting out a man who has risked his capital just as well as the man who does nothing.
    12.0 P.M.
    Therefore, let us argue it upon its true basis. What is it you are really asking him to do? You have said to him over and over again in the course of these Debates: Why should not the owner of this kind of property pay his contribution towards the expenses of the State? They always omitted the fact that he is paying exactly the same amount of duties as everybody else; they forget entirely if he is a man receiving an income of £5,000 he pays 1s. 2d. Income Tax, and if he has over that sum he pays 1s. 8d. What you are really doing is this: You are going to say to a man who derives his income from these sources you must pay 2s. 8d. in the £ Income Tax, but a man who derives his income from any other source has got to pay 1s. 2d. or 1s. 8d. in the £ Income Tax. That is what I object to. The Attorney-General asked, Are we not to tax property at all? We say if you tax property at all you ought to do it in a way that is equitable over all classes of property. In the case of a man who spends his capital opening up mines, giving employment and incurring risks, you have no more right to put an additional shilling Income Tax upon him than you have upon the man who speculates in shares in mines or anything else, and makes an enormous sum in the process. It is the selection of this particular class for special taxation that requires justification. What is the difference between producing coal and producing anything else? You are putting a shilling additional Income Tax upon this class because they are engaged in a particular trade. That is what this proposal comes to, and that is the objection we have to your tax. In addition to all that, observe how you are piling up the expense of

    541
    valuation in the course of this Finance Bill. Here is a new valuation. I have long since given up counting the number of valuations we are to have under this Bill. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us, as if it were a matter of no importance to the taxpayer, that we are now going to have the whole of this mineral wealth valued.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not a new valuation at all. It is already provided for in the Bill.
    Sir E. CARSON: Is it the same as the valuation for ungotten minerals?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly. The right hon. Gentleman thinks he has just discovered this for the first time. I said so distinctly in the course of my speech.
    Sir E. CARSON: I was under the impression that we had got rid of the idea of valuing the ungotten minerals of this country. All I can say is that I think this will lead to a good many days discussion, because we shall want some principle laid down upon which you are going to value ungotten minerals. I thought this taxing of ungotten minerals had been given up for the sake of simplicity, and that the Government had decided to get at something tangible and certain. Now we are told after all these promises and all this delay we have to go back to our old friend the ungotten minerals, and we are to be placed once more in the same state of uncertainty. We are now only dealing with the financial resolution, but the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has opened up a most interesting vista of discussion in this House, and I hope the Government will not grudge us full time for Debate as this is a matter of considerable interest and very considerable moment. On each occasion when the Increment Tax has to be paid the owner of the coal will have to proceed as best he can to combat and dispute the valuation put upon him by the Government valuer. All these are matters which will require considerable discussion when we come to the Clauses in the Bill dealing with this subject.
    It is a very remarkable thing, and has been pointed out by an hon. Member who preceded me, that the tax which was to produce £175,000 is now to produce £350,000. The fact as to how much or how little is wanted for the year never seems to make the least difference. After all, what does it matter, a few hundreds or a few millions here or there; it makes no
    542
    difference. The hon. Member for the Mansfield division (Mr. Markham) made an interesting contribution to the Debate on the question of wages. He made a speech of a most misleading character as regards people outside this House. After all, it does not matter inside the House, because everybody votes according to the way he is told; nobody is really misled by speeches of that kind. He used the objectionable phrase, which has now become a Parliamentary one—blackmailer. I think it would be better if the hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow us to keep that phrase for the Old Bailey. He said owners of mineral wayleaves use their position for the purpose of extracting all they can from the man who is working the colliery. I do not think anyone has any sympathy with the man who uses his position unfairly.
    Mr. MARKHAM: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will read the Clause, Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), he will see that wayleaves are to be charged where the right to work the minerals is the subject of a mining lease, the amount of rent paid by the working lessee in the last working year in respect of that right.
    Sir E. CARSON: What has it got to say to the tax? The more blackmail, the more tax I suppose. It is levying a tax on the earnings of a blackmailer. That is what it comes to. How does that get rid of the mischief? If he is an unscrupulous man, he will pass it on, and the last state of the colliery worker will be worse than before. It has no application to this tax whatsoever. If a man uses his property or position for extorting money in that kind of way, all I can say is I shall have no hesitation whatever, if any Bill is brought before the House, in giving my vote to take care no such thing will be possible. I believe every honourable man would scorn and condemn such a use of porperty. The tax does not alleviate it in any way, and therefore I assert it is really no argument in its support, neither is it a fair way of representing it to the people to say: "Here we have blackmail; what are we to do? Are you going to stand up against this tax?" You might as well say that if a tax is put upon burglars you can go about the country defending it. [An HON. MEMBER: "You lock up burglars."] That is the point. You get rid of the mischief in that case, but you do not do it by participating in the burglar's ill-gotten gains.

    543
    The Attorney-General seemed to think it was a complete answer to my hon. Friend the Member for S.E. Durham (Mr. Lambton)—who complained that the Government were putting this tax upon capital and that there was nothing to prevent it being increased to any extent—to reply that the same argument exactly applied to the Income Tax. I venture to think there is no analogy whatever. In the first place one is a tax on capital and the other is a tax on income. Again, in the case of the Income Tax you are not singling out any particular trade, business, or individual for taxation; you make the tax applicable to everybody. But when you single out one single individual or class of individuals who may be few in number and who may have very little voting power, then I say you are trenching on all those sound doctrines on which hitherto the taxation of the country has been based; you are setting up a system which accordingly, as people understand that without affecting themselves, they may go on increasing the tax they will be encouraged to do so until what at the commencement was a very small sum, eventually becomes so large as to be ruinous to the person on whom the burden is imposed.
    I am not going to follow the Attorney-General into the dissertation he gave on the question of Socialism. He said, with a show of great indignation, "I am not a Socialist." Well, he does not look like one, I admit. He also says there is great danger in applying this term Socialism to such taxation as this. But does the hon. and learned Gentleman read the newspapers? Does he read the speeches of hon. Members below the Gangway? Does he know what their opinion is? Has he not read how they claim this to be a victory for Socialism? Has he read the criticisms of men far away from our political life who have examined these proposals on economic grounds rather than on political grounds? Does he not know the conclusions at which they have arrived? Hon. Members below the Gangway who represent Labour may interrupt, but they have had the candour to admit that this is the introduction of the very principles they as Socialists desire to see introduced. Contrast the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman made with so much indignation with the assertion of hon. Members below the Gangway that these are the very foundations of the principles which they are advocating. I look upon this as a very serious Resolu-
    544
    tion. Of course one cannot discuss it in detail now, but when we come to the Clauses I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will think that it would be proper that we should very minutely examine them in Committee.
    Mr. JAMES TOMKINSON: An hon. Member who spoke recently evidently addressed the Committee in the character and from the standpoint of a lessee of coal and not an owner of coal, and consequently as a payer and not as a receiver of royalty. I wish to say a few words in the character of a humble receiver of royalty, though not to a large extent on coal and granite of which the right hon. Gentleman has just spoken. I must say I was almost amazed to hear the statement of the, right hon. Gentleman in regard to the granite industry of this country. He said it was in a most parlous state, that it was being forced out of existence to some extent by foreign granite, which could be brought here on more favourable terms and in a cheaper manner than our own granite, and he appeared to be perfectly ignorant of the fact that I am speaking within the facts when I say that nine-tenths of the product of the granite industry of this country is used for purposes for which foreign granite cannot be used at all, namely, for the making of our roads, both our main and other roads. That has set up an industry of enormous proportions.
    Sir BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he could give the actual returns of the number of ships which come back in ballast with granite into the port of Hull?
    Mr. TOMKINSON: In the county of Warwickshire there are enormous quantities of granite supplied for making roads, and it is the same all over the Midlands. Large quantities are turned out every year to make roads all over the country, and as for foreign granite ruining English trade it is perfectly absurd to say so. There is a mountain that I know well which has been almost disfigured by quarrying. I have seen the accounts of one of the great firms working it and that trade is positively increasing. They supply granite all over the country, and there is an enormous new industry in supplying small stone for the ballast of railways all along the line. The right hon. Gentleman's idea about the decadence of the granite tirade is wholly unfounded. My experience is that the royalty generally charged upon granite is about 3d. a ton

