Commons Sitting of 26 April 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Charnwood Forest Railway Bill [Lords],
Farnham Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],
National Provident Institution Bill [Lords],
South Hants Water Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
North and South Shields Electric Railway Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
City of London (Tithes and Rates) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till to-morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
  Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill (by Order),
  Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,—" to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government for Ireland relating to the Rural Districts of Belfast, Enniskillen, and Rathdown No. 1, and the Urban District of Kinsale," presented by Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
  Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill,—" to confirm a Provisional Order under the Land Drainage Act, 1861, in the matter of a proposed Drainage District in the parishes of Bourne and Thurlby, in the county of Lincoln," presented by SIR EDWARD STRACHEY; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,—"to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Chesham (Extension), Church, Clevedon, Dawlish (Amendment), Derby (Extension), Gorseinon, Huddersfield (Extension to South Crosland), Ormskirk (Amendment), Runcorn Urban and Runcorn Rural, Runcorn (Weston), Smethwick (Amendment), and Widnes (Amendment)," presented by Mr.TENNANT; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,—"to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, The Electric Lighting (Scotland) Act, 1890, and The Electric Lighting (Scotland) Act, 1902, relating to Ardrossan Saltcoats and District, Cambuslang (Extension) Act, Cowdenbeath Lochgelly and District and Skehnorlie," presented by Mr. Tennant; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,—"to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Navan and Swinford," presented by Mr. TENNANT; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:—

  1. "That, in the case of the Railway Passengers Assurance Company (Transfer) [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: —That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  2. "That, in the case of the Warrington Corporation Bill, Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert the Additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  3. "That, in the case of the Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in

  225
  the case of the Petition of the 'Corporation of Stoke-on-Trent' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

  4. "That, in the case of the Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [Lords], Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert the Additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  5. "That, in the case of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill, Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert the Additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  Resolutions agreed to.

  WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY presented a Petition from Electors of East Essex in favour of granting the suffrage to women upon the same conditions as to men.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Congo Rubber (Belgian Shipments).
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the fact that since 20th December six steamers, flying the Belgian flag, had arrived at Antwerp from the Congo with 594 tons of rubber on board of a value of £400,000 sterling, shipped by the Belgian Administration as the product of the forced labour taxes still imposed by its officials upon the Natives of that country; and if he has had any communications on the matter, official or otherwise?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have not as yet received any information as to the shipments referred to in the question, but will make inquiry. We have made inquiry as to the 1909 shipments prior to 20th December.

  Cotton Crop (Egypt).
  Mr. KNOTTasked whether there is a shortage of the cotton crop in Egypt; if so, to what extent and to what cause the shortage, if any, is attributed in the reports received at the
  226
  Foreign Office; whether the European inspectors, whose duty it was to superintend the extermination of the cotton plant parasites, have been superseded by Egyptians, and if, since such supersession, the parasites have enormously increased; and whether any steps will be taken to ensure more efficient inspection?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: With regard to the first, second and fourth parts of this question, I must refer the hon. Member to the answers given on the 10th ultimo to the hon. Member for Burnley and on the 15th ultimo to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton. I have no information respecting the third part of the question.

  Foreign Shipbuilding (Subsidies to Builders).
  Mr. KNOTTasked whether attention has been called to the growing policy of foreign countries to give State aid to their shipbuilders and shipowners by subsidies, bounties, loans at nominal interest, and by coasting reservations, to the injury of British tonnage; and whether he proposes to take any steps to combat the evil?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, except as regards shipbuilding and the coasting trade. In all cases where such action on the part of foreign Governments is held by His Majesty's Government to constitute a violation of existing international agreements, to which they are a party, steps are invariably taken to assert the rights of British shipping, and where possible to obtain regress.

  Consular Service (Nationality of Members).
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked if the right hon. Gentleman will grant a Return- showing the names and nationality of all consuls-general, consuls, and vice-consuls of the unsalaried service, giving the localities at which they are stationed?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Copies of a printed paper entitled "List of Consular Officers Permitted to Trade," which gives the particulars desired, will be placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Formation of Persian Government.
  Mr. DILLONasked whether the British and Russian representatives at Teheran are using their influence to exclude certain individuals from the Persian Ministry or in any way interfering with the formation of the Persian Government; and, if so, on what grounds this course has been taken?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Such representations as the British and Russian Ministers have made have been for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the countries which they represent.
  Mr. DILLON: Have they made representations objecting to the inclusion of certain individuals in the Ministry of Persia?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not prepared to add anything to the answer. The representations which have been made were limited to what were considered necessary safeguards in the interest of the country.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Will the hon. Gentleman say what representations have been made?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not propose to add to my reply.

  Sedition in India.
  Mr. BYLESasked the Under-Secretary for India whether, in the case of the recent confiscation by the Government of Bengal of large quantities of waist cloths on the ground that they were seditious documents within the meaning of the new Press Act, the owners of these documents received, or were entitled to receive, any warning that the documents were considered seditious or were given any opportunity of making any explanation; and, if not, whether they have any right of appeal to a court of justice against this action of the executive?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Yes, Sir, a warning was issued by notification in the "Calcutta Gazette." The owners have the right of appeal to the High Court, as was explained in my answer of 21st March to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
  Mr. BYLES: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman would object to exhibit one of these seditious articles in the Library?
  Mr. MONTAGU: There is none at the moment in England.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether he is now in a position to state under what law a warrant has been issued against Arabindo Ghose; whether proceedings are to be taken against the
  228
  printer of his paper as well as against himself; and whether copies of the offending article can be placed in the Library for the information of Members?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State is not yet in a position to add anything to the answer given to my hon. Friend on 14th April, but he hopes to have full information very shortly.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will grant the Return standing on the Order Paper for to-morrow in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil, showing the prosecutions for seditious speeches and writings which have been instituted in India since the 1st day of January, 1908, showing the names and descriptions of the persons charged, the court which tried them, and the precise character of the charge and the decision in each case (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 50, of Session 1909)?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State will give instructions for the preparation by the Government of India of a Supplemental Return to bring up to date the information given in the Parliamentary Paper referred to in my hon. Friend's Motion.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether there is any law or administrative order in India which prohibits a newspaper from publishing a fair report of judicial proceedings in charges of sedition, including the spoken or written matter which is the subject of the charge; and, if so, would he state when the law was passed or the order issued?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State is not aware of any specific prohibition applying to reports of cases of sedition, but he is advised that if the reproduction of seditious matter which has formed the subject of a judicial proceeding is itself likely to excite disaffection a newspaper publishing such matter would be liable to prosecution under Section 124a of the Penal Code of 1860.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether he has any official knowledge that one Nand Gopal, an Indian journalist, has recently been convicted of the offence of sedition and sentenced to ten years' transportation by the Sessions Judge of Allahabad, although in the unanimous opinion of the three assessors of the court he was not guilty of the offence; whether he can state

  229
  what is the age of the prisoner; and whether there was any special reason for so heavy a sentence?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has no official information on the subject, but he is making inquiries. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that an appeal lies to the High Court.

  Reserve of Army Horses.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Secretary of State for War whether, for the purpose of the formation of a reserve of horses, remounts are handed over to civilians on payment of a small insurance fee; for what length of time are these remounts left in the hands of these civilians; and what conditions are imposed?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): A limited number of trained horses from Cavalry regiments are being boarded out with suitable persons in the neighbourhood of the barracks. The horses can be retained for six years, subject to certain conditions and on payment of a small annual insurance fee. These conditions were published on 27th May last; but I can let the Noble Lord have a copy, if he so desires, as they are too long to read out to the House.

  Special Reservists (Civil Employment).
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether a Special Reservist can be allowed, in order to retain his civil employment, to attend evening drills and do his musketry course (equivalent to his annual training) with a Territorial regiment in the town in which he is employed instead of with his regiment in a distant station?
  Mr. HALDANE: The reply is in the negative. A Special Reservist's annual training consists of camp for fifteen days, with the addition, in the case of infantry, of a course of musketry for six days. In very special circumstances a man may be excused the annual training, but not more than once in four trainings.

  Duke of York's School (Chelsea Site).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the tenour of the reply to the letter from the London County Territorial Association asking that the site of the Duke of York's School, Chelsea, should be retained for the use of the Territorial Forces?
  Mr. HALDANE: I am not yet in a position to make any further statement on the subject.

  First Cavalry Brigade Officers.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked how many officers of the regiments in the 1st Cavalry Brigade have qualified to act as musketry or signalling instructors; and how many have qualified at the cavalry school?
  Mr. HALDANE: Forty-eight officers have qualified to act as musketry instructors and nineteen as signalling instructors. Twenty-two officers have qualified at the Cavalry School, four in the captains' course, and eighteen in the subalterns' course.

  Assistant Adjutants (Cavalry).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the necessary qualifications for an assistant adjutancy in the Cavalry; and whether all the assistant adjutants possess these qualifications?
  Mr. HALDANE: The regulations provide that an assistant adjutant should be a subaltern officer qualified at a School of Musketry. The appointment is made by the Commanding Officer, and the War Office has no information concerning the qualification of the officer so appointed. Circumstances might conceivably arise in which it might be necessary to appoint an officer who, while suitable in all other respects, had not had the opportunity of becoming qualified at a school of musketry.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether the assistant adjutant of a regiment of the 1st Cavalry Brigade was away on leave during the annual musketry course of his regiment; if so, whether he continued to draw the extra pay attaching to his appointment; and, if not, who did draw it?
  Mr. HALDANE: Matters of this sort are in the hands of the local military authorities, with whose discretion I do not propose to interfere. I cannot undertake to inquire into individual cases of leave granted to junior officers.

  Territorial Force (Adjutants).
  Mr. SYKESasked whether provision has been made in this year's Estimates for the scheme now under consideration for improving the position of adjutants of the Territorial Force by increasing their pay or allowances, or both, and by other means?
  Mr. HALDANE: I do not anticipate any financial difficulty in making any changes which it may be decided to make during the current year.
  Mr. SYKES: May I ask whether it is under consideration to apply the new conditions to new appointments only, or whether those adjutants already serving will participate?
  Mr. HALDANE: I should like notice of that question.

  Bankruptcy Laws (Scotland).
  Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the Lord Advocate when it is expected the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Working of the Bankruptcy Laws of Scotland will be issued?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I am informed that the Committee are at present considering the terms of their Report, which, it is hoped, will be received shortly.

  Drunkenness in Scotland (Statistics).
  Mr. CAMERON CORBETTasked the Lord Advocate if he will state the number of persons apprehended for drunkenness in Scotland in the year 1908; and the total decrease of the number apprehended, (1) in cities and burghs, and (2) in counties, during the year 1909, as compared with 1908?
  Mr. URE: Returns of the apprehensions and citations for such offences are included in the Judicial Statistics of Scotland published for the year 1908 (Cd. 4914). The figures for 1909 are at present in course of tabulation, and their issue will be expedited so far as practicable.

  Liverpool Finances (Rate of Borrowing).
  Mr. MUSPRATTasked the President of the Local Government Board at what rate per cent, the Corporation of Liverpool has borrowed money during the last twelve months?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): During the twelve months ended 31st March, 1910, the Corporation of Liverpool have borrowed money on the following terms:—Loans on Mortgage: Loans on mortgage for fixed periods of three, five, or seven years at interest at the rate of 3¼ per cent, per
  232
  annum. This rate was in operation until December, 1909, on which date the rate of interest was increased to 3½ per cent, per annum. For the renewal of existing loans falling due for repayment, the rate of interest was £3 7s. 6d. for fixed periods of three, five, or seven years until December, 1909, when the terms of renewal were also increased to 3½ per cent, per annum. Corporation Bills: During the period under review two issues of Liverpool Corporation Bills were made, each of £500,000. The average rate of discount for the issue in August last was £2 5s. 9d. per cent., and that for the issue in February last was £2 6s. 3d.
  Mr. MUSPRATT: May I ask if those low rates were not satisfactory to the ratepayers, and whether they are not appreciably—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Local Government Board cannot possibly know what is in the minds of the ratepayers.

  Blackburn (Housing Conditions).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to a report presented to the Blackburn Town Council in 1907, in which it was shown that on an inspection of 20,000 houses in the borough only 182 were found to be provided with bathrooms, and that in some cases nine persons, including both sexes, were occupying the same room; and, as this overcrowding still continues, does he propose to take any action to put in force the provisions of the Housing and Town Planning Act?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I have been in communication with the town council, and shall be happy to send my hon. Friend a copy of the letter I have received from them. I may say, however, that I am asking for further information, and have requested to be furnished with a report by the medical officer of health, in order to be able to compare the present position with that obtaining at the time of the original report.

  Public Trustee Funds.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSasked what are the total funds at present under the control of the office of Public Trustee; and whether, apart from the audit of the account of any trust which may be permitted to a beneficiary, there is any general yearly audit of all the moneys under the Public Trustee's control?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The second general annual report of the Public Trustee, issued on 9th March, showed that the total funds under the control of the office of the Public Trustee on 31st December last were valued at £5,646,300. Apart from the audit of the accounts of any trust which is permitted to a beneficiary there is a test audit of moneys under the Public Trustee's control by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Arrangements for a separate detailed audit are now being considered.