    545
    and a 5 per cent. tax upon that will amount to something little more than half a farthing per ton.
    When the Budget was first introduced, I said I thought the proposal to tax the capital value of ungotten minerals would be found to be very difficult and possibly impracticable. I am very glad a change is made. I think, as a receiver of royalties, the tax is fair, just and reasonable, and they are a kind of property which can fairly be called upon to contribute to the necessities of the country; therefore, I give it my hearty support and approval, and so far from regarding it as a proposal that is Socialism in a dangerous sense or one hostile to the possessor of property, it is much more likely to be a corrective and preventive of Socialism.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I do not intend to discuss Socialism except to say that the more this Budget is denounced as a Socialistic Budget, the more popular it becomes. The more hon. Gentlemen who are opposed to the Budget insist upon calling this Socialism, the more rapidly does the membership of our Socialistic organisations increase. As a matter of fact I think of resigning as our work is being so effectively done by our opponents. There is one aspect of this question which the speakers on this side have been emphasising, that the tax in the form in which it is now proposed will bring in almost double the amount of its original form. When it was a tax on ungotten minerals it was estimated to bring in £170,000 a year, now the estimate is that it will bring in something like £350,000 a year. Those who opposed a tax on ungotten minerals must be sorry that they have leapt from the frying pan into the fire. A tax of £170,000 was a bitter pill to swallow, but a tax of £350,000 must be more bitter still. I rise for the purpose of calling attention to one aspect of the case which I have not heard mentioned in the course of the Debate. This is a tax on mineral royalties. Let it be understood that this is not a tax on minerals. It is not a tax even on profits. It is a tax on mineral royalties, which require to be paid whether profits are earned or not, and in some cases even where the mines are not worked, and neither the colliers receive wages nor the colliery owners dividends. The point to which I wish to direct attention is that this tax is following an example which is almost universal over the rest of Europe.
    546
    There is nothing new in this form of tax. In France, Belgium, Germany, and other European States, the State reserves the minerals—it separates the minerals from the surface of the soil and grants a concession to work the minerals on certain conditions. What are these conditions? The first is that a small surface rent has to be paid to the State for the whole of the concession whether the mine is being worked or not. The surface rent figure is a halfpenny an acre in France. In Belgium it is a considerably higher sum. There 1½d. an acre has to be paid. In addition to the surface rent paid to the State—not to the private owner of the land—in France there is a royalty paid to the State of 5.50 per cent. on the net produce of the mine. All that is being charged here is 5 per cent. on the royalties. The charge in France, therefore, is very much higher than that proposed to be imposed under the proposal now before us. In Belgium in addition to the surface rent there is a charge of five francs an acre and 3½ per cent. on the net produce of the mine. These facts are taken from the report of the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties. In that report it is pointed out that in addition the colliery owners in these countries are heavily assessed for local rates and taxes. In Prussia the royalty paid to the State is 2 per cent. on the sales. I am quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be very glad indeed to give those who are opposing his proposal the choice of any of those examples which they care to select. In every case the result would be that a very largely increased amount would come to the Exchequer.
    On the general principle of the tax let me take a case with which I am familiar and which obtained publicity some years ago. I refer to the case of the Duke of Hamilton, who is the recipient of mineral royalties, or was some years ago, to the extent of over £100,000 a year. He owns most of the land on which the town of Motherwell is built. He leases the surface of the land to the people to build houses and to the municipality to erect a town hall. Then he proceeds to let the minerals under the surface. He gets ground rents for the surface and he gets mineral royalties on the minerals. But the result of working the minerals is to destroy the property on the surface and to cause the collapse of the houses. It causes the collapse of the town hall, and the ratepayers of Motherwell are assessed for the purpose of making good those repairs,

    547
    while the man who draws the ground rents and the mineral royalties gets off scot-free. Is it too much to ask in a case like that, which is being repeated now in Staffordshire, where a whole village is disappearing, that this man, who is reaping an advantage from the surface and from the minerals, shall be called on to pay 5 per cent. out of his mineral royalties to the State which protects him in this form of robbery? Hon. Members on this side of the House are greatly concerned about the preservation of the sacred rights of property. There have been many cases where workmen out of their savings of a lifetime have built little cottages for themselves, and have been ruined by underground workings without a penny compensation, and now that it is proposed to take 5 per cent. from the income of the man who is responsible for this it is called spoliation and robbery and Socialism and confiscation.
    Reference has been made to the condition of the granite industry, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University made it appear that this tax was imposing a fresh burden on the granite industry. But that is not the case. All that this tax is doing is to impose itself not upon the industry, but upon the rent which the quarry owner pays to the owner of the land for the right to work the granite. Whether this tax is imposed or not, the rent has still to be paid. If hon. Gentlemen want to give the granite industry a chance, let them remove the royalties. Let the industry be worked free of royalties and then this tax will not operate, for there will be nothing to place the tax on. A tax in the form now proposed is not a tax upon industry, is not a tax upon profit, is not even a tax upon property. It is a tax upon income received from property which comes to the recipient without either expense or effort on his part.
    I am one of those who hold that there is something wrong in the State parting with all its natural resources, from which it ought to derive a revenue, and giving it into the hands of private individuals, and it says little for the patriotism of which we hear so much, of property owners, that they, who have benefited so much from the State, should make such a sordid outcry when 5 per cent. of that which they have done nothing to create. I hope some hon. Members who object to that statement will show us what they have done to create it. They have not
    548
    created the minerals, that much is certain. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nor has the State."] That is just the point. All the persons who claim ownership in these things have not created them, and therefore the benefit from them shall be collective and not individual. The owners have not risked their lives in mining coal, and they may consider themselves fortunate that they have so long escaped from contributing their quota to the maintenance of the State. The tax now proposed is very moderate. I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer has changed the form of the tax, which, in its present form, is better than in its original form. We on this side of the House will certainly give it hearty support.
    Sir JOHN RANDLES: The question, at any rate for the moment, is who will pay this tax. Some hon. Members appear to think that it will be paid by nobody but the royalty owner, that it will not fall on the consumer, and that the man who first pays the tax out of his own pocket will not recoup himself and will not recover the amount of the tax. My experience is entirely contrary to that theory. I know it is the custom in connection with mining leases for the worker of the colliery or the iron ore mine to ask for certain privileges. It is within my knowledge that the royalty owner has said—"Yes, I will give you these privileges that you ask for, but I am going to make it a condition that the Lloyd-George taxes shall be paid by you, whatever they may be, in some form or other." That has already been done. Therefore I say that this tax is not going to remain on the backs of the royalty owners but on the backs of the men who work the minerals. This doctrine does not suit hon. Members below the Gangway, because many of their supporters and friends in the country are men who work in collieries and iron and steel works, and I want it to be realised that the burden will really fall on their shoulders. If this burden is placed on the lessees it will in the case of many concerned amount to something between £8,000 and £10,000 a year. Of that, nearly £8,000 is in respect of iron ore. The burden of our iron ore industry is going to be very substantial indeed. I reckon it will make a difference of between 3d. and 6d. per ton on every ton of steel manufactured out of iron ore. That is a tax on our industry. You may think that a matter of 3d. to 6d. on one ton of steel is of no importance, but very often it means the difference between an order

    549
    going for perhaps 50,000 tons of steel to the foreigner and out of this country, and the difference between 50,000 tons of steel being manufactured in this country and abroad, and means the difference of happiness and contentment and employment in our country. That is not a small matter.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I would like to ask on what figures he bases his calculation that this tax will increase the price of steel 3d. to 6d. per ton. The figures given at the Royal Commission do not bear out a statement of that kind.
    Sir J. RANDLES: The royalty on a ton of ore will at any rate be 2s. per ton, and I think the hon. Member will note that that figure is rather within than outside the mark. It takes two tons of ore or perhaps a little more to make a ton of iron. Then take your royalty, about 4s. to 4s. 6d., on the iron ore. Then you have a royalty on the coal and on the lime stone, and you are going to put a royalty on the fire, clay which you use in furnaces. If you reckon them up, when you have got your iron, and remember it takes more than a ton of iron to make a ton of steel, I think hon. Members will find that 3d. is the bottom figure. According to the price of materials under the sliding scale, it may reach not only 3d., but it may reach in cases 6d. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find, if he will go through thy calculations, that I am not very far from the mark. I believe I am within the mark. That being the case, I think that at any rate, whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may think about it, he might have found some form of taxation which would have made it certain that the burden could not be placed upon those who work the raw material.
    If we must have a tax on the owners of royalties, and I do not say it
    because I do not pay royalties, we are going to have a Super-tax, then let us have a Super-tax in the way of Income Tax. Then I think the Chancellor may possibly be paid by the royalty owner; but if you put it in this form of a specific tax on the mineral that the royalty owner must pay he looks straight away at the very outset for somebody else to place it on, or else he is not a human being. It is human nature. Every man will try if you will place a burden on him to place it somewhere else. My friends below the Gangway know that if rates and taxes go on, the man who pays the weekly rent is paying every penny of those rates and taxes. He does not actually pay to the tax collector, but pays it to the landlord who collects his rent, and he is perfectly aware that in the five or six shillings he pays in rent there is included an amount for rates and taxes. That is what is going to happen here. An hon. Gentleman opposite, speaking as a royalty owner, said he did not mind this tax. From his point of view, perhaps, he has seen his way to putting it on to somebody else, and he may be well assured that the working men at the bottom will pay. The funny thing about the whole matter is that the working men are being fooled into believing that the landlords are going to pay all these taxes, and that they themselves are going to escape scotfree.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 53.

    Division No. 709.]

    AYES.

    [12.50 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Elibank, Master of

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Clough, William

    Essex, R. W.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Falconer, James

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Barnes, G. N.

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

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Gibson, James Puckering

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Glover, Thomas

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Crossley, William J.

    Gulland, John W.

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

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Bowerman, C. W.

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

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas A.

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Harwood, George

    Brodie, H. C.

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Byles, William Pollard

    Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Henry, Charles S.

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

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Nicholls, George

    Summerbell, T.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Tomkinson, James

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Nuttall, Harry

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Verney, F. W.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Joyce, Michael

    Partington, Oswald

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Waring, Walter

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Lamont, Norman

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

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Pointer, Joseph

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Pollard, Dr.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Radford, G. H.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

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

    Robinson, S.

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

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Marnham, F. J.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

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

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

    Middlebrook, William

    Seddon, J.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Seely, Colonel

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Fell, Arthur

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Renton, Leslie

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Heaton, John Henniker

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

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hunt, Rowland

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Keswick, William

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

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

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

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

    Carlile, E. Hildred

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

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

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Younger, George

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Clyde, James Avon

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Courthope, G. Lloyd

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Alexander Acland-Hood and Vis-

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    count Valentia.

    Question put accordingly. The Committee divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 52.

    Division No. 710.]

    AYES.

    [12.56 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Helms, Norval Watson

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

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

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Barnes, G. N.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hooper, A. G.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Elibank, Master of

    Jenkins, J.

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

    Essex, R. W.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Falconer, James

    Lamont, Norman

    Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Brodie, H. C.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Gibson, J. P.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Glover, Thomas

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Gulland John W.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Clough, William

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Cooper, G. J.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

    Mallet, Charles E.

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

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Harwood, George

    Marnham, F. J.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Crossley, William J.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Middlebrook, William

    552

    553

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Waring, Walter

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Robinson, S.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Nicholls, George

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

    Nuttall, Harry

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

    Wilkie, Alexander

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Seddon, J.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Seely, Colonel

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Partington, Oswald

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

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

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Strachey, Sir Edward

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

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Summerbell, T.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Pointer, J.

    Tomkinson, James

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Verney, F. W.

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

    Radford, G. H.

    Walsh, Stephen

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

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Fell, Arthur

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Renton, Leslie

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Walker, Col. W. (Lancashire)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hunt, Rowland

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

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Keswick, William

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

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

    Carlile, E. Hildred

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

    Younger, George

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Clyde, James Avon

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    A. Acland-Hood and Viscount

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Valentia.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley

    INCREMENT VALUE DUTY ON MINERALS.
    Motion made and Question proposed: "That any duty charged on the increment value of minerals which are comprised in a mining lease or are being worked shall be charged annually, and the increment value shall be taken to be the sum by which in each year the rental value of the mineral exceeds the annual equivalent of the original capital value of the minerals, or the capital value of the minerals on the last preceding occasion on which Increment Value Duty has been collected."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Mr. PEEL: There are one or two questions I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this particular duty, and the first is as regards new mines. I wish the right hon. Gentleman to explain what he means by new mines. Does he mean a mine that has not been worked or developed at all? Does it apply to mines in the case of which only shafts have been sunk? He left it perfectly vague in the definition he made. The next point I want to put is this: In what sense really is this an Increment Value Duty at all? The hon. Member for the Mansfield Division really, I think, knocked the bottom out of this
    554
    tax altogether when he said that you could not have this valuation of ungotten minerals; that it was impossible to make such a valuation. As the whole of this tax depends on an accurate original valuation it is quite clear that if the hon. Member is right as regards that, it is impossible to charge this tax at all. The further point I wish to make is this: How is it possible to say that this is an increment due to the action of the community, because the whole basis for the other tax on increment in connection with land was that owing to the action of the community a piece of land, without any action or effort of the owner himself, increased in value on account of the action of others, and therefore it was perfectly fair to take a portion of the increment value and to place a tax upon it. But in this case it is impossible to say that there is any such increase in ordinary cases, owing to the action of the community.
    Hon. Members always take the case of a man who has leased his mine. Take the case of a man who owns his mine and works it himself, he develops the mine himself, sinks the shafts, and, if he is lucky, he works his coal. In that case the value of the coal is increased because the coal is accessible and can be