  St. George's Catholic Schools, Nelson.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state what decision has been arrived at with respect to the recognition of the second and third standards in St. George's Catholic School, Nelson; and from what date is the decision to take effect?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The Board have recognised this school as affording accommodation for eighty-eight older children and ninety-three infants as from 13th April, 1910.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. LUNDONasked the Secretary to the Treasury in how many cases have the pension officers in Ireland appealed to the Local Government Board on behalf of applicants for old age pensions whose claims have been refused by the local committees and who themselves are not in a position to appeal?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the West Division of Cavan on the 21st instant.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the grounds on which John Higgins, Carickglass, county Sligo, Ballyfarnon, Boyle sub-committee, has been deprived of his pension, seeing that, according to the Census of 1841, he is shown to be seventy-one years of age?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board upheld the pension officer's appeal in this case on the ground that Higgins, who was born outside the British Dominions, failed to prove that he was a British subject.
  Mr. O'DOWD: Is it not a fact that this man, although born in the United States of America, left there when two months
  234
  old with his people, and resided in Ireland since?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Whether a man is a British subject or not is, of course, a matter to be decided according to the rules of law, and I cannot express an opinion without full knowledge of the facts.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether John Wynn, of Tubbercurry, county Sligo, was deprived of his pension by a decision of the Local Government Board on 14th June, 1909; whether in December last Wynn himself procured a certificate from the Census of 1851 showing hi was entered there as being of twelve years of age at that time; and, if so, whether the amount properly due, and of which he was deprived for six months, will now be paid to him?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Wynn's pension was discontinued on 15th June, 1909, as the result of an appeal by the pension officer on a question as to age. The Local Government Board have been informed that Wynn has since been traced in the Census Returns of 1851, which show him to have been over seventy years old at the time of the Board's decision, and he is now in receipt of a pension. As regards the last paragraph of the question, the payment of pensions is not one over which I have any control.
  Mr. KELLYasked the Chief Secretary whether he will give the Christian names of the parents of Mrs. Alice Kelly, of Meenahinnish, Killygordon, county Donegal, who was deprived of her pension as she did not appear amongst her parents' family in the Census of 1841; what were their ages; what were the Christian names and ages of the children of the said family; and what was the name of the townland, parish, and barony in which the family resided in 1841, as recorded in the Census of that year?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that the names of Mrs. Alice Kelly's parents were John and Kate Connolly. The Local Government Board have just learnt from the pension officer that the wrong family was traced in the first instance in this case. A further search is now being made.
  Mr. KELLYasked the reasons why Daniel Ward, of St. Johnston, county Donegal, has been deprived of his pension; and whether this man was given no reason why his pension was stopped?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board are not aware that Daniel Ward was ever in receipt of a pension. The pension officer appealed against the committee's decision granting a pension, and the Board upheld the appeal, as Ward was unable to furnish satisfactory proof that he had attained the statutory age. Ward must have been aware of the grounds of the appeal, as the Board requested him to forward evidence as to his age.

  Devonport Post Office (Extension).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the work of extension to the post office at Devonport has now been put in hand; whether he is aware that a portion of the site is being used as a bill-posting station; and what steps, if any, have been taken to secure such of the adjoining property as will be necessary to carry out the improvements authorised?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): No, Sir. The legal negotiations for the acquisition of the site are still in hand. As the property to be acquired has not yet been transferred to the Government, my Department has no control over any arrangements which the present owner may have made in respect of bill-posting.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I ask if the work will be commenced before the end of the year?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I should hope so, as soon as the legal arrangements are completed.

  Walmer Castle Grounds.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the First Commissioner of Works whether a certain portion of the grounds of Walmer Castle was the gift of Lord Liverpool, subject to the condition that it should never be alienated so long as there was a Lord Warden; whether a certain part thereof has been encroached upon by Sir Arthur Woollaston; whether any and what person has pretended to licence such encroachment; if so, whether such person had any and what authority for granting such licence; and whether he will forthwith take steps to put an end to such encroachment?
  Mr. HARCOURT: There has been no alienation of land to Sir A. Woollaston, nor do I know of any encroachment by him.
  236
  He holds a licence from the Commissioners of Works, terminable on notice, to occupy a copse in the Crown Meadow. The Commissioners of Works are now in charge of the Walmer Castle property on behalf of the Crown. There seems to be no occasion to revoke the licence.

  Labour Exchanges (Custom House, Victoria Docks).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state how many men and women have been registered at the Labour Bureau at Custom House, Victoria Docks, since its establishment; how many of those registered were found employment or sent to places making applications for men and women to be put to work; the names of the firms such people were sent to and the wages offered, and the hours of labour in such places; if he can state how many men have been applied for and sent to the Port of London authority; and if he can state the cost of upkeeping the Exchange since it has been opened?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): Statistics of the working of the Labour Exchange in each district are, and will be, published monthly in the Board of Trade Labour Gazette, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. I do not think it would serve a useful purpose, but the reverse, to give minute details of the working of each individual Exchange.

  Devonport (Bute Yard Boathouse).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Bute Yard boathouse at Devonport is a mile distant from the gate; and whether he will consider the possibility of making some concession to the men working there so as to enable them to enjoy the same privilege as to dinner-time as is enjoyed by other men whose work is not so far distant from the gate?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The new boathouse in Devonport Dockyard is slightly more than half a mile from the nearest gate; some general instructions have, however, recently been issued, which, it is understood, will meet the difficulty in connection with the dinner-time of men employed at the place named.

  Chatham Dockyard (Territorial Force).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether an Admiralty order was recently sent to the men employed at Chatham Dockyard stating that not more than 2 per cent, of the Territorials employed would be allowed to re-engage in the local Territorial units, which include two squadrons of Imperial Yeomanry, three companies of Royal Engineers, and two companies of the 5th Battalion Royal West Kent Regiment, besides a considerable number of men belonging to the Kent and Sussex Artillery and bearer companies of the Royal Army Medical Corps; whether he is aware that such an order would practically mean that a very large number of men now belonging to the units named have attended their last camp, because the 2 per cent. limit would prohibit all except about 180 of the Kent Territorials employed from again engaging in the force; if so, whether the order was issued after consultation with the Secretary of State for War; and whether the effect of such an order on other large employers of labour has been considered?
  Mr. McKENNA: Orders have recently been issued after reference to, and with the concurrence of, the Army Council, that not more than 2 per cent, of the total number of employés at each dockyard shall be allowed to engage in the Territorial Force. The hon. Member will recognise that the position of the Royal dockyards in relation to the Territorial Force is essentially different from that of the ordinary private employer, and that in this matter considerations of national safety demand that not only the requirements of the Territorial Force shall be taken into account, but the requirements also of His Majesty's Navy. The question whether in exceptional circumstances any re-engagements shall be permitted, notwithstanding that the 2 per cent, limit is exceeded, is at present receiving the attention of the Admiralty.

  Dockyard Employés (Candidature for Public Bodies).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if an order has recently been issued by his Department forbidding dockyard employés to become candidates for a town council, board of guardians, or other public body, without first receiving the consent of the Admiralty; if so, en what grounds is such interference with the freedom of the men justified; and does the
  238
  prohibition apply to Parliamentary candidatures also?
  Mr. McKENNA: The order referred to by the hon. Member promulgates an alteration in the dockyard regulations conveying not a restriction but an extension of the liberty hitherto enjoyed by dockyard employés. They are henceforth to be allowed to become candidates for county councils as well as district, borough, and parish councils. Parliamentary candidature is on a different footing, and under Order in Council a Civil servant has to resign his office as soon as his candidature for Parliament is announced.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Under the amended regulations can a dockyard employé stand for a town council without getting special consent?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. I understand that the amended regulations have removed the restriction which formerly existed, and that now a candidate can stand for the town council without the leave of the Admiralty.

  Dirigible Balloons (Admiralty Construction).
  Mr. FELLasked when the dirigible balloon which is being constructed for the Admiralty at Barrow will be completed; and if it is anticipated that it will be able to execute manœuvres this summer?
  Mr. McKENNA: The dirigible now under construction at Barrow will be completed in June or July next. A large number of experiments will then be carried out to test this airship's manœuvring capabilities under all practical conditions.

  Malta (Dock Accommodation).
  Mr. FELLasked if there is any dock at Malta which can accommodate ships of the "Dreadnought" class?
  Mr. McKENNA: There are three docks at Malta capable of accommodating vessels of the "Dreadnought" class.

  Asiatic Seamen (Disappearance).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any inquiry had been held into the disappearance at sea on 25th November, 1909, of an Asiatic fireman named Abdooramon Bazeer Alee, whilst serving on the steamer "Cardium," of London; whether the seaman was on duty at the time; how long he had served on the vessel; whether he had had any previous sea service; how much

  239
  coal the engine-room hands were required to work each twenty-four hours; what was the temperature of the engine-room and stokehold; whether any previous cases of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance had occurred on this vessel; what wages the seaman received; what was the cost of provisions supplied to him each month; whether any compensation had been paid to the dependants; and, if not, whether he would take steps to inform them of their rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906?
  Mr. TENNANT: Inquiries have been held by the deputy shipping master at Port Natal and by the chief superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office at Dock Street, London, into the disappearance of the seaman mentioned in the question. He was on duty when he disappeared. He was serving as a fireman's cook, and, therefore, the information relative to employment in the engine-room and stokehold referred to by my hon. Friend has not been obtained. One case of the supposed suicide of a fireman has occurred on this vessel during the last three years. I have no information as regards the other matters referred to by my hon. Friend, and it is not within my province to take action in the direction suggested in the last part of the question.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any inquiry had been held into the disappearance at sea, on 2nd October, 1909, of an Asiatic fireman named Lai Yu, whilst serving on the steamer "Bellerophon," of Liverpool; whether he was on duty at the time; whether he was medically examined before joining; how long he had served on the vessel; whether he had had any previous sea service; how many tons of coal the engine-room hands were required to work each twenty-four hours; what was the temperature of the engine-room and stokehold; whether any previous cases of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance had occurred on this vessel; what wages the seaman received, and what was the cost of the provisions supplied to him each month; whether any compensation had been paid to the dependents; and, if not, whether he would inform them of their rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906?
  Mr. TENNANT: Inquiries have been held into the disappearance of the fireman mentioned in the question by the harbour master at Penang by the super-
  240
  intendent of the Mercantile Marine Office at Victoria Docks, London, and by a surveyor of the Board of Trade. The man was employed in the engine-room on light duties at the time of his disappearance. He had not been employed firing for a considerable time. He was medically examined before joining and had served on the vessel about six months. He is reported to have had six and a half years' previous sea service. About 68 tons of coal are burned each day, and twenty-nine firemen and trimmers are carried. About the time of Lai Yu's disappearance the temperature of the engine-room was 110 deg. and of the stokehold 108 deg. No previous case of suicide, supposed suicide or disappearance has occurred on this vessel during the last three years. I have no information as regards the other matters referred to by my hon. Friend, and it is not within my province to take action in the direction suggested in the last part of the question.

  Labour Exchanges (Unskilled Workmen).
  Mr. WADSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was aware that the Labour Exchanges were drafting into the Yorkshire coalfield unskilled men who had never worked in the pits before, while experienced and practical miners were constantly applying at the collieries for work and were being refused work; and whether he could state whether these inexperienced and unskilled men were being paid trade union rates of wages?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am making inquiries into the point raised by my hon. Friend, but so far I have not been able to trace any such case as that referred to in the question.

  Employers' Liability (Returning Officers).
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Attorney-General whether his attention had been called to doubts which had arisen as to the liability under the Employers' Liability Act of returning officers for any accident occurring to persons performing duties in connection with a Parliamentary election; and whether he would consider the advisability of introducing a Bill to define the law?
  The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Robson): The hon. Member is no doubt, referring to the accident at Birmingham. I cannot see what liability can attach, under the Employers' Liability Act, to the returning officer. The Em-

  241
  ployers' Liability Act is strictly limited to workmen, and only to cases where the fault is with the negligence of some superior workman. I rather gather that the hon. Member is referring to doubts in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act. If so, I think they are much more likely and more appropriate to be settled by litigation than by legislation.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that returning officers have no funds whatever, and could not possibly meet a liability of that kind? Under these circumstances, is it not reasonable that some definition of their liability should be given by law?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I could not promise legislation on a matter of that kind this Session.

  Post Office (Casual Labour).
  Mr. WADSWORTHasked the Postmaster-General whether an ex-soldier had been employed in the Hull office since March, 1909, on full telegraph duties at the wage of 25s. per week; whether he could state who was responsible for the fixation of this scale for casual labour at a Class I. office; and whether he could recommend that in such cases the rates laid down by the Select Committee for unestablished assistants should be the minimum rate of payment.
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): I find that an ex-soldier has been employed, with short breaks in his service, on full telegraph duties at Hull from 19th April, 1909, to the 12th ultimo. His pay, namely, 25s. a week, is that usually granted to male season assistants, to whom the rates recommended by the Parliamentary Committee do not apply. I am inquiring as to the circumstances in which he was for so long employed in a temporary capacity.