    555
    worked, whereas before it was not accessible, could not be worked, and only had a very problematical value. The value is caused by the exertions of the owner, and the expenditure of his money and yet he is going to be charged an Increment Duty. What upon? On the difference between the valuation of the coal before he has developed his mine and the valuation after he has developed his mine. It is quite clear that the increment so charged is not due to any action of the community, and is therefore not increment—taking the analogy of the other taxes—he ought to be charged upon. It is solely due to his own expenditure of capital and to the fact that he has been able, by the operations in which he is engaged, to bring the coal to the surface. I submit in such cases there is absolutely no analogy between the Increment Tax in the case of land and this tax as it is proposed to charge it in the case of mines. I wish to know, therefore, the basis on which this tax is put forward. I am not speaking, of course, about the fact that there might have been a rise in the price of coal during the time he was developing his mine. If that was so it is purely on a parallel with the rise in price of any other commodity. That is an increase due to the action of the community. But it is not clear that if there is a difference between the original valuation before he worked the mine and the valuation after he worked it—if there is a large difference between the two, then that simply shows that there has been an erroneous valuation in the first place. It is exceedingly unfair, therefore, to charge him on the previous valuation and what the coal is after he worked it. You ought to correct your previous valuation and then make your subtraction between the previous value of the coal and the subsequent value. The method of charging this tax also makes it extraordinarily heavy.
    The Committee must remember that we have already passed the Resolution about the shilling duty on the mineral rights. Therefore already a charge is being paid of one shilling by that particular owner. If the tax is to be charged as I heard it explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer just now, it will be heavier than I thought when I read the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman took a case where the annual value of the original capital value was £1,000, and imagined that in the second year of working the man got £3,000 a year or the equivalent of it in
    556
    royalties. He gets that £3,000 for the second, third, fourth, and fifth years. So far as I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer, you raise the tax on the difference between £1,000 and £3,000, not only in the second year, but in the third, fourth and fifth years as well. You take 20 per cent. on the difference, namely, £2,000, which means an Income Tax of 14 or 15 per cent., because you deduct £1,000 from the rent he would get from the mine. That is an astonishingly heavy tax, and when I read the Resolution I certainly did not realise that the tax was going to work out to anything like so great an amount. I do not want to go over the ground already covered in the previous Resolution. Almost every argument which has been used on the previous Resolution applies with redoubled force in regard to this one dealing with Increment Duty. The tax on increment value works out far heavier than the Mineral Rights Duty. I should like to have some explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether he thinks it is really fair, after having mulcted the owner a shilling in the £ in respect of the previous Resolution, that he should add this further Increment Value Duty, which is a very heavy tax indeed, and which must have most unfortunate consequences as regards industry, and must decrease the amount of industrial employment in the country. All this was so clearly set forth by speakers on the previous Resolution, that I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat the arguments again.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understood that the Debate on the first Resolution was really to cover the whole ground, and as a matter of fact the point was distinctly raised by a hon. Member who rose just now as to whether the whole ground could not be—
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I especially rose to ask that the Debate on the Resolutions should be taken in two portions, and I thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer understood that that was the position. In fact, I said that I would not allude in any way to the second part, and the Chairman also added that he would keep the Debate strictly to the first Resolution.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Deputy-Chairman left me a note, and he agrees that the Debate should be confined to each Resolution separately.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If that is the case I have nothing more to say on the matter. The hon. Member who has just spoken has not really confined himself to the Resolution, but has referred to the Amendment. It is quite impossible to cover the whole ground now and enter into a detailed examination of the Amendments on the Paper. It would be very undesirable after having discussed the principle of the Mineral Clauses that we should enter into a detailed scrutiny of the Amendment. The Amendment referring to increment value has been on the Paper for days. There is a definition of what "worked" is in the Clause, whether it is a satisfactory one or not I will not discuss now, but it is one which can be examined when we arrive at the particular Amendment.
    Sir J. RANDLES: I want to ask a question with regard to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer a little while ago told us in reference to the imposition of this Increment Tax. He put the case of a tenant paying £1,000, and stated that if the value of the property went up to £3,000 he would have to pay Increment Duty on the £2,000. The point I want to get at is this, what is to happen if instead of there being an increment, there is a decrement in the value of the property after the second or third years. It might be that in the two or three years following instead of the property being worth £1,000, it might be worth very considerably less than £1,000 a year. Now the royalty owner in that case has an arrangement with his tenant by which "shorts" are worked, and if the tenant, for instance, gets short for one, two, three, or four years, he is relieved during the run of the lease—generally seven, or fifteen, or twenty-one years—and is allowed to make it up and recoup himself for what he has paid during the lean years. What I want to get at is this: would not the Chancellor of the Exchequer treat this man in the same manner as the royalty owner would treat his tenant? Would it not be fair if he had overpaid in respect to increment for two or three years that he should be allowed to make it up in succeeding years, even if it were not done in direct repayment to him? If he were allowed to recoup himself in the following year as a tenant is allowed to do under the terms of his lease with a landlord in the majority of cases that might perhaps meet the difficulty. There is another question I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman.
    558
    I understand him to say that no mine now in working was liable to this Increment Duty.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is all in the Amendment which has been on the Paper for days. This is purely a Resolution enabling me to move new Clauses.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: This is a very different case to any other we have had, because you are proceeding to take the duty annually, and, so far as I understand, this Clause will not be affected by all the other Clauses which we passed with regard to increment value. I should like to be informed if that is the case. So far as I can see the mineral owners are to be in a very much worse position. Supposing in these first years the excess was very considerable between the rent and the equivalent annual value, there is never any opportunity for the mineral owner to make up any decrement of former years, and clearly he will have to pay a great deal more than should be charged to him. The right hon. Gentleman said valuation on all forms of minerals would be made. Under what Section or Clause of the Bill is that valuation to be made? I have not been able to discover anything in the Bill which enables a valuation to be made at all. It is not in this new Clause, and it does not, so far as I know, appear in the Bill at all. Some provision should be made as to who is going to make the valuation. I should like to ask the Government what is meant by "the last occasion on which Increment Value Duty has been collected"? When does that point arise? Is it only on the occasion when minerals are re-leased? During the whole continuance of the lease is there to be no opportunity of starting from a new point, as is the case with regard to other Increment Duties? Leases of minerals are very long, and if they are bound to pay every year a certain sum in respect of annual value to the end of the lease, mineral owners will be at a great disadvantage. These matters do, I think, require some explanation.
    Mr. LUPTON: I am reluctant to intervene in the Debate; but the fact is I do not understand this Resolution. Very likely it is my own fault, because, in order to grasp the position it requires a very careful study indeed of the Bill and of the Amendments, and of many Amendments which I think are not down upon the Paper. Looking at the Clause to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The Bill does not come under discussion at all at this stage. This Motion is merely to give enabling power to do something. The terms of the Bill are not just now under consideration.
    Mr. LUPTON: Certainly, Mr. Caldwell. But the right hon. Gentleman referred just now to the Amendments on the Paper. That did not, to my mind, throw any light on the Resolution. The difficulty about this matter is that in dealing with the increment on building land you see an increase in value. You see an acre valued one year; but where you have an acre of coal the royalty on an acre of coal is much the same now as 50 years ago. In fact, royalties have not gone up in my time per acre, and they will not go up per acre until nearly all the acres are let and there becomes great competition. Therefore, I do not quite know what the increment is to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. The right hon. Gentleman has a scheme no doubt, but I want him to give us a memorandum or illustration that will enable us and other people to know exactly what he means. The value of a mineral estimate may increase in public estimation as the neighbouring mines approach to the mineral estate. But I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman is going to act. I know a case of more than forty years ago where a royalty was paid much higher than people would have to pay now. That was due to local circumstances. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us an opportunity of ascertaining what he means. The ungotten mineral tax was very easy to calculate, and there was no difficulty about it in any way; but suddenly that was withdrawn, and what is proposed now is exceedingly difficult to apply and understand. This Income Tax is to my mind quite incomprehensible.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Earlier in the Debate these points were fully explained. The hon. Gentleman cannot have read the Resolution on the Paper.
    Mr. LUPTON: I have read the Resolution.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: All I can say is that it is very remarkable to me that my hon. Friend, having read what is on the Paper, should put these questions to me. As I have said, I gave a very full explanation and illustration earlier in the evening, and I should feel I ought to apologise to the Committee if I repeated an explanation
    560
    of that kind at this hour. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Laurence Hardy) put a number of questions to me. Again, I say these points really do not arise upon the new Clause—or upon this Resolution—and it seems to me that it will double and treble the discussion if we enter upon those points now. Valuation is provided for in Clause 15. That Clause will be amended in consequence of the fact that the State has undertaken valuation.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: There is no valuation provided for in Clause 15.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Oh, yes, I agree something has to be done to that Clause.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: One cannot help sympathising with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in having to answer practically twice over the same points, but unfortunately it is one of the rules of the House that the Clause cannot be brought in and discussed in Committee unless we have first a Resolution which warrants it. Therefore we are entitled on this Resolution to object to the matters of principle involved in it. What are those matters of principle? First we object to there being any Increment Value Duty on minerals at all. Why do we object to it? For the simple reason that minerals are not a thing which, having regard to the royalties paid upon them, is in any way the same as the rent of property. The royalties on minerals are the price of an article that is being exhausted year by year and taken away. We also strongly object to the Resolution in that this particular Increment Duty is to be charged annually. We object to that on the ground that annually the rate of royalties does not alter. If coal is leased, it is leased upon the basis of so much a ton or upon the basis of so much an acre—it varies in different parts of the country. The lease is granted at a fixed rate. That rate is the same this year as it was last year, and it will be the same next year. There is no increase in the ton of coal, but there is a different amount of royalty payable, simply because the lessee takes out in some years a considerably larger quantity than he does in others. Why does he do that? Sometimes it is easier to get the coal, but generally because coal has gone up in price, and therefore he pays a larger sum in royalties. There has been really no increment at all.
    We consider that these observations will apply to the Clause itself, and we think

    561
    it only fair to indicate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in advance our view that there should be no such Increment Value Duty as that indicated in the Clause, especially an Increment Duty which can be charged annually. The points which have been raised are to some extent disposed of by the new Clause on the Paper and some of the Amendments to Clause 15, but a large number of the Amendments which have been put down to Clause 15 will now require to be redrafted to fit in with the new Clause and in the extraordinary Resolution now before the Committee. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should complain that we rise here to protest against the Resolution, which imposes a tax we consider inappropriate to the article, inconsistent with the facts, and charged in a way which will create a very great hardship. It is for these reasons I have endeavoured, I hope concisely, to state why we strongly object to this Resolution.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the valuation of these minerals is going to be undertaken by the staff of 500 the Prime Minister alluded to, and whether in his estimate of the time that the valuation would occupy and the cost of it allowance was made for the extremely difficult operation the valuers of all these minerals will have to carry out. When the Prime Minister explained the method, staff, and cost of the valuation he did not dwell upon the minerals at all, but I take it that this scheme now proposed of checking valuations annually will involve a much heavier cost than was contemplated when the scheme of valuation was put forward.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the hon. Member will look at the Prime Minister's speech he will find that my right hon. Friend distinctly stated that the valuation of the minerals would be included. Further than that, he will find that a question was actually put by the Leader of the Opposition on that very point.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Then I take it that the staff of 500 will do all this work, and that it will involve no extra cost in consequence of the Resolution and the amended Clause beyond the estimate the Prime Minister gave.
    Lord BALCARRES: I should like to ask a few questions now. They deal with the question of ascertaining the original capital value of minerals. The real reason why the original mineral tax was post-
    562
    poned was because you cannot estimate the value of ungotten minerals.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, it was not.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: You told us so.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEdissented.
    Lord BALCARRES: The hon. Member for Mansfield told us to-night that it was impossible to value ungotten minerals.
    Mr. MARKHAM: I never referred to it. I have previously stated that I thought the proposals made by the Government were quite impracticable, but I did not say so to-night.
    Lord BALCARRES: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. What I want to do is to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how this original capital value is going to be ascertained. It is no good saying we are going to have a staff of 500 gentlemen to ascertain the original capital value without knowing what they are going to do. It may be very easy in Lancashire where there is a large number of open seams. You can do it approximately, of course, but there must be allowances on one side and the other. How can you value ungotten minerals where the seams are not open. I defy anybody to value them in the East of Lincolnshire where there are quantities of boreholes, and where people have spent thousands of pounds upon boring. It is no good to put down one borehole over 1,000 acres. You have to put down numerous boreholes. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is going to be the cost of valuing ungotten minerals. I want further to ask him how long he estimates that this valuation is going to take. It is an enormously big job. Everything beneath the earth which is worth more than the space it occupies and is withdrawn for the purposes of profit with the exception of brickmaking, is going to be valued. That includes every slate and every piece of granite, all the salt in Cheshire, all the liquid brine. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes; because liquid brine is of course a mineral. It will also include all the metalliferous liquids which come up at Harrogate and Tunbridge Wells; all these things will have to be valued.
    Mr. MARKHAM: I have dissented.
    Lord BALCARRES: The hon. Member shakes his head, but every metalliferous liquid is a mineral, and it will have to pay the duty.
    Mr. MARKHAM: The Bill does not say anything of the kind. It says only those mines which are being worked are to be valued. If the Noble Lord will refer to the Clause he will find that is the fact.
    Lord BALCARRES: I say they are all to be valued now.
    Mr. MARKHAM: No.
    Lord BALCARRES: Indeed they are. I invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether that is not the fact.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEassented.
    Lord BALCARRES: The right hon. Gentleman admits that all minerals which are not being worked now will have to be valued. I say that the immensity of this obligation is not fully realised even by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Where the minerals are being developed clearly it is much more easy to ascertain their original capital value than where they are not being developed. A further point I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman is that he or the learned Attorney-General should consent to give us in the form of a return or an answer to an unstarred question, a statement as to what matters are going to be taxed under this Increment Value Duty Resolution. The House has a right to that information, and to know the legal decisions upon which the Government depends for the definition of the term minerals. We asked the Attorney-General what minerals were, but he refused to say anything except that clay for the purposes
    of this Bill would not be considered a mineral. He said it was perfectly clear, although there have been conflicting decisions in the Courts, that there were certain decisions on which the Government relied. I take it that, in answer to an unstarred question, the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to give us a list of the decisions on which the Government rely and on which they have relied in making an estimate of the yield of the duty. I do not think that is an unreasonable demand to make. I hope that the other question I have put as to the probable cost of valuation and the probable time it will occupy will also be answered in the course of the next few days.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Are we to understand, Sir, that the questions put to the Government are not going to be answered?
    Question put: "That any duty charged on the increment value of minerals which are comprised in a mining lease or are being worked shall be charged annually, and the increment value shall be taken to be the sum by which in each year the rental value of the minerals exceeds the annual equivalent of the original capital value of the minerals, or the capital value of the minerals on the last preceding occasion on which Increment Value Duty has been collected."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 44.