  Police (Weekly Rest-Day) Bill.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of the Police (Weekly Rest-Day) Bill passing into law, he would consider the advisability of a Grant in Aid to local authorities adopting the provisions of the Act of a sum equivalent to one-half of the additional expenditure so caused?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the Home Office on the 5th instant in reply
  242
  to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for North Salford.

  FINANCE BILL, 1909–10.

    COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any answers were sent by the Board of Inland Revenue to the sixteen bodies of local commissioners who suggested that demand notes for the payment of Income Tax should be sent out with a notice affixed stating that the note was to be taken by way of request for voluntary payment only; and, if so, what was the tenour of the replies, and would he lay the correspondence upon the Table; and whether, in pursuance of his desire to facilitate the voluntary collection of the Income Tax, he instructed the Board of Inland Revenue to communicate the suggestion to the other 724 bodies of local commissioners, not for the purpose of interfering with the exercise of their discretion, but for their information?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In my answer of the 18th instant, I have already indicated the tenour of the Inland Revenue replies in question, and I am unable to adopt the suggestion contained in the second part to lay the correspondence upon the Table. The answer to the third part is in the negative.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some more explicit information as regards the tenour of the replies to which he refers?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think it is desirable that the correspondence between the Inland Revenue and the Local Commissioners should be made public; in fact, I think it would be very undesirable, as the hon. Member will probably realise.

    INCREMENT VALUE DURY.
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the expressed intention of the Government that Increment Duty would not be charged on agricultural land let as accommodation land up to £10 or more per acre, provided it had no value for building purposes, he still intended to charge Increment and Undeveloped Land Duty on agricultural and accommodation land near towns or elsewhere which might be leased at a far lower rent than £10 per acre because, in

    243
    the view of the Land Commissioners, this land might have value for building purposes?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is the intention of the Government that Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of any agricultural land unless its value for purposes other than agricultural is higher than its value for agricultural purposes only. As regards Undeveloped Land Duty, in the case of agricultural land which has a building value, the duty will only be leviable upon the difference between the agricultural value and the value for other purposes.

    ARREARS OF TAXATION.
    Mr. FELLasked if the arrears of taxation for the year 1909–10 were, when collected, to be placed to the credit of the year 1910–11; and, if so, would they be devoted, as collected, to the repayment of the money borrowed to make up the deficit in the 1909–10; and, if so, under what authority would this be done?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative. The authority is Section 11 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866 (29 and 30 Vict. c. 39) and Section 1 of the Treasury (Temporary Borrowing) Act, 1910.
    Mr. FELL: Does it not require something to be added to the Finance Bill to meet this case?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No.

    SCOTLAND (INCREASED TAXATION).
    Mr. MORTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could state the increased amount that would have to be paid by Scotland under the Budget, 1909–10; and would he state the amount received by Scotland under the Old Age Pensions Act?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I may, perhaps, refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on this subject to my hon. Friend the Member for South Lanarkshire on 14th June last. The necessary adjustments in respect of the concessions made during the passage of the Finance Bill through the House of Commons last year, the overestimate of the yield of the increased Spirit Duties, and the loss through delay will probably result in the reduction of the Scottish contribution to the true revenue of the year in respect of the new and in-
    244
    creased taxes to something less than £1,000,000. The amount paid to old age pensioners in Scotland in the financial year 1909–10 was approximately £945,000.

    REJECTION OF BILL (LOSS OF REVENUE).
    Mr. HAMERSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the further information obtained by him, he would now say at what amount he estimated the loss to the revenue of the current financial year resulting from the rejection of the Finance Bill in another place?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have nothing to add to the information which I laid before the House on the 19th instant.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what would have been the difference had the Income Tax Resolution been passed in February, and acted upon?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think the difference would have been a serious one.
    Mr. HAMERSLEY: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his answer of 8th March with his statement of the 19th instant?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

    TRANSFERRED LICENCES (LIABILITY FOR DUTIES).
    Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERasked who would be liable under the Finance Bill for Licence Duties chargeable as from 30th September last in cases where licences had been transferred to new owners or tenants since that date; and under what clause of the Finance Bill the liability was defined?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The liability for the Licence Duty to be charged under the Finance Bill as from 30th September last is defined in the second paragraph of Clause 53 of the Bill, which provides that if the additional sum to be paid by the licence-holder exceeds the sum to be repaid or allowed upon his existing licence ceasing to be in force, the excess shall be treated as an addition to the duty to be paid in respect of any licence granted in Substitution for the existing licence. The duty will, therefore, in all cases be collected from the licence-holder, but if the licence-holder is bound by any such covenant as is referred to in Clause 46 he will be entitled to obtain a reimbursement as provided by that Clause. The fact that a licence may have been transferred to a

    245
    new owner or tenant since 30th September does not affect the position under the Bill as above explained, but any person who has since that date taken a transfer of an existing licence would, in doing so, have been able to take into account the liability under the Bill or to make some arrangement in reference to it, and in all probability has done so.

    LAND VALUATION.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a new department has been formed in the Inland Revenue Office to deal with the valuation of land under the Land Taxation Clauses of the Finance Bill; if so, how many officers have been appointed and under what conditions; what will be the total increase of staff required; and what will be the total cost involved to the Exchequer?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to similar questions by the hon. Members for the Wirral Division of Chester, and for the Ross Division of Hereford.
    Mr. LAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere absolutely to the Prime Minister's statement that the clear permanent charge involved will not be more than £150,000 a year, and does that include additions to the existing Valuation Department?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think I must have notice of that; I should not like to answer it off-hand.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is a necessary condition for appointment to the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue that applicants should be members of the Surveyors' Institution; and, if so, why other professional bodies have been excluded?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The existing Valuation Branch of the Inland Revenue is composed principally of Fellows and Professional Associates of the Surveyors' Institution. The selection of the staff was governed by the requirements of the public service in connection with Estate Duties.

    Somerset House (Boy Stampers).
    Mr. THOMAS HARVEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many boys were employed as stampers in Somerset House, and what proportion of them were discharged without opportunity
    246
    of further service; and whether he would take steps to secure that in the future the Department should not employ more juvenile labour than it was able to absorb?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The total number of boys employed on the staff of the Stamp Department in England is 142. In 1907 the Commissioners of Inland Revenue took steps with a view to reducing the number of discharges amongst the older boys on that staff, and further steps in the same direction are now under consideration. The number of boys having more than three years' service in the Stamping Department who were discharged therefrom in 1908 because of lack of vacancies on the men's staff was three. In 1909 there were no such discharges. The number of boys on that staff who were promoted during those two years to permanent situations under the Commissioners of Inland Revenue was twenty-two.

    State Insurance Against Unemployment.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the nature of the scheme for State insurance against unemployment, invalidity, and sickness, which was privately printed for him by the Government printers, and circulated by him amongst the members of the National Conference of Friendly Societies; and whether a copy of such scheme can be supplied to Members of this House?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have been privileged to have meetings of a purely private and informal character with certain representative members of the great friendly societies at which I laid before them for confidential discussion the cit-lines of a contributory scheme of State insurance against sickness, invalidity, etc. I cannot make any further statement on the subject at present.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there is no scheme, but only outlines?

    Congested Districts Board (Athenry Agricultural Station).
    Mr. JOHN O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state what was the total amount of money spent in connection with the upkeep, administration, and general management of the Athenry Agricultural Station during the year 1909 and each year since its formation; the amount paid to the

    247
    Congested Districts Board as purchase money; and the amount paid to tradesmen in Athenry and firms in Scotland and England, respectively, for articles of consumption, machinery, and other such things during the same period of time?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The answer to the first part of the question is as follows: 1905–6, £1,225; 1906–7, £1,370; 1907–8, £1,820; 1908–9, £1,580; 1909–10, £1,440. No money was paid by the Department to the Congested Districts Board in respect of purchase. The estate was bought from the owners. To answer the last part of the question would involve a detailed examination of the accounts of the station, but it may be stated that purchases were made outside Ireland only in the case of special requisities not stocked in the country.
    Mr. JOHN O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the number of acres of land under tillage at the Agricultural Station, Athenry, in 1909; what proportion was given over to barley, oats, potatoes, turnips, and mangolds respectively; what was the approximate yield per acre of potatoes, mangolds, and turnips; and what was the cost of tillage at this farm during the same period, including salaries, expenses, artificial manures, implements, fuel, and horses?
    Mr. BIRRELL: There were 125 acres under tillage at Athenry Agricultural Station in 1909, of which eighty acres were under oats, fourteen under potatoes, seventeen under turnips, and five under mangolds. No barley was grown. The estimated yield per acre of potatoes was thirteen tons, of turnips thirty tons, and of mangolds thirty-six tons. The cost of tillage cannot be stated separately.
    Mr. JOHN O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether, through the neglect of the officials in charge of the Athenry Agricultural Station, over 70 tons of potatoes were destroyed by frost during the winter of 1909 through having been left exposed; that the greater part of the crop of mangolds and turnips raised on the same farm was also lost through an attack of what was officially described as bacterial rot; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Department to put in a crop of turnips and mangolds this coming season?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that some potatoes—nothing like seventy tons—
    248
    were affected by disease. This was not e due to any neglect. The turnips also suffered, a common occurrence, as I am informed, where the crop is grown on land long under grass. The mangolds were not injured. The Department intend to continue the cultivation of turnips and mangolds at Athenry.
    Mr. JOHN O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he will state the number respectively of Shorthorn, Polled Angus, Hereford, and Dexter cows kept on the agricultural farm at Athenry for breeding purposes; how many premium bulls have been purchased from the officials at this station by farmers in the several counties where the Department's live-stock schemes are in operation, and the average pries obtained for each; and whether the Department of Agriculture has decided to continue sending premium bulls of the Galloway and Polled Angus breed to Connemara for the improvement of live stock in that district?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Shorthorn cows only are kept at the Agricultural Station at Athenry. The number varies from thirty to forty. Two hundred and eighty-seven premium bulls have been purchased from the station by farmers at an average price of £29 14s. The Department will continue to sell to farmers in Connemara bulls of the breeds referred to in the last part of the question if there is a demand for them.

    Lahiff Estate, Gort.
    Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he can state which of the two public Departments, the Estates Commissioners or Congested Districts Board, is about inspecting and settling the Lahiff estate, Gort; is he aware that a large part of the town of Gort is included in the estate; and will he see that, in any steps taken to take over this property, the town tenants shall be included in the sale?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Gal way portion of this estate is the subject of proceedings for sale in the Land Judge's Court, and the offer of the Estates Commissioners is before the Judge. The town of Gort is not included in the sale.
    Mr. DUFFY: Is there any reason that the town portion of the property should not be included in the sale as well as in Athenry and other towns?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know how that is; I will inquire.

    Lands of R. Davoren, Killarsona, North Longford.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary if any further progress has been made in the proposed sale of the lands of R Davoren, at Killarsona, North Longford; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have made an offer for the purchase of these lands, but the owner has not yet accepted it.

    Lands of James W. Bond, Farragh, County Longford.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he will direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the fact that Mr. James W. Bond, of Farragh, county Longford, has, in a letter written to the secretary of the Abbeyland branch of the United Irish League, stated he is willing to sell his untenanted lands at Coolcraft, barony of Granard, to the Estates Commissioners for sub-division under the 42nd Section of the Land Act of 1909; and what action he will advise in reference thereto?
    Mr. BIRRELL: If the owner offers these lands to the Estates Commissioners the matter will receive consideration.

    Estate of J. E. Thompson, Clonfin, County Longford.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether, in order to relieve congestion, he will direct that the estate of John Edward Thompson, of Clonfin, county Longford, be taken out of its order of priority in order that the 500 acres of untenanted lands may be divided amongst the tenants and other deserving applicants, as was agreed on by the landlord at the time of sale?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is not proposed to deal with this estate out of the order of priority.
    Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that means that it will not be dealt with for six years?
    Mr. BIRRELL: That depends upon the rate of progress.

    Allocation of Rhyne, County Longford.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary if he will state when the proposed allocation of the lands of Rhyne, parish of Killoe, county Longford, which
    250
    were agreed to be sold by the landlord to the Estates Commissioners for division amongst the uneconomic holdings on the estate, will be made; whether any inspection has yet been ordered or made; and, if not, when it will take place?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are unable from the particulars given in the question to identify the lands as pending for sale before them. Their practice is to deal with estates before them in their order of priority according to the regulations.