    Division No. 711.]

    AYES.

    [1.45 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

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

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Jenkins, J.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Baring Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lamont, Norman

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Elibank, Master of

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Essex, R. W.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Bennett, E. N.

    Falconer, James

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

    Gibson, J. P.

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

    Brodie, H. C.

    Gulland, John W.

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Byles, William Pollard

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Middlebrook, William

    Clough, William

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

    Harwood, George

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Cooper, G. J.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

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

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Nicholls, George

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

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Crosfield, A. H.

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Higham, John Sharp

    Partington, Oswald

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hooper, A. G.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Seddon, J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

    Seely, Colonel

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Pointer, J.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

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

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Summerbell, T.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Radford, G. H.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

    Tomkinson, James

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Verney, F. W.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Robinson, S.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Waring, Walter

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    NOES.

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Renton, Leslie

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Balcarres, Lord

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

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

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Younger, George

    Clyde, James Avon

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    ESTATE DUTY DEDUCTIONS.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to limit the debts and incumbrances which may be deducted from the value of an estate in determining the value of the estate for the purposes of Estate Duty."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Sir W. ROBSON: I think in two words I may explain this very brief Resolution. The Resolution is intended to prevent the creation of incumbrances which have the only object of operating for the purpose of defeating the Death Duties. It has become necessary by a recent decision in the court of law, which I do not think I need deal with in any great detail. If I state its substance, I think I will make sufficiently clear to the Committee the object of the Resolution. The following case has been decided by the law courts, the highest tribunal, to be good law, as the law stands now. A landowner having very large estates and being aged 79, was minded to escape if he could the payment of Death Duties on the part of those who succeeded him. That is an object I ascribe to him without injustice because it was admitted by his successor. He said his father had the object of his escaping the Death Duty. That landowner was a tenant for life, like most great landowners in England and Scotland. At this extreme age of seventy-nine he devised, with the assistance of a very astute legal adviser, a plan of purchasing a reversion, which was possessed by his son and grand-
    566
    son. The landed property with which he was dealing was worth about £500,000 or £600,000. I do not give the exact figures. His son's interest was, of course, very valuable. The son's reversionary interest was worth over £400,000; the grandson's reversionary interest was worth £200,000. Together they made very nearly the value of the estate. What was done was for the father to purchase both these two reversionary interests. I need not explain the somewhat complicated, legal mechanism necessary in such a case.
    This was a Scottish case, but the same principle would very nearly apply to English cases. He purchased the two reversions. He did not intend to pay in cash. He could not. So he gave bonds to his son and grandson for the purchase amount of between £600,000 and £700,000. The bonds were conditioned at 5 per cent., which was never paid nor intended to be paid. No interest whatever was paid. But some lower rate of interest was agreed to by some collateral document. The interest went on till it reached a sum which, with the principal, was far in excess of the value of the estate. The father, in the meantime, though not paying interest, continued to give his son and grandson their ordinary allowance. All the deeds, elaborate mechanism, conveyances, etc., were, of course, never acted on, in fact. When the father died the Inland Revenue officers descended upon the son, and they invited him to pay Death Duty upon this estate,

    567
    which was estimated to be worth some £700,000. The father before dying had left the estate to the son upon the ordinary trust of the settlement. The son then explained that he was deprived of his share, and, because he was a creditor, that he had shown extreme generosity in not pressing it at death. The Inland Revenue officer then descended on the grandson. He, I believe, had been a most affectionate child. He also explained that he was a creditor of his grandparent, and that the grandparent in this particular estate had died in a condition of the most deplorable insolvency. The incumbrances which had been created, of course, amounted to more than the value of the estate, and, of course, the son and grandson claimed that they were not subject to Death Duties. That view was resisted by the Crown unsuccessfully.
    We had some hopes of success in the House of Lords. Two noble lords favoured the view of the Crown, but in a Court of five there was a majority of one against the view of the Crown. There can be no doubt if the law be allowed to continue in that state there will be a very serious flaw indeed. I need not tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that Death Duties by this time have become a necessary financial expedient not only to the Liberal Party but to any party which happens to hold the reins of Government. I am sure whatever the views of hon. Members opposite be on thorny fiscal subjects, it will be agreed that no Government can now dispense with Death Duties. It has, therefore, become necessary to adopt some means by which incumbrances, created with the motive and of the sort I have referred to, should be checked. It is not by any means an easy Amendment to frame. There will be difficulties, I have no doubt, when the words of the Amendment come to be put before the House, but I think what I have said is sufficient to explain the purpose of the Resolution. The precise mode by which effect will be given to it will remain for future consideration.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Nobody can fail to sympathise with any Government who have got to collect Death Duties and find themselves done out of a considerable sum of money in the ingenious manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just explained. If the Resolution which is now before the Committee had been limited in its terms to deeds and incumbrances that were of a fictitious
    568
    character, or which had been created or manufactured for the purpose of avoiding Death Duties, then I do not think many on this side would have objected to the terms of the Resolution. When we read the Resolution and find that it does not refer, at all events in its wording, to any of these matters of which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just given us an account, we are entitled to ask whether it is the intention of the Government, in the Amendment or new Clause which they intend to propose, to strictly limit it to such kind of fictitious debts and incumbrances as the hon. and learned Gentleman has described. If we pass the Resolution in this shape there will be nothing at all to prevent the Government afterwards bringing in a new Clause or an Amendment to the existing Clause—I do not know which form it would take, because we have not got it on the Paper—which would be very much wider in its scope.
    The Resolution starts: "That it is expedient to limit the debts and incumbrances." Everybody feels that it is expedient to limit debts and incumbrances. I would like to limit my own if I possibly could. But we want to know more about it. We are justified in pointing out that hitherto Death Duties—although they have been pretty severe, and although in a good many cases they have inflicted great hardship, and although they are going to be much increased—hitherto Death Duties have only had to be paid on the net amount of a man's estate. If an estate existed at all Death Duties could be paid; and it is a provision in the whole of the assessments for Death Duties as the law stands to-day that every debt and every incumbrance of the deceased must be given credit for and taken into account. If we pass this Resolution that will drop. I can imagine a case where the debts and incumbrances amount to more than the value of the estate; in such a case, if there were any limiting of the amount of debts and incumbrances, which could be taken off, the Crown would be demanding duty where there was not enough estate to pay duty with. We are entitled, therefore, to something more than the hon. and learned Gentleman has just now said. We are entitled to an assurance that in this Amendment or new Clause these limitations will simply be as regards fictitious debts or incumbrances, or debts and incumbrances which have been merely created for the express purpose of avoiding the duty. If we can get that assur-

    569
    ance I feel certain that my hon. Friends round me will be disposed not to divide against the Resolution.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I think I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, with a qualification to which I do not think he will object. This is a difficult task, and the terms used in the new Clause will have to be of a general character. I cannot confine myself to the use of the word "fictitious" for this reason—that although under the existing law debts and encumbrances must have been created bonâ fide there is a good deal of difference of opinion as to what is the proper significance of the phrase. In fact, the Resolution is necessary in consequence of a recent decision in the House of Lords. The word "fictitious" will not serve my purpose. In the choice of phraseology I do not want to go further than to avoid evasion.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: On that assurance we do not desire to divide.
    Mr. STEWART BOWLES: This is the 23rd of September, and I think the thirty-third day in Committee upon this Bill, and what the hon. and learned Gentleman is now proposing is really nothing less than to recast the whole framework and principle of Estate Duties. Up to now the whole principle of Death Duties has been this—that the duty is to be assessed and paid on the value of the property which passes at death—the value of the property which actually passes. If you tax a man not on what he receives, but on a national and fictitious value, which may have any or no correspondence to what a man actually receives, you hold out a very strong temptation indeed to the very persons who are most easily influenced to avoid your tax. It has been called by many names, such as "evasion" and "avoidance," but I think that the most accurate description of the process would be rather "abstinence." People have abstained from paying these duties, and they have simply walked through the hole which must necessarily be left in any scheme which depends not upon reality, but upon a sort of notion which has been hitherto at the bottom of the whole system of Estate Duties.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman at this period of the Session and at this hour of the morning—past two o'clock—comes down, and, after we have considered and passed the original proposals of the Government, proposes a new fiction, a new notion, an entirely new principle, on which to assess Estate Duties, which he
    570
    says with great truth have become an essential and important part of our fiscal system. What is he going to do? He is going to take power to limit the deductions which may be made from the value of an estate passing on death. What does that mean? It means that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government are going to take power to tax a man not alone on the property which in fact passes on death, but on some other value, on some other score, which is clearly not to be the value of the property actually passing, but, by some machinery not yet divulged, is to be deemed by him and by the Government to be the value of the property. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was putting it mildly when he said that it would be a difficult task, and I think it will be clear to the Committee, as it was evidently clear to him from the very expression he used, that the words proposed in this Resolution must necessarily be general words. He said, indeed, that the words would be aimed at evasion. The right hon. Gentleman may aim them at evasion. The question we shall have to consider is not what the right hon. Gentleman is aiming at, but what he is going to hit. It appears to me that we shall have to seriously consider whether any words having a general effect are not certain not to prevent evasion, but to put a gross injustice upon incumbrances which may come within the meaning of the words. This is a tremendous proposal at this time of the Session; a proposal of this size ought really not to be made to the House of Commons. It is a very far-reaching proposal and almost impossible of accomplishment in any scheme of equity and justice.
    Mr. FELL: I do not intend to move the Amendment standing in my name. But I would ask when we may see what the Government intend to propose? Very grave injustice may be felt unless we see the Amendment. Anxiety is felt on all sides.
    Sir W. ROBSON: The Amendment has been considered. It is now drafted, but I desire to subject it to a little further consideration. It will be down upon the Paper before many days.
    Resolved, "That it is expedient to limit the debts and encumbrances which maybe deducted from the value of an estate in determining the value of the estate for the purposes of Estate Duty."
    Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Thursday).

FINANCE (CONSOLIDATED FUND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(Mr. CALDWELL (Deputy-Chairman), in the chair.]

FINANCE (CONSOLIDATED FUND) BILL.

  DIVISION OF LOCAL TAXATION, LICENCE DUTIES BETWEEN LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND EXCHEQUER.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, for the purpose of payments into any Local Taxation account, the proceeds of any duties on any local taxation licences (including duties for motor cars), which are altered by any Act passed in the present Session, shall be deemed to be the proceeds of the duties in the year ending the Thirty-first day of March Nineteen Hundred and Nine."—[Sir W. Robson.]
  Lord BALCARRES: These Resolutions are not on the Paper.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No; the Resolutions are not on the Paper, according to rule. The Noble Lord will remember that during the time of the late Government they never were on the Paper.
  Lord BALCARRES: I daresay the late Government did many wrong things.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Many.
  Lord BALCARRES: The hon. Member was not in the last Parliament.
  Mr. J. WARD: We knew enough about that outside.
  Lord BALCARRES: The three Resolutions we have been discussing to-night were on the Paper, but we have had no notice of these. Cannot we adjourn the proceedings? I have been here 15 hours, and I have to be at the Grand Court again at 11.30.
  Sir W. ROBSON: I am told it is not usual to put these Motions on the Paper. The present Licence and Motor Duties, of course, go to local authorities; the increased duties are wanted for the State, and the Resolution is for the purpose of enabling the State to appropriate the increase of duties, The Committee is not at all ignorant of what these increases of duties are, and surely there can be no objection to allowing these Resolutions to pass. It is true the Resolutions are not set down; but notice was given that they would be made. The third order of the
  572
  day is Finance (Consolidated Fund)—Committee thereon.
  Lord BALCARRES: I really did not know these Resolutions were coming on. I wish to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. Nobody has got the terms of this Resolution. We have been told that it would be the practice of this Government to put notice of such Resolutions on the Paper.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I said that this is following the usual practice, and the usual practice of the late Government was that in the Committee stage the Resolutions were read from the Table for the first time.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease): Perhaps I may be allowed to explain exactly what occurred. There are a certain number of new Clauses which will be introduced as soon as the Committee stage of the Bill has been passed. To enable these to be discussed it is necessary that certain Resolutions should be passed. These Resolutions are usually passed through in a formal way in any Finance Bill. I consulted the officials of the House as to precedents, and I found that it was usual when any Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means was required to place it on the Paper. The three Resolutions which were necessary to move in Committee of Ways and Means were placed on the Paper and the usual notice was given to the House of the terms of the Resolutions. It is almost without precedent that any Resolution not required in connection with Ways and Means for a Finance Bill should be circulated or placed on the Paper. I did not think it was desirable to create a precedent by placing the terms of formal Resolutions on the Paper last night. They were presented at the Table at the commencement of this sitting, and any Member who desired to refer to them had an opportunity of doing so. That has been the usual practice, and we have followed the precedents.
  Lord BALCARRES: I quite accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about precedents, but the House has had no notice that these Resolutions would be taken tonight.
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: I gave it last night.
  Lord BALCARRES: Not of Ways and Means Resolutions. The Prime Minister