    Evicted Tenants Act, 1907 (West Riding, County Cork).
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state the number of evicted tenants in the West Riding of the county of Cork whose claims have been investigated by the Estates Commissioners and placed on the approved list; how many of these have been provided with holdings; and what steps are being at present taken to establish the remainder on the land again?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received 1,106 applications from persons seeking reinstatement as evicted tenants or the representatives of evicted tenants in county Cork. The figures for the West Riding cannot be given separately. Six hundred and fifty-two of the applications have been rejected by the Commissioners after inquiry, 197 applicants have been reinstated or provided with new holdings, and the names of 121 have been noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land. The remaining applications were received after the date mentioned in the Evicted Tenants Act, and cannot be dealt with under that Act.
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary if he can give the names of the owners of untenanted land in the West Riding of Cork against whom compulsory proceedings have been taken under the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907; what is the area in each case of the land proposed to be compulsorily acquired; and how many evicted tenants are likely to be placed on the land so acquired?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners do not keep separate statistics for the two Ridings of county Cork. Proceedings are pending under the Evicted Tenants Act for the acquisition of 4,000 acres on sixteen estates in the county. Full particulars of all lands which are the

    251
    subject of such proceedings are published in the "Dublin Gazette," as required by the Statute. Until the lands are acquired the Commissioners cannot say how many evicted tenants they will accommodate.

    Reinstatement Application (Mrs. O'Connell).
    Mr. GUINEYasked the Chief Secretary what was the date and year when the Estates Commissioners took the first action with reference to the reinstatement of Mrs. O'Connell, an evicted tenant on the above estate; when was the notice to acquire the farm compulsorily served on the owner; and what is the cause of the delay, if any, in having the case heard?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inquired into this case in 1907, and, after negotiations with the owner, instituted proceedings in March, 1909, for the acquisition of the farm in question under the Evicted Tenants Act. The case is pending for the decision under that Act.

    Case of Peter Kelly, Blanchfields Park, County Kilkenny.
    Mr. MEAGHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say what steps, if any, have been taken by the Estates Commissioners in the case of Peter Kelly, of Blanchfields Park, county Kilkenny, state of Lady Annally; is he aware that in 1883, ten days previous to the expiration of the time of the redemption of his holding, he tendered to Mr. Maud, the agent to Lady Annally, his full rent with costs, and at whose suggestion he withheld his rent on the plea that he would write to the landlady for a rebate of the costs, but that he was afterwards evicted without further notice; and will he see that this man's case will be immediately attended to with a view of restoring him to his holding or an equivalent holding?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that Peter Kelly died many years ago. The Estates Commissioners received an application from his sister for reinstatement, and, after considering all the circumstances of the case, decided not to take any action in the matter.

    Persse Estate, Killashulan, County Kilkenny.
    Mr. MEAGHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say if any steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners with a view of acquiring the untenanted lands of the Persse estate, Killashulan, county Kilkenny, which is being
    252
    continually set on the eleven months' system to men who are otherwise large landowners, while a large number of uneconomic landholders reside in the immediate district who are most anxious to acquire portions of this land; and will he see that the Estates Commissioners will take immediate steps to acquire this land for the purposes above indicated?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The owner is selling this estate to the tenants, and the purchase agreements were not lodged until October, 1908. When the property is being dealt with in order of priority the Estates Commissioners will make due inquiry with regard to the untenanted land.

    Birr Quarter Sessions (Award for Malicious Injury).
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to an award of £15 for malicious injury to property, given at Bin-Quarter Sessions on 5th April in favour of Martin Delaney; whether the perpetrators of this offence have been arrested; and what steps have been taken to prevent the further molestation of Delaney in the lawful enjoyment of his property?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Three hundred yards of fencing on the farm of Martin Delaney were destroyed eleven months ago. The police have not been able to make any arrests in connection with the case, but they are affording all necessary protection to Delaney.

    Palmer Estate, Castlebar.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at a meeting of tenants on the Palmer estate, held at Castlebar on the 9th instant, when a resolution was passed demanding a reduction of 25 per cent, in rents, which otherwise would be withheld from the landlord and deposited with trustees, and threatening with the odium of their fellows such tenants as would not subscribe to this resolution; and whether, under these circumstances, he will advise the Congested Districts Board to decline to receive the deputation from the said meeting until this resolution has been rescinded?
    Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the proceedings at this meeting. The resolution has not been forwarded to the Congested Districts Board, nor have they been asked to receive a deputation from the meeting.

    Limerick Quarter Sessions (Awards for Outrages).
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any arrests have been made in connection with those outrages upon property for which Judge Law-Smith gave awards amounting to upwards of £40 on 2nd April at the Limerick Quarter Sessions?
    Mr. JOYCE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question may I inquire if he will kindly also state to the House what were the comments of the county court judge on the condition of Limerick county and city?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have not got those comments before me, but my attention was called to them, and they were of a very satisfactory nature. In answer to the question on the Paper, I have to say that compensation was awarded on the occasion in question in four cases of malicious injury. In one ease the claim was for windows broken by a crowd during the election, and in the others for injuries done by night to a wall, trees, and a bullock respectively. No arrests have been made.
    Mr. JOYCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many pairs of white gloves the county court judge has received for the county and city during the last few years?
    Mr. BIRRELL: A large number.
    Mr. JOYCE: Is it not a common thing for him to receive them?

    Queen's University, Belfast.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that at the first meeting of convocation of the new Queen's University of Belfast, held on the 16th instant, a resolution was passed by 238 votes to 56 emphatically condemning both the original establishment in the university of a lectureship in scholastic philosophy and any extension of its scope: and whether the Government, in filling vacancies in the senate which may occur between now and 1st November, 1914, will consult convocation before making an appointment to such vacancies?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen a report of the proceedings at the meeting of the Convocation. I do not propose to adopt the suggestion contained in the last paragraph of the question.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Does the right hon. Gentleman then intend to flout the action or the influence of Convocation, which in four years will be the body that will have the direction of the entire university, including the appointment of members of the senate?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is not a question of flouting; it is simply obeying the law.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it not quite within the right hon. Gentleman's power, and within his province, in the case of a vacancy arising, to use his influence to have a person appointed who will be acceptable to Convocation?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. I have no concern with that except to appoint the person best qualified to discharge the duties of the office.
    Mr. JOYCE: Apply to the "Grand Black Chapter!"

    Dublin University.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) if the authorities of the National University and University College, Dublin, have decided not to expend any moneys on additional buildings for the present, and in lieu thereof have rented the premises of the Jesuit College at £400 a year, payable to the Roman Catholic bishops; and if he will explain why, under these circumstances, the Estimates for 1910–11 show £50,000 for the National University and University College in respect of purchasing lands and providing necessary buildings, and how it is proposed to expend this Grant; and (2) if it is intended that Protestant students in University College, Dublin, are to attend lectures in the premises of the Jesuit College, St. Stephen's Green?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have already explained that the question of new university buildings is under consideration, and that in the meantime the premises in St. Stephen's Green have been taken for three years, presumably for the use of students of all denominations. The Jesuits have departed from the College.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: What is going to become of the £50,000 down on the Estimates for new buildings for this year?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member surely does not suggest that money should be expended without due consideration, and the securing of the best possible site that can be obtained?
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I do not suggest anything: I asked the right hon. Gentleman what is going to happen?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The money will be there.

    Irish Butter Industry (Departmental Committee's Report).
    Mr. HORNERasked whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce at an early date, or at all, the legislation recommended in the recent Report of the Departmental Committee on the Irish Butter Industry to deal with the protection of Irish butter from misdescription, and to enforce proper conditions in the production of butter and of milk and cream in cases where the general interests of the industry are affected?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Report referred to was only issued within the past few weeks and the minutes of evidence and appendices have not yet been published. The Department are not in a position to make any statement at present as to the action to be taken on the recommendations in the Report.

    Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milk Shops (Ireland) Order, 1908.
    Mr. HORNERasked whether the Local Government Board for Ireland intend to extend the Regulations contained in the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops (Ireland) Order, 1908, to the premises of all farmers who manufacture butter for sale; and, if so, will the Local Government Board, before issuing any further Order, consult with the several county agricultural committees and leading agricultural show committees in Ireland as to the air space, size, and general requirements of cowsheds?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board do not propose to extend the Order in the manner indicated in the question.
    Mr. HORNERasked how many rural district councils there are in Ireland; in how many of these is the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops (Ireland) Order, 1908, in operation; whether he has any official information showing that the chief reason why the Order is not now in operation in all the rural district councils is because of the impracticable requirements of the Order so far as it relates to cowsheds; and whether, having regard to the fact that so many of the local authorities refuse to put the Order into operation, the
    256
    Local Government Board will alter or modify the Order so as to meet all reasonable objections by the local authorities?
    Mr. BIRRELL: There are 213 district councils in Ireland, of which 129 have put the Order into operation. Its requirements have not, therefore, been found to be impracticable. The Local Government Board consulted the Department of Agriculture and invited criticisms and suggestions from local authorities before issuing the Order, and there is consequently no need for further revision.

    Grass Lands, Kilgrena, Mayo.
    Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board have taken any steps to acquire the grass farms of Kilgrena, Ballyglass, county Mayo, with a view to the removal of congestion and the enlargement of the uneconomic agricultural holdings in the immediate neighbourhood?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate was offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board, and the owner will be communicated with at an early date with a view to negotiations for purchase.

    Sir Roger Palmer's Estate (County Mayo).
    Mr. DORISasked whether Sir Roger Palmer has refused to sell his county Mayo estate to the tenants upon reasonable terms; and whether, having regard to the number of uneconomic holdings on this estate, the Congested Districts Board will take prompt steps to have it acquired compulsorily, in accordance with the request of the tenants?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board understand that the owner is willing to negotiate for the sale of this estate and they hope to re-open negotiations at an early date.

    Marquess of Sligo's Estate, Mayo.
    Mr. DORISasked when the Congested Districts Board first opened negotiations with the landlord for the purchase of the estate of the Marquess of Sligo in West Mayo, and with what result; is he aware that the tenants have since made several unsuccessful attempts to induce the landlord to sell the property to them upon reasonable terms; and whether, having regard to the congested condition of many portions of the estate and the amount of untenanted land which it contains, the Board will take prompt steps to have the

    257
    estate acquired compulsorily, in accordance with the request addressed to them by the tenants?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Inquiries and negotiations with reference to two separate sections of this estate have taken place at various times since the year 1897 without any definite result. The Congested Districts Board hope to be in a position to reopen negotiations within the next fortnight. Pending such negotiations no further statement can be made at present.

    Untenanted Land, Kilkenny.
    Mr. MEAGHERasked if the Estates Commissioners have taken any, and, if so, what, steps for the acquiring of the untenanted lands of Garrylawn, Owens estate, Galmoy, county Kilkenny; is he aware that a number of evicted tenants and others, who are legally entitled to portions thereof, reside in this district; did the Estates Commissioners' inspector visit those lands with a view to the sale and purchase; if so, what price was the owner offered; is the estate at present set on the eleven months' system; and did the eleven months' tenants negotiate with the owner for the purchase of those lands after the Commissioners had failed to purchase?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners cannot find that any proceedings for the sale of this estate are pending before them, and they have no information as to the matters referred to in the concluding part of the question.

    Tyrone Magistracy (Mr. T. Montague).
    Mr. HORNER (for Mr. Fetherstonhaugh)asked whether Mr. Thomas Montague, recently appointed a justice of the peace for county Tyrone by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was in October last arrested by the police at Beragh on a charge of being drunk in charge of a horse and cart, was detained in the police lock-up, and subsequently prosecuted and fined at Sixmilecross Petty Sessions for the offence; who recommended Mr. Montague as a suitable person to be appointed a justice of the peace; was the Lord Chancellor made aware of the recent conviction; and is Sixmilecross Petty Sessions, at which he was convicted, one of the courts in which he is to act as a justice?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Lord Chancellor informs me that he was not aware at the time of Mr. Montague's appointment that
    258
    I he had been charged with insobriety, but it appears from inquiries now made that he was fined as stated in the question. Mr. Montague's attendance at Petty Sessions is limited to Ballygawley. The Lord Chancellor does not consider it desirable to make a practice of stating the sources from which applications for appointment to the Magistracy have reached him in individual cases other than those recommended to him by the Lieutenant of the county.

    King v. Simpson (Cost of Trial at Omagh Assizes).
    Mr. HORNERasked how many witnesses were summoned by the Crown to petty sessions and assizes respectively in the case of alleged riot and assault, the King versus Simpson and others, tried at the last Omagh Assizes; how many of these were examined for the prosecution at each hearing; what were the total sums for expenses allowed respectively to the witnesses examined for the prosecution at each hearing, and to those so summoned but not examined; what official fixed the amounts, and on whose instructions; and whether steps will be taken to have the expenses of those so summoned but not examined for the prosecution paid at the same rate as those who were examined for the prosecution?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that eleven witnesses were summoned by the Crown to petty sessions, and thirty to assizes in this case. The thirty witnesses summoned to assizes included twenty summoned for the defence. Nine witnesses were examined for the prosecution at each hearing. The total amount allowed to witnesses examined for the prosecution was £5 11s. at petty sessions, and £34 19s. 6d. at assizes. No expenses were paid to witnesses summoned, but not examined at petty sessions. The total amount paid to witnesses summoned to the assizes but not examined for the prosecution was £26 18s. The Crown Solicitor fixes the amounts to be paid in accordance with the Treasury scale. It is not proposed to interfere with his discretion, or to increase the amounts allowed to witnesses.

    Evicted Tenant (Luggacurren).
    Mr. KILBRIDEasked whether Thomas Moore, son and representative of James Moore, Monamanry, Luggacurren, an evicted tenant under the Plan of Campaign, whose holding consisted of fifty

    259
    acres, is still unprovided for; whether his attention has been directed to the fact that it was repeatedly stated in Debate, when the Land Purchase Bill of 1903 was before Parliament, that one of the objects of the Government was to settle the land question where the land war existed; and whether, in view of such expressed intention and Thomas Moore's undoubted claim, the Estates Commissioners will, without delay, take steps to provide Thomas Moore with an equivalent holding?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that Moore's former holding comprised about forty-three acres at a rent of £22 10s. The Estates Commissioners offered to provide him with a holding of fifty-one acres, subject to a purchase annuity of £23 10s. but he refused to accept their offer, and they decided not to take any further action in his case.

    Galway Estates.
    Mr. DUFFYasked if any arrangement has been come to between the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board in respect to the handling and settlement of the following estates in the neighbourhood of Loughrea, namely, Burton Persse's estate, Rathreddy; Mr. Patt M'Merney's estate, Kill Island, Close-token; Earl of Westmeath's estate, Earls-park; representatives of Mrs. Gowing's estate, Dartfield, Kilrickle; Captain Burke's estate, Ballydoogan; Mr. Daly's estate, Holly Hill; Master Courtney's estate, Fishpond, Kilchreest; Colonel Daly's estate, Shragheen, Benmore; Mr. Moriarty's estate, Bullaun; Miss Dolphin's estate, Cross, Benmore; and can he indicate when steps will be taken to settle these estates?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Gowing estate has been purchased by the Estates Commissioners, and Master Courtenay's estate is being sold direct to the tenants. Mr. Daly's estate and Mr. Moriarty's estate cannot be identified from the particulars given in the question as pending for sale before the Commissioners, and as regards the other estates, the Commissioners are not in a position to make any statement at present.
    Mr. DUFFY: Do I understand from the reply that these estates are being dealt with by the Estates Commissioners at the present time?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners are not at present in a position to make any
    260
    statement. They are under their consideration.

    Evicted Tenant, Kinsale, Cork.
    Mr. CREANasked whether the Estates Commissioners will reconsider the case of Bartholomew Coleman, evicted tenant of Kinsale, county Cork, and provide him with a parcel of land in lieu of that from which he was evicted, this being at present occupied and not available for reinstatement?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have decided, after inquiry, to take no action in this case.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what time it is proposed the House should meet on Thursday next; whether it is the intention that the Development Bill should be taken to-night, and, lastly, what business will be taken on Friday after the Spring Recess?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As to the business after the Recess, we propose first to get the Speaker out of the Chair on Civil Service Estimates, and then to take the Local Government Board Vote.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: To get the Speaker out of the Chair on Thursday after the Recess and to take the Local Government Board Vote on Friday?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes. The House will meet at twelve o'clock on Thursday next, and there will be questions. It is thought that will be for the general convenience of the House. It was arranged last night that the Committee stage of the Development Bill should be taken tonight.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has in mind that there is a very big private Bill which is to be taken to-night after the Budget. I presume at eleven o'clock. It will make a very big inroad into the time for the Committee stage of the Development Bill if it is taken tonight.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We had a couple of hours' discussion last night, and we arrived at something like an amicable understanding. I take a rather hopeful view. I do not say there was anything in the nature of a compact. I do not put it

261
any higher than that we arrived at a more amicable frame of mind on both sides, including the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). It was arranged that the Bill should be put down for to-night. If it was thought desirable to make Amendments, and the Bill was put down for to-morrow night, we could not get it through Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading, and therefore we were bound to put it down for to-night. do not despair of being able to persuade the hon. Baronet that it may not be necessary to occupy much of the time of the House to-night, or to sit to a late hour.
Sir F. BANBURY: That depends entirely upon the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not desire to occupy the time of the House if the right hon. Gentleman is reasonable; but if he is not reasonable, am afraid we shall be late.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the Prime Minister give us some indica-
tion what the business will be on the Monday after our meeting We know the business for the Thursday and Friday, but wish to ask what business will be taken in the following week? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot say that to-day, will he take an opportunity to make an announcement on the subject before the House adjourns?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): will make a statement to-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  Suspension of Eleven o'clock Rule.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act (1909) Amendment Bill be not interrupted this evening under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."—[The Prime Minister.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 165.

  [Division No. 63.]

  AYES.

  [3.50 p.m.

  Abraham, William

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

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hancock, J. G.

  Aynew, George William

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Alden, Percy

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Asquith Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Crossley, Sir William J.

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

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Cullinan, J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Daiziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Barclay, Sir T.

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

  Hazelton, Richard

  Barnes, G. N.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Delany, William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barton, A. W.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hindle, F. G.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph peter R.

  Dillon, John

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hodge, John

  Bentham, G. J.

  Doris, W.

  Hogan, Michael

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duffy, William J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Black, Arthur W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Boland, John Pius

  Edwards, Enoch

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Bowles, T. Gibson

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brace, William

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hudson, Walter

  Brady, P. J.

  Falconer, J.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Brigg, John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Field, William

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  France, G. A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Geider, Sir W. A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Gibbins, F. W.

  Kelly, Edward

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Gibson, James P.

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Chancellor, H. G

  Gill, A. H.

  Kilbride, Dents

  dunning, sir Francis Allston

  Glover, Thomas

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Greenwood, G. G.

  Lambert, George

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  Law, Hugh A, (Donegal, W.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Clough, William

  Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E,

  Leach, Charles

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gulland, John William

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hackett, J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.

  O'Shee, James John

  Summers, James Woolley

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sutton, John E.

  Lundon, T.

  Pearce, William

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Plrie, Duncan V.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Thomas, D. A. (Cardiff)

  Macnamara, Or. Thomas J.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Touimin, George

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Twist, Henry

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Manfield, Harry

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Verney, F. W.

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Pringle, William M R.

  Vivian, Henry

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Radford, G. H.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Walton, Joseph

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Reddy, M.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Middlebrook, William

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Waring, Walter

  Millar, J. D.

  Redmond, William (Clara)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Molloy, M.

  Rendail, Atheistan

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Richards, Thomas

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Mond, Alfred Moritz

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Robinson, S.

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

  Muldoon, John

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Muspratt, M.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Schwann, Sir C. E.

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Shackleton, David James

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Sheehy, David

  Wing, Thomas

  Ogden, Fred

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  O'Grady, James

  Snowden, P.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

  O'Malley, William

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  NOES.

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

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

  Guinness, Hen. W. E.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Ashley, W. W.

  Coates, Major E. F.

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Baird, J. L.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford)

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Harris, F. L. (Stepney)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Harris, H. P. (raddington, S.)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Heath, Col. A. H.

  Baring, Captain Hon. G.

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Barnston, H.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hohler, G. F.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Bonn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

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

  Horner, A. L.

  Bird, A.

  Falle, B. G.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Fell, Arthur

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Boyton, James

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Forster, Henry William

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

  Calley, Colonel T. C. P.

  Gilhooly, James

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Knott, James

  Cater, John

  Gordon, J.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Cautley, H. S.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich).

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Guiney, P.

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  264

  265

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  O'Brien, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Starkey, John R.

  Llewelyn, Venables

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Stewart, Gershom (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Sykes, Alan John

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

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Thompson, Robert

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Tryon, George Clement

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Macmaster, Donald

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Valentia, Viscount

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Mason, J. F.

  Rankin, Sir James

  White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Rice, Hon. W.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Morrison, Captain J. A.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Royds, Edmund

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and Viscount Morpeth.

  Nield, Herbert

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
Mr. BELLOC: beg to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law regarding the giving of evidence in criminal cases.
This is a Bill which introduced last Session, and I think can pursuade the House, that it is a measure not without importance. It is a Bill which concerns the way in which evidence is or can be given in certain criminal cases in this country. I do not want to make out a worse case than the actual conditions admit, but at the present moment there are two departments in which injustice may be done in the administration of the criminal law. In the first place, a man may be bound over to keep the peace, and he cannot be subjected to a greater punishment in the first instance without having the right to call witnesses in his own defence. That form of the administration of the criminal law has hitherto only been applied to Ireland, and it has been a commonplace for a long time that the law as administered in Ireland was not law at all. Ireland has been treated for a very long time as a conquered country would be just after a successful campaign, and men were sent to prison without being bound over, without even having the power of proving an alibi. They were not allowed to call witnesses at all in their own defence. To the honour of the present Administration that particular abomination has not taken place under their regime. There is another department in which this bad principle applies, and it is that to which desire to call attention, because it concerns not Ireland, upon which the House of Commons is too often indifferent, but all of us. As the rule now stands, after conviction and before
266
sentence, evidence can be put in against the convicted criminal by the police which he has no substantial opportunity of rebutting. That is an extremely important point, because in the mere technicality of the law the man is convicted and is guilty, and cannot understand why that man has no right to bring evidence in his own defence. I submit that is a straining of a legal point. We all know the wise discretion which is granted to the Bench in this country. In the case of a man convicted for a particular offence the sentence, may vary indefinitely from a few days' imprisonment to a life sentence, and after a man has been proved to be technically guilty the police can bring evidence which the prisoner has no chance of rebutting. Hon. Members will remember the case of Von Veltheim, in whose case, after conviction, there was put in a mass of police evidence, every word of which may have been false or true, but which the man had no opportunity of rebutting. This may be a small matter to those who never hope or expect to be placed in those circumstances, but it is a matter of enormous importance to the unfortunate individual who comes under the action of the criminal law. I will appeal to the two Front Benches, whom regard as one organ of Government, to consider whether, under this Administration, this great anomaly in our criminal law cannot be put an end to. I do not think there are any arguments in its favour.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Belloc and Mr. Wedgwood.
Presented accordingly, and read the first time. (To be read a second time upon Monday, 30th May.)

BILL PEESENTED.
The following Bill was presented, and read the first time:—
BILL PEESENTED.
  PAYMENT OF RATES BILL.
  "To relieve conscientious objectors from the obligation to pay rates towards the maintenance of non-provided schools," presented by Sir ALFRED CKIPPS; supported by Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. Hoare, Mr. Charles Bathurst, Mr. Gardner, and Mr. Goulding. (To be read a second time upon Wednesday, 1st June.)

FINANCE BILL, 1909–10.
Considered in Committee.
[MR. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
4.0 P.M.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: desire to ask a question on a point of Order for the information of the Committee. These proceedings are carried on under the Order allocating the time, and one of the latter paragraphs of that reads:—
"On the Committee stage of the Finance Bill no Amendments shall be in order except Amendments which, in the opinion of the Chairman, are properly moved as Amendments to any words or matter which represent additions to the Finance Bill, 1909, or substitution for words or matter in that Bill, or are moved for the purpose of reinserting words contained in the Finance Bill as passed by this House, but not contained in the Bill, or Amendments consequential thereon."
I desire to ask whether it is not the fact that under that Order no Amendment whatever can be moved to such part of the Finance Bill as represents the old Bill, and that no such Amendment can be moved by any Member of the Committee or even by the Government themselves. Secondly, wish to ask whether it is not the fact that Amendments under this Order will be restricted to such Amendments as are Amendments to Amendments already put into the Bill?
The CHAIRMAN: In reply to the hon. Member for King's Lynn have to say he is quite correct in assuming that no Amendment can be made to the old part of the Bill unless, of course, it happens to be an Amendment consequential to some Amendment properly accepted in another part of the Bill. The rule applies,
268
of course, equally to the Government and to private Members. Secondly, with regard to the Amendments which will be in order. The only ones that can be so are those which in my opinion are properly moved as Amendments to additions to the Finance Bill of last year, or substitutions in that Bill, or are moved for the purpose of reinserting words which were in that Bill. In other words, they must apply to new matter. The first Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Mar- tin) is not a proper Amendment under the terms of the Resolution. The first in order is that of the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy).

*Clause 7.—(Exemption for Agricultural Land.)
Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only if sold at the time in the open market:
Provided that any value of the land for sporting purposes, or for other purposes dependent upon its use as agricultural land, shall be treated as value for agricultural purposes only, except where the value for any such purpose exceeds the agricultural value of the land.
Mr. CLANCY Mr. CLANCY moved, after the word "its" ["no higher value than its"], to insert the word "market."
These Amendments have on the Paper designed to meet objections raised to the Clause which passed the House of Commons last year. The great objection made in Ireland to the provisions for exempting agricultural land was as to the nature of the value. It was said that the value arrived at might be described as a "land hunger value." The case was mentioned of a returned Irish-American with plenty of money, or a retired head constable of police with a certain amount of cash, or a large farmer also with ample means buying a farm and paying for it more than its agricultural value should myself think that if a sum of money were paid for the land as a farm, and for the purpose of being used as a farm, that would be the basis, but the point was taken
*Note.—Amendments inserted in the Bill since it passed the House of Commons in November 1909, ore indicated in the OFFICIAL REPORT by printing in brackets any words or matter erased, and by printing in black type any words or matter inserted.

269
that Clause 26 of the Bill, which directs the valuation to be made, must be read in connection with Clause 7. Clause 26 directs, among other things, the ascertainment of the agricultural value of the land. It was said that two things follow from that. First, that the value might be taken as the economic agricultural value and not the real agricultural value, and, consequently, when the duty came to be assessed, any increase over that economic valuation would be regarded as agricultural value and the difference might be taxed. Secondly, it was pointed out that the operation of Clause 26 might be stereotyped as to the agricultural value directed to be ascertained under that Clause, and that consequently, when Increment Value Duty came to be assessed it would be the present value, the value on the occasion of the duty becoming payable, and not the agricultural value ascertained under the operation of Clause 26. In other words, the date of the valuation will be taken as the agricultural value, and if it went beyond the original figure, if it was a higher value, even though it was for agricultural purposes, then the difference would be taxed. I have read various other criticisms of this Clause; but confess that these are the only two objections that impressed me at all. It is in order to meet those two objections that wish to add the words, "for sale at the time in the open market." take it that "at the time" is the time of valuation for payment of duty. I think there can be little doubt about that. Then, again, understand the words "in the open market" are introduced to meet the express point of competitive value. Of course, the value obtained in the open market is a competitive value. Therefore, very much doubt if the words in the Bill are plain enough heard the suggestion made last week, and the same point occurred to myself, that the words "if sold" might be held to apply to only one of the three occasions on which the duty may become payable, and that, of course, would be the occasion of the sale of the land. We do not mean that, neither do I think the Government mean it. I take it the intention is it should apply to all three occasions upon which the duty becomes payable. It is to remove any doubt upon that point that move my Amendment. If that and my subsequent Amendment are adopted, the Clause will read: "Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that
270
land has no higher value than its market value at the time for agricultural purposes only." It seems to me that that will make the Clause watertight, and will meet the objection that has been taken that competitive value is to be taxed. One other matter desire to mention. The question of valuation is mixed up inextricably with this matter, and suggest that the Government might declare their intentions as to what they mean to do in the matter of valuation. It seems to me there is no necessity, in Ireland at least, for any valuation. In that matter we differ from England, because there we have a Government valuation of every inch of land, and we also have a valuation of the buildings separate from the value of the land, and this valuation is revised every time any structural improvements are made. Under these circumstances it seems to me absolutely needless to have any valuation, and hope the Government will be able to assure the people of Ireland that no valuation of agricultural land is going to be made.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. I understand you have intimated that the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) is out of Order, do not know the reasons which have actuated you, except, of course, that you are governed by the Order of the House under which we are working; but after listening very carefully to the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken, I submit he has explained that his object is to make clear words already existing in the Clause, and not specially to amend new words that are added. If it be in order for him to do that, I submit it is equally in order for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston to move the Amendment which stands in his name.
The CHAIRMAN: I think the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston raises a different point. Perhaps the Government will say whether I am right in my understanding of what they mean. I take it that the Government alteration in the Bill is intended to make it clear that the market value and not the economic value is to be the basis of exemption. The Government proposal is that if there is a surplus value over and above the agricultural market value, then the whole increment will be taxed. That is the Government proposal as it stands, and when say it is the Government proposal, mean the Clause and not merely the

271
alteration in it. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston proposes words which would diminish the taxation upon 'and if still used for agricultural purposes, but having a building, or other value, over and above its agricultural value. The Government alteration is merely explanatory, stating what they desire to see in the Bill and making it more clear. The two cases are, think, quite different.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If may, with perfect deference to your ruling, Sir, should like to submit one further observation for your consideration. The Amendment is of course stated by the Government to be declaratory of the fact that agricultural values are not to be taxed. That is the object of the Amendment which the Government suggest. In regard to the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend, we showed the other day that the words proposed by the Government are quite ineffectual for the purpose for which they offered them, and my hon. and learned Friend proposes to substitute effective for ineffective words.
The CHAIRMAN: quite see what the hon. and learned Member wishes, but the Clause is that—
"Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only."
And the hon. and learned Member for Kingston proposes to alter the datum line from which the tax is to be levied, and therefore that is quite a different proposition.
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: On the point of Order, Sir. As have a very similar Amendment on the Paper, may suggest that it would be in order on this ground? We are dealing here with the question of value—as you put it, whether it is the economic value or the market value. Supposing the proposal is to insert, in place of those words, another method of valuation, would that be in order? These words of mine deal with the method of valuation; that is their real purport. It is a question of market value as distinct from economic value; and supposing one suggests, as have, in a subsequent Amendment an entirely different method of valuation, would not that be in order?
The CHAIRMAN: do not think the words of the hon. and learned Member are in order. In fact, they are less in order
272
than those of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston. The Government Amendment does not in any way alter the taxable quid, it does not after the datum line above which the tax is to be levied, but the other proposals of the hon. and Earned Gentleman the Member for South Bucks and the hon. and learned Member for Kingston do alter that datum line. Therefore say they are not Amendments to the Government Amendment.
Mr. MARTIN: My Amendment has, of course, been ruled out of order on the same principle, and what submit is this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the Debate upon the Second Beading that he would welcome any Amendment, the effect of which would—
The CHAIRMAN: am afraid that is not a point of Order. The hon. Member is now making an argument and he must do that in Debate. He is not discussing a point of Order.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): The discussion of the point of Order has helped to elucidate the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member has moved. The effect of the proposal is not so much to alter the words of the Bill as to alter their position, but do not think that it substantially affects the sense, and his words are quite as good as our own for the purpose of carrying out the proposals of the Government. The object of the Amendment has been very well put by the hon. and learned Member. The case he has put is that you may sometimes get a very high, or in the case of Ireland very extravagant, value for purely agricultural purposes. It is absurd to say that the peasant who returns anxious to purchase some little holding in his native land which he desires to live upon during his remaining days creates in any sense a building value. Nor do think it ought to be called so. That is the value that we are allowing by these additional words to be put clearly within the exemption of agricultural value. It extends both to English and Irish agriculturists, though Irish agriculturists represent the more extreme case. We are willing to accept the words of the hon. Member in the place of ours, and think they will read a little more conveniently as he proposes to insert them than at the places where we have put them.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This is interesting, if may say so, because it

273
shows the extremely restrictive limits within which hon. Members are placed, by being deprived of any opportunity on this stage of the Bill of securing that exemption for agricultural values which the Government profess their willingness to give. But we cannot reopen that discussion, and that is settled not by the Debate of its merits, but by the operation of the guillotine Resolution which says that no discussion shall take place upon it. Hon. Members on this side of the House thought we had some pledge, or hoped we had the word of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the grievance and the injustice which he recognised, and which we recognise, would be met to-day, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken care to prevent us having any power, or any hon. Member having any power, to raise the question, and he himself would have no power to accept or move an Amendment, or to give that satisfaction to the hopes by which the hon. Member was enticed to put the Amendment down. There is still time—
The CHAIRMAN: must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has no right to reflect upon the action of the House as a whole.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: ought not to have fallen within the scope of that ruling, Sir, and apologise to you for doing so. I would only suggest to the hon. Member opposite to reflect that even after the action of the House there is still time for him to do his duty to his constituents, as he will still have an opportunity of voting against the Bill. As regards the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy), and accepted by the Government, confess that intrinsically do not attach great importance to it, nor do think it is going to have any widespread effect. I am more interested in the arguments of the learned Attorney-General than in the Amendment itself. He says that if agricultural land has a competitive value in excess of its economic value, you cannot describe that as building value. In the kind of case which he was describing that is perfectly true, but what really has that got to do with the principles on which the Bill is founded What you are to tax under this Bill is unearned increment, or windfall, and where can you have a clearer case of unearned increment or windfall than the case of a man who gets a price for his land altogether beyond its economic value, by reason of the land
274
hunger of some man with some money in his pockets who desires to have that particular plot of land to reside on and to finish his life there? You have not that land hunger for a particular kind of land in particular cases which goes to make the value of any part of land in our towns. What makes the value of Berkeley Square or other squares in London but the land hunger of monied individuals, who will give an exceptional price in order to be able to reside in that particular spot? I have said do not think that you have made any difference, but do not object to the relief if relief is given. I think, however, the tax is bad in principle, and think the less it is applied the better. But call attention to the absolute inconsistency of the Government and the way in which they disregard, when Parliamentary or electoral circumstances arise, every consideration they have laid down by their previous arguments. The Bill is a mere patchwork of expediences, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is always ready to give way when the pressure is sufficient, but merely when the pressure is confined to Ireland.
Mr. EYRES MONSELL: May point out, Sir, that my Amendment does not alter the datum line, but simply is to exempt increased agricultural value due to the efforts of the cultivator himself and it only attempts to put into the Budget what the Government say they want put in, but which they have entirely failed to insert.
The CHAIRMAN: The Clause and the Government Amendment do not deal with the question which the hon. Member raises. The hon. Member wants to take something from the tax, and that is a different thing from defining what the tax means or exactly what is to be taxed.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: have not the smallest objection to the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Dublin, but do not agree that it contributes in the smallest degree to settle the difficulty which appears in the Bill on the face of it and which is admitted universally to exist. That difficulty has been stated by the hon. Member for North Dublin himself, and has been frequently referred to by Members of the Government. What is it? It is that there is ambiguity in the wording of this Clause, which consists in the fact that the words "for agricultural purposes" may be construed by a court of law in such a manner as to exclude the value which has been referred to as

275
competition value and is not land value. If that is the difficulty, how do the words of the Government or the hon. Member for North Dublin in any way dispose of that objection by assuming that the ambiguity lies in the word "value"? The ambiguity, however, is not in the word "value" at all. That word can only have one meaning, unless you give it an artificial meaning by definition. If you do not give the word "value" an artificial meaning by definition it can mean nothing except its price if sold in the open market. The word "value" presupposes some hypothetical sale for the purpose of ascertaining what the particular property would realise. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be perfectly justified in saying that his Clause as it originally stood, so far as the word "value" is concerned, includes both his own Amendment and the words "value if sold in the open market," as suggested by the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Dublin, which would read market value at the time. Value can only mean "market value" when sold at the time, and, therefore, putting these words in, whether in the form suggested by the Government or in that adopted by the hon. Member for North Dublin, does not carry the case one whit further. Where, then, is the ambiguity? It is not in the word "value," but in the words "for agricultural purposes only," and unless you qualify those words, not by reference to the word "value," but by some express enactment that the words "for agricultural purposes only," shall be deemed to include this land hunger value, or competition value, or American bidder value, or what other phrase you will, you will not have succeeded in extirpating from this Clause the ambiguity which it is now universally admitted exists in it. The Government professing to be in agreement with the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy) and the House generally, it ought not to be difficult to devise words which would carry out the meaning. Our objects are the same, but it is perfectly plain that merely by expanding the word "value," and by giving it the meaning which it has apart from the definition, you cannot get rid of the ambiguity, and you will still have inherent in the Clause the ambiguity which it is admitted places the whole agricultural land of Ireland and England in peril of being taxed.
Mr. J. MARTIN: One of the Amendments have proposed makes the matter
276
clear according to the desire of the hon; Gentleman (Mr. Maurice Healy). I have listened to the discussion with an open mind, and as far as am concerned it is absolutely clear, in spite of the declarations of the Government to the contrary, that the effect of the Bill is certainly to tax agricultural values in many contingencies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that the Government do not intend to do so, and of course accept that statement. The Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley), the other day, moved an Amendment which he thought would cure this difficulty, but it was pointed out that it would do a great deal beyond what the Noble Lord said he wanted to do. The effect would be to prevent there ever being an increment at all, because any land held for building purposes could easily be made to be agricultural land. It seems to me that the difficulty is that when the Government say they do not intend to tax agricultural values under the Increment Duty they attach a peculiar meaning to the words "agricultural value" which is entirely different from its ordinary meaning to ordinary people. In other words, just as soon as a piece of land—I am speaking now of bonâ fide agricultural land, and not land on which cabbages have been planted for the purpose of making it agricultural land—has any value, no matter how slight, for building purposes, it ceases to be agricultural land at all or to have any agricultural value which exempts it from Increment Duty, was absolutely convinced on the matter by the illustrations put forward the other day by the Leader of the Opposition, who pointed out that a piece of land at the time of the original valuation might perhaps have a purely agricultural value of £20 per acre. The duty may not be collected for fifty or 100 years from the time of the original valuation, and a great many things might occur in the meantime. There might be an increase of, say, £50 per acre in purely agricultural value.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: On a point of Order. It seems to me that we are discussing the very question which you ruled out of order. The whole point raised by the hon. Member is the point which was involved in the Amendment which you have already ruled out of order. If the Amendments are out of order it is perfectly clear that the Debate on the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy) must also be out of order upon any other Amendment.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: Is it not a fact that this Government Amendment was introduced into the Bill this year for the purpose of making clear the fact that agricultural land was exempted from Increment Duty? It is our contention that the Amendment does not carry out that object. That being so, are we not entitled to criticise, in whatever way we think best, the Amendment introduced by the Government?
The CHAIRMAN: It does not always follow that because a specific Amendment raising a specific point in a specific way is out of order any mention of that point is out of order on another Amendment. I do not think we ought to switch off the Debate on to what the Government ought to do other than they are doing. On the other hand, I think it is competent for hon. Members to point out any deficiencies which in their opinion are inherent in the Government Amendment. Within reasonable limits that could be done.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We may point out the deficiencies, but may not move to supply them.
The CHAIRMAN: To some extent that is the case.
Mr. MARTIN: I am only attempting to put forward the evil which I intended to remedy by my Amendment. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that there might be an increase of £50 an acre on purely agricultural value, and a slight increase, say of £1 per acre for building purposes on land which had not a building value at all at the time of the original valuation. On account of this increased building value, when the land was sold, or becomes liable for Increment Duty, the owner has to pay 20 per cent, on the £50 of pure agricultural value. I might put the case still stronger by taking two pieces of land, on opposite sides of the road, which may come to be sold fifty years hence. In the meantime an industry has been started comparatively close to them, which results in the growing up of a town. One piece of land may lead towards the town, and the other away from the town. Both pieces of land may have been valued at the same price to start with, say £20 per acre, but by reason of the town coming there, they may get an increased agricultural value which might be £100 per acre. When they are sold the piece leading towards the town has a slight building value of £5 per acre, while the other has no building value whatever.
278
The man whose land does not lead towards the town would not pay a single penny of Increment Duty, while the other unfortunate man would pay £20 per acre on the increased agricultural value of his land. Is not that so? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is my construction of the Statute, and we are going to be in this position in discussing the Budget throughout the country that there is some opinion that this is going to be the effect of it, and we have a right to say that we object to that kind of thing, and under the circumstances think it is perfectly fair to expect the Government to make it clear beyond all doubt. They have undertaken to do that by adding the words, "if sold at the time in the open market." What possible connection have those words with the question as to whether the agricultural value of that land is going to be taxed under the Increment Duty or not? To my mind, those words have no meaning whatever in relation to that point. Clearly they can refer only to one of the cases provided for—the collection of Increment Duty when the man sells his land. But supposing he dies, how are those words to come in If words are to be added which really fix this matter up they ought to be words which would apply to all possible cases which could arise under the Statute, and it ought to be very simple to do that Supposing the land when it is first valued has its agricultural value stated, not in one case, as in the Act, but in every possible case which can arise.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting a little beyond the bounds of Order. I will try to explain as well as can. He is entitled to point out that the Government Amendment does not meet the case which he thinks ought to be met, but he is not entitled to go into details of how it can be and ought to be met.
Mr. MARTIN: It seems pretty hard to get on with this matter at all have no interest in misrepresenting the matter. I am not desirous of putting the Government into difficulties. Why should I? I want to be in a position to make this perfectly clear to the meetings may have to address in connection with the General Election which, understand, we are going to have. I cannot do it as long as the Bill remains as it is. I contend that these words which have been put in by the Government have absolutely no effect at all, and that for the reason put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite

279
(Mr. Austen Chamberlain). There is no question as to the word "value." It is all a question of what "agricultural" means. As long as the Bill defines agricultural land to be land that has no building value whatever there will be no difficulty, but some difficulty will arise as long as you can convert agricultural land into building land. As long as the proportion of the building value is as one in a hundred you will have this difficulty. I wish to say further that the proposal of the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) to insert the word "market" does not help you out of the difficulty. The hon. Gentleman stated that, in his opinion, the only way of determining the meaning of value was to ascertain what people were prepared to pay for the land. That the hon. Member can convince farmers in Ireland that by the insertion of the word "market" he is relieving them of the tax on agricultural land, cannot for a moment imagine.
Mr. H. S. FOSTER: gather that the Amendment next on the Paper standing in my name will coma under the same ruling as you have already given in regard to others; and want to submit for your consideration that the object of my Amendment is to make the declaratory words effective, and not for the purpose of altering the datum line at all. The First Lord of the Admiralty stated last week that the object of the Government Amendment was to give relief from taxation of all genuine agricultural land. The object of my Amendment is to make it clear that, so long as land is used for agricultural purposes and agricultural purposes only, it will be exempt from Increment Duty.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman's Amendment is even less in order than those have ruled out of order.
Mr. JOHN DILLON: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Martin) laboured under the difficulty, so far as could follow him, of having to deliver a speech applicable to a matter which is not raised by this Amendment at all. The hon. Member cannot now discuss the matter, because he voted for the Closure Resolution. His argument would come well from any hon. Member on these benches who voted against the Closure Resolution. It is a very stringent Resolution. It was supported by every man on the Ministerial side of the House, and having put upon
280
themselves this stringent closure, they have no right to complain of the consequences. The difficulty under which many Members of the House have laboured is that they have not sufficiently clearly, think, seen that there are two absolutely distinct points before the Committee. One is in order because it is affected by the Government's addition to the Clause; the other is out of order because it does not touch upon the Government addition. It may be referred to, but it cannot be fully-debated. The point is not raised by this Amendment, and it cannot be raised in any Amendment. One point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) is as to the exemption from taxation of all agricultural values. The other point has reference to the exemption from taxation of all agricultural land. They are two distinct points altogether. I want to say for myself perfectly frankly that I am not interested in the question of the first exemption at all. What I am concerned about, and what the people of Ireland are concerned about, is the exemption from taxation of all genuine agricultural land. I am free to maintain, in spite of what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy), that the Government Amendment, together with the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Clancy), fully and most satisfactorily achieve that purpose.
Mr. MAURICE HEALYindicated dissent.
Mr. DILLON: have often said before that feel considerable difficulty and disadvantage in arguing a point with the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork. What does the hon. and learned Member say, presuming on the ignorance of some Members of this House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am speaking about their ignorance of Irish matters. I think some hon. Members would plead ignorance of these matters. Even words have a different significance in Ireland from what they have in this country. The hon. Member for North-East Cork said, in regard to the definition of value, that all you have to do is to go to the dictionary and you will find out all about value. That is not true. Value in Ireland has various meanings. The whole campaign carried on in Ireland during and since the election was based precisely on the distinction in the different readings of value, although now we are told by the hon. and learned

281
Member for North-East Cork that it has but one meaning. That statement was made for consumption in the House of Commons. It was pointed out on Irish platforms by the hon. and learned Member and his Friends that when the courts came to consider the working of the Clause they would take the value of agricultural land, for the purpose of the Clause, to be the economic value, or, in other words, its true value. What is its true value it is a term perhaps not known in this country. True value is the value fixed by a court of law for the purpose of pre-emption by the landlord. It used to be done every weak in the year. That true value, as fixed by a court of law, was very often a half or 30 per cent, under the value of the farm. What was the case made against this Clause when hon. Members wanted to misrepresent the intentions of the Government? It was that in Ireland they would have the agricultural value fixed at the. I true economic value, and that people would be called upon to pay 25 per cent, more, that amount representing the difference between the true value and the economic value. The hon. and learned Member goes to the dictionary and says that the word "value" can have no meaning but one, whereas his argument at all the meetings he addressed turned on the very point that it has two distinct meanings, and that the courts would use that difference for the purpose of giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer 20 per cent, above the value fixed by the courts. I am one of those who believe that the Irish courts, in whose impartiality wherever there is a question between landlord and tenant we have no confidence at all, are courts, when it comes to a question between Irishmen and the British Exchequer, are courts which go against the Exchequer. That view was expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy), and agree with it.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: said there was the House of Lords to follow on that.
Mr. DILLON: I am only repeating what the hon. and learned Member said, and he is a better authority with regard to the courts than I am. I was of opinion that the words in the original Clause did protect all genuine agricultural land in Ireland from the Increment Tax, and I am of that opinion still. But the hon. and learned Gentleman went on platforms in Ireland and used the argument that there were two different values—the market value and the true value—and he induced thousands of
282
farmers in connection with whose land the question of building value would never arise, or would never be likely to arise for generations to come, to believe that their land would be taxed under this Clause. These two points with respect to agricultural land were pressed upon the Government, and it being the avowed intention of the Government to exempt agricultural land, they made no difficulty about putting in words to make the matter clear. I have not heard any argument either to-night or in the previous discussion of this question which has in the least degree shaken my belief that the words as they stand cover the case we have in Ireland. We had a long discussion the other night, and those who took part in it included many Members learned in the law, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, but not a single Member took up the point at all of the danger of inflicting the competition value for the purpose of the tax. The thing does not enter very much into Irish transactions. Their point was one we had never raised, namely, whether when land has acquired a value greater than its agricultural value, even the highest competition agricultural value, a value for building purposes, it passes into another category altogether, and whether the tax was to be calculated, not on the original datum line, but upon a subsequent datum line. That is a totally different question, although it may be a very important one. That is not the question we are interested in. The question we are interested in is whether the farmers of Ireland, because of the land hunger which exists, are going to be taxed on the value given by the land hunger of Irish peasants. It was said on Irish platforms by the hon. and learned Member that that would be done. That is what I deny. That is what the Government gave us a solemn pledge last autumn they would not do, and it is in order to make it clear that this Bill is not doing it that words are now to be put in. In spite of the expert opinion of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork, given for the purpose of political propaganda in Ireland, believe these words are perfectly effective for the purpose.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): The position of the Government in regard to this Amendment is a perfectly clear one. It was laid down by the Prime Minister when he moved the Closure Resolution.

283
It is that this Bill has been reintroduced in the House of Commons, and is being pressed through the House without any amendment, except Amendments of a purely declaratory character. Once you entered into Amendments which affected the merits in any way, think it would be impossible to limit the discussion to the particular Amendments suggested by the Government. We also considered the matter not merely from the point of view of honour, but from the constitutional point of view. We were bound to present the same Bill practically in the House of Lords as the Bill they rejected. That is the view we take.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It makes you judge in your own cause.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. The Bill has been submitted as a whole to the country. It was accepted as a whole by the country.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If you say it was not, dare you to throw it out again. I am only explaining the position of the Government in regard to the matter. We set down a few Amendments of a purely declaratory character. We never said that these Amendments made any alteration in the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Mayo that that is the position which the Government put on their interpretation of this Clause; but I think it does make it very much clearer that we never intended to tax land of this character. In the opinion of every lawyer we submitted it to, land of that character was not being taxed; but we wanted to put it beyond the possibility of a doubt, and we were quite prepared to accept any words that would do so. The hon. Member for St. Pancras said that I said that no agricultural value was to be taxed. I never said anything of the kind. What 6aid was that no purely agricultural land was being taxed, and still say so. The land he is thinking about is the purely town land, where the value has been created entirely owing to its proximity to a town. That is a very different kind of thing from the kind of land which the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy), the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and the hon; Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) had in mind; the kind of agricultural land in the open country which has an artificial value given to it for two reasons.
284
That is not merely in Ireland. It is in Great Britain also. There is no single Member of this House who has lived in agricultural districts—and mean purely agricultural districts—who does not know that there is land in those districts which has an artificial value for one or two reasons. One is there may be a special demand there, because there are men in the neighbourhood who have been making money in trade and who come back and want to purchase the old home or purchase land in the old neighbourhood. The agricultural land has got a purely artificial value for that reason. I know many neighbourhoods of that kind. The land is still agricultural land; it is not bought for residential purposes.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, it is.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly wrong. I have lived in an agricultural district, and can assure him that there are many cases of the kind, men buying farms of that sort where they never intend to reside; but they buy either the old home or land in the neighbourhood merely for the pleasure and delight and pride of owning land in the district where they were bred and born. That is not building value at all. It is purely agricultural value.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is not.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman says it is not. All can say is that we intend to exempt that, and we will do it in the words of this Clause. What is the second value? The second artificial and exceptional value is where you have got accommodation land. You get very often accommodation land far removed from a town. You get perhaps land which if let as part of a farm would bring only £1 an acre, and which is let sometimes for as much as £3 and £4 an acre in the midst of the country purely as accommodation land. That is also a sort of artificial value which is due, it may be, to some special property in the soil, or, it may be, because of its special convenience for graziers and others, or for a variety of other reasons which it is not necessary to discuss. At any rate, that is an artificial value; but it is also a purely agricultural value, and is exempt. And the whole point is this—whether those two exceptional, capricious, artificial values, which are created in the special circumstances were exempt by the

285
Bill as it left the House of Commons. I say they were, but some counsel in Ireland say that they were not. And right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches went about to platforms in this country saying that they were not exempt. I thought at any rate, if we were going to have a contest, we should not have a contest merely about the interpretation of an Act of Parliament. There is a real issue between us as to the datum line, and if it were relevant I should defend it, and am prepared to defend it. I have defended it outside, and I will defend it in the House of Commons when relevant, as it would be on the Second Reading; but here it would be irrelevant. It has been ruled out of order by the Chairman, and I cannot go into the matter. The other two values are strictly relevant to this Amendment, and are strictly relevant to the Amendments of the Bill. I maintain that we have amply protected those two cases. That is what we have set out to do, and think we have done so, and that is all we intend doing—to deal with these two exceptional cases.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The first thing that must strike the Committee on this point is, if it takes this House days and days of discussion to discover exactly what the meaning of a certain important series of words in this Bill is, how is it possible to have it decided in the courts of law? What enormous and intolerable expense that would be to the subject. I traverse the right hon. Gentleman's contention that the two values to which he refers are exempt either in the original words or by the addition which it is now proposed to be made to this Clause. I cannot understand how these values are exempt under this Bill if building values are not exempt. There is not a single word in the Bill as to those building values. As understand the principle of Increment Value Duty, and it has been stated over and over again upon Liberal platforms, it is to charge the owner of land on any increment which is unearned of any form except a purely agricultural increment. That is the proposal. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggest where a man succeeds in selling his land at a price above its market value, and the purchaser who happens to buy it is willing to pay more than its value, because he was born in that parish fifty years before, that that is an earned increment? Is it any more an earned increment than if the man who was willing to give more than the agricultural value
286
happens to want to build houses upon it? Where is the difference on the principle on which the Bill is founded? Is or is not the Bill founded on the principle that what is called unearned increment should be taxed? If the Bill is founded on that principle, with certain exemptions professing to carry out the object that agricultural land which has a value for agricultural purposes only is to be exempt, what is to govern the wording of that Clause creating those exemptions? The two governing words suggest to the Committee—and particularly wish to draw the attention of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment to this point—are the word "while" and the word "agricultural."
It is a question of time with the word "while." The tax begins to attach to the land from the moment it attains a value in excess of its agricultural value. Then comes the question. What is agricultural value? This "agricultural value only" is the value for purely agricultural purposes, and as soon as it acquires a value for any other purpose whatever the argument perpetually used, which has been used over and over again, is that it only applies to building land. It does not apply only to building land. Whatever value that lands attains beyond purely agricultural value, it becomes taxable on the whole increment, agricultural or otherwise. The question the hon. Member has asked us to solve by his Amendment is, Do these words exempt the kind of sentimental value in Ireland (anywhere)—[HON. MEMBERS "Any where?"]—or anywhere, which he desires to exempt? Our object is to deal with the matter as a whole, but understand that hon. Members from Ireland are particularly interested in the question as affecting Ireland. The question is, do the new words, or the old words, exempt that kind of value? I maintain that they do not, and it is perfectly clear if the old words do not exempt it that the new words do not. I submit with all respect to the hon. Member, that if he is satisfied with the old words, well and good; but if he is not satisfied with the old words, can prove to demonstration that the new words have no effect whatever upon that point. I submit to the hon. Member that the words can have no possible bearing on whether the land is agricultural or not. If the land is not purely agricultural in its value it is exempt. It is not a question of whether the value of the land is market value, or economic value. I am bound to say I

287
cannot see the distinction. It is a question of whether the value is purely agricultural or not. Surely the hon. Member must see that the insertion of these words makes absolutely no difference whatever on the question whether the value is purely agricultural or whether the land has any other value. Therefore, if the land is taxable under the words which are here now it is still taxable after these words are inserted. I do not suggest for a moment that I should lay down the law as to whether it is taxable under either contention. I think it is an open question as to whether, in the case of a farm purchased and used for agriculture only, but for which a value above agricultural value is paid for sentimental reasons—that is the real point—will the Courts hold or not hold that that is a purely agricultural value?
Mr. DILLON: How do you ascertain the agricultural value?
Mr. PRETYMAN: By the market value which is obtained for purely agricultural land in the district. That is the obvious way. A valuer goes into a district and ascertains by the ordinary market transactions which prevail in the district that land of a particular character has a market value of about £20 an acre. A particular farm of exactly the same character in the district is bought by a returned Irishman from America at £30 an acre. For purely agricultural purposes the value of that land is £20 an acre, and not £30 an acre; but for sentimental reasons a purchaser comes and gives £30 an acre. The question is: Would the Courts hold that that £30 was purely agricultural value simply because the pur chaser is going to use the land as agricultural land? That is the point. I am perfectly certain that the learned Attorney-General will not be able to give a very confident answer.
Sir W. ROBSONdissented.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman may, but think that even from him the Committee would not accept it without some further authority—the question is such a difficult one submit to the Committee of the House of Commons that the first duty in all legislation is, as far as possible, to make perfectly clear what is its meaning. Unfortunately, in legislation, we have unwittingly left many points which have had to be settled
288
by the Courts. We ought not to do so wittingly, however, and we should endeavour to settle to our own satisfaction the actual meaning of any words which are used, or, at any rate, the House of Commons should at least so alter them as to make them look clear, in order that they may not have to come before the Courts afterwards. As to the words now before us, I do not think they are clear, and do not think the point raised by the hon. Member has been met. I am not at all sure, if the matter is left as it stands, that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland will not find that it is they, and not the land, who have been sold in the open market.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: It appears that certain malignant persons in Ireland have been misrepresenting the intentions and wishes of a good and gracious Government, but these malignants, instead of having their tongues pierced with hot irons, instead of having their limbs broken or their arms cut off, because they have the audacity to differ from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo, are met now with phrases, and are to be satisfied with the East wind; we are never again, once these words are inserted in the Bill, to venture to differ from the hon. Gentleman. But if I think I am right in the view I hold, I will state my view, even if it should differ from the view of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo. He has a great many persons behind him, I know, with whom he confuses persons like myself; but allow me to tell him that, as far as persons like myself are concerned, we shall hold the view about agricultural land and about taxation under this Clause which we held before the Amendment of the Member for North Dublin was accepted. In the first place, these words are of no value whatever. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin stated, almost in words, that there really was to be no new valuation of agricultural land at all; that we have a nice comfortable old system of valuation in Ireland, a most handy and convenient system, that was not to be disturbed. I wonder whether any Member who is able to read our Bills—as I believe every Member of the House is supposed to be able to do—has omitted to take account of the 26th Section of this Act, which refers to the Commissioners, not, remember, the valuation Commissioners in Ireland, who are gentlemen not interested in taxation and who are only interested in valuation, but the Commissioners who will make this

289
impost—persons interested, not merely in valuation, but in the taxation that is to be derived from it, namely, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. What is to happen? This is the Section: "The Commissioners shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act cause a valuation to be made of all land in the United Kingdom." I believe Ireland is in the United Kingdom by law or statute; whether otherwise, it would be out of order to discuss. What is the valuation to show? It is to show separately the total value and the site value respectively of the land, and in the case of agrciultural land the value of the land for agricultural purposes, where that value is different from the site value. Yet hon. Gentlemen who are Members of this House, learned in the law, get up and tell the Committee, and through the Committee the country, in the phrase of the hon. Member for Mayo, for the purposes of their political campaign, that there is no such thing as a valuation of agricultural land. Remember that there are over 600,000 agricultural holdings in Ireland, and I ask any man in his senses what is the object of this country, which grudges Ireland one shilling of expenditure on any useful purpose, in sending over from Somerset House, at the instance of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, valuers to value the 600,000 holdings? And remember that it is mandatory on the Commissioners, and you must pass this Clause without Amendment or Debate. The Member for St. Pancras said that once we voted the closure we voted the Bill. That is the worst condemnation of this Debate I have yet heard. There you have it—that even in the miserable islands of Achill and Arran, and in these congested' districts, places where practically a snipe can hardly get food, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue at Somerset House is bound by law to send over his valuers from London.
What has the valuer to find? He has to find the value of the land, and remember the word "value" is not qualified in this 26th Section by the word "market," which the Member for North Dublin is inserting in the Section before us. It is purely and simply the value of the land for agricultural purposes, where that value is different from the site value, and then observe the meticulous precision of the draftsman: "Each piece of land, land which is under separate occupation, and, if the owner so requires it, Any part of the land which is under separate occupation, shall be separately
290
valued, and the value shall be estimated as on 30th April, 1909." Then the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dublin said the value is to be the value of Griffith's valuation, which is a valuation on the price of beef at so much a hundred, on the price of mutton at so much a hundred, and on the price of butter at so much a pound, and, forsooth, you are to define site value and all the other values in this Bill on the price of butter in 1852, when Griffith's valuation was made. These Gentlemen, as I said, for the purposes of their political campaign, would debar me from saying what I think about this Bill, after thirty years' experience in this House. I must I say think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has treated the House with perfect frankness; he has not deceived us in any respect; he has I said, and I think it is to his honour—I because perhaps it might have been to his convenience to have said something different—"We have brought in this Bill, so far as language and intention are concerned, without the change of a comma; we have taken up a constitutional position." That being so, take leave to say, on my part, that shall go back to my Constituents and will say to them, "Friends, dear, would you like to have a gentleman sent over from Somerset House; would you like to know why he is coming upon your holdings, and would you like to know who send him?" And shall say, "The gentlemen who send him are the representatives of Nationalist Ireland."
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am sorry to get up at once to disappoint the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is so anxious to see that gentleman from Somerset House introduced to the Irish peasants, but they will not see him; there is no intention of sending a gentleman over from Somerset House.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Then read your Bill.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. As said in my answer to the hon. Member for Dublin University, who asked my reason for the distinction made between the case of Ireland and that of England, the simple reason is that we have got all the materials, as far as agricultural land in Ireland is concerned, for a valuation. We have got two valuations for Ireland, and they are both official and both national valuations—they are not merely local valuations—and in those valuations I am assured—and have been making careful inquiry—it will

291
only be necessary to consult the official documents, so far as agricultural land is concerned, in regard to its value from that point of view. And when we made our estimates for the valuation—
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why do you have site value? What does the Department fix the site value for? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Really, hon. Members are cheering on a matter they know nothing about. at least know this much about it, that have seen the gentleman who is responsible for the national valuation in Ireland—Sir John Barton, who is not an appointment of this Government but an appointment of the late Government. He holds a very considerable position, and he has the confidence of Members of all parties in this House. He assured me last year that it would not be necessary to make a valuation, not merely for the sake of the Bill, but for the sake of the estimates. We have no need at all to send a gentleman from Somerset House to visit houses and homes in Ireland. It is not necessary, because we were assured by Sir John Barton that all the particulars necessary for the purpose of making a valuation are already in the possession of the office which he commands. But it is a perfectly different thing as far as town sites are concerned. There is no material of that kind for town sites, and for these a valuation will be necessary. I really apologise for intruding; it is out of order upon this particular Amendment, and except for my hon. and learned Friend, should not have made these observations.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has made a reference to Sir John Barton. He says that he has practically no need of further materials to make these valuations. Allow me to say that it is the most momentous statement which has yet been made in reference to this matter.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: made it last year.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: remember the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not go the length, if he will permit me to say so, which he has gone to-day. Allow me to say that if Sir John Barton said anything of the kind, he ought to be impeached. What as the valuation—I have sent out for the Valuation Act—I speak from recollection. I
292
think the Section of the Valuation Act provides that the original valuation of agricultural land, apart from buildings, shall never be altered, and shall be incapable of being altered without a fresh Statute. That Act was passed as long ago, speaking from recollection, as the 13 and 14 Victoria. Therefore, the position is going to be this that it is the valuation—stereotyped according to the right hon. Gentleman—of 1840 that the Government are going to take for the site value of Ireland. Observe that the valuation of Ireland is not a valuation for increment, or for site, or for anything else, but it is a valuation of one year with another, having regard to the rent, taxes, insurance, and deductions for repairs which the tenant could fairly pay. That is the position of valuation in Ireland. It is the annual tenantable value of the land, but that has nothing to say to the site value, and, observe, if that land has improved, am to be told this—and this is the first kind word we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, and welcome it if it be true—if that land was, as in the case of Stewart's holding, valued at 6d. per acre, and if the tenant has made it up to the value of 25s. per acre, the tenant would be in the lucky position of having the 6d. per acre stereotyped both as the site value and the tenantable value? welcome the pronouncement of the Government. I think he has made a momentous declaration, but where did Sir John Barton get his authority for it? He certainly did not get it in any Act of Parliament. Let me call the attention of the House to the section dealing with Ireland. In the 15 and 16 Victoria, Section 11, it is provided: "In every valuation hereafter to be made, or to be carried on or completed under the provisions of this Act, the Commissioner of Valuation shall cause every tenement or rateable hereditament hereinafter specified to be separately valued, and such valuation in regard to the land shall be made upon an estimate of the net annual value thereof with reference to the average prices of the several articles of agricultural produce hereinafter specified, all peculiar local circumstances in each case being taken into consideration, and all rates, taxes, and public charges, if any (except tithe rent charge), being paid by the tenant (that is to say). Wheat at the general average price of seven shillings and sixpence per hundredweight… Oats at the general average price of four shillings and tenpence per

293
hundredweight.… Barley at the general average price of four shillings and ten-pence per hundredweight.… Flax at the general average price of forty-nine shillings per hundredweight, Butter at the general average price of sixty-five shillings per hundredweight. Beef at the annual average price of thirty