  573
  only said we were to take the three Resolutions we have taken to-night. We have had no notice of these new Resolutions, although it may be in order according to precedent to accept them. The learned Attorney-General himself did not know that they were going to be taken. My hon. Friend asked him whether the Resolution dealing with the Motor Car Tax was the only one which was to be taken, and the learned Attorney-General said "Yes." I think it is unreasonable that we should be asked to take them. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Both he and I have to be upstairs at half-past eleven, and so has the learned Solicitor-General.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I shall be there.
  Lord BALCARRES: If we are there we shall be in a state of coma. We do not know what are these Resolutions. They may raise very big points, and if each one of them only takes half an hour or three-quarters of an hour we shall be a long time over them. I do not say there was any pledge, but there was an understanding that the convenience of those Members serving on the Grand Committee should be consulted. It is not observing that to keep us here till five or six o'clock.
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: In the arrangement made last night they were all definitely alluded to.
  Lord BALCARRES: I will not move to report Progress for the moment, but I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us what these Resolutions are, and how many he wants to take.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I made it clear last night that we were going to take, not merely those Resolutions we have already taken, but also these formal Resolutions which will enable us to proceed with the Bill. I said so distinctly, and I have sent for a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, in which I think the Noble Lord will find my statement. If what I say is not borne out by the Report, I will give way at once.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The OFFICIAL REPORT is not out yet.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I know it was in "The Times" this morning.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: We did not so understand it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Whether there is any particular allusion to the conversation between the right hon. Gentleman
  574
  and myself I am not sure, but I am quite clear that not only the three Resolutions but others of a purely formal character were to be taken. The Noble Lord has had some experience of arrangements, and he will bear me out that many Resolutions of this kind are passed without notice. He knows perfectly well that in a Bill like this we cannot proceed with certain Clauses without getting these formal Resolutions. I am sorry to have to repeat an observation I made last night, that it is desirable that we should, in the general interests and convenience of Members, make some progress. We have put off these Resolutions with a view to consulting the convenience of the Opposition. We put them down on a day which suited their convenience. We consulted them as to what day would be most suitable, and we kept them back to the very last moment in order to meet the wishes of hon. Members on the other side of the House. Under these conditions I think we are entitled to some consideration.
  Lord BALCARRES: May we know what the Resolutions are?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The first one is a Resolution which deals with licences for motor cars. It does not prejudge any question at all, but simply enables us to discuss the question. It is absolutely essential that we should have that Resolution. It enables us to discuss the matter when we come to it, as we may do to-morrow or the day after. The other is in regard to licences. That does not raise the question of revenue at all. It is purely a question of deciding whether the revenue shall go to Imperial Funds. The other is a Resolution with regard to levying motor car duties in Ireland. It is necessary to get that before we can extend the motor car licence duties to Ireland. The duty itself will be discussed when we come to the Clause. The next Resolution is to authorise the payments out of the Consolidated Fund towards the development of roads. That is to enable us to pay the sum to a separate account. Unless we get that the whole of this £600,000 will be appropriated for Imperial purposes. Nobody wishes that.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Yes, they do.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have never heard it suggested that the £600,000 raised out of the petrol and motor car duties should be paid into the Imperial Exchequer. I thought it was agreed on all

  575
  hands that it should be used for the development of roads. There was no division upon that. The next Resolution is in regard to the division of funds raised from the land taxes. It enables us to introduce our Clause dealing with that question. It does not prejudge the question in any way. The passing of these Resolutions will simply enable us to discuss each question afterwards. It does not raise any point of principle; all those points will be discussed when we come to the Clauses. It is a purely formal matter.
  Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: I can corroborate the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to what he said last night. He used the words "formal Resolutions." But my hon. Friends and I interpreted the word "formal" as it is interpreted in the ordinary dictionary. I do not think anybody can say that Resolutions of this bind are formal Resolutions. We understood last night that it was necessary to get the three Resolutions in Ways and Means which we have passed through Committee to-day in order to take the Report to-morrow and to get the Clauses. We certainly did not understand that these sax other Resolutions, which are called "formal," but which really open up very large questions, were to be brought on at this hour of the morning. And may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the reason really for all this hurry? There is plenty of time. I may point out to him that the financial year has still six months to run. May I also point out that, if there is a desire to bring business to a close, it is not as if we were trying to bring the Summer Session to a close at a comparatively early date with a view of meeting again perhaps in two months' time for an Autumn Session? That is not the position. The position is that the Government have got the whole time of the country for two or three months. There is therefore no reason for hurrying these important questions through. Then I would also appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. There has been an understanding that when the Grand Committee on the Development Bill was sitting there should not be late sittings of the House on the Finance Bill. That was an agreement consented to by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. It is really hardly fair to keep hon. Members sitting here so late at night when a very important Bill, or, at any rate, a Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman himself attaches great importance, is coining on at half-past eleven in the morning. I do
  576
  hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to report Progress now, and renew these Resolutions on another occasion.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Before the right hon. Gentleman opposite moves to report Progress I should like to make an appeal to him, and to ask him a question. If he will indicate to me which of these Resolutions contain matter which the Opposition really feel they would like to have discussed, then I will do my best to meet their views. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman must see himself that some of the Resolutions are purely formal. It is necessary that I should get some of them to-night—the payments out of the Consolidated Fund towards the development of roads, and the division of Land Value Duties with the local authorities.
  Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: Take those two.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Very well; if I cannot do any better. But there as the Motor Car Resolution relating to Ireland also, which we really must have. If the Opposition will agree to give us these Resolutions without keeping us here later, then I shall be prepared to move to report Progress afterwards.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: One of these Resolutions raises a very important matter of principle which a considerable number of Members on this side wish to discuss. From the list which has been read out it is difficult to know which is the precise Resolution which raises the question. But what I am referring to is the proposal which would deprive municipalities of a share in the increase—
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That Resolution I agree to put off.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  LEVYING OF MOTOR CAR DUTIES IN IRELAND.
  1. Resolved, That it is expedient that in Ireland any duties for motor cars imposed by any Act of the present Session be levied by county councils (including the councils of county boroughs) and paid into the Exchequer, and that an annual sum be paid out of the Consolidated Fund to county councils in Ireland in connection therewith—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]

  PAYMENTS OUT OF CONSOLIDATED FUND TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT OF ROADS.
  2. Resolved, That there shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund in every financial year, and paid into a separate account

  577
  to be appropriated towards the development of roads, a sum equal to the net proceeds in each year of any duties on motor spirit imposed by any Act of the present Session, and the net proceeds in each year of the duties on licences for motor cars which are affected by any such Act, and the net proceeds of the duties shall be taken to be the gross proceeds of the duties subject to deductions for cost of collection, and for any payments into any local taxation account or to any county council (including the council of a county borough), in respect of the proceeds of the duties or any deficiency of those proceeds.—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]

  ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES ON ACCOUNT OF LAND VALUE DUTIES.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That there shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund in each year a sum equal to half the proceeds of the duties levied in respect of land values (including Mineral Rights Duties) under any Act of the present Session, and that sum shall be divided between England, Scotland, and Ireland in such manner and paid into such separate accounts for the benefit of such local authorities as Parliament may determine."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: We are not taking this now?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No. I move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Motion to report Progress agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Thursday); Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.
  ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved: That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one minutes before Three a.m. (Thursday, 23rd September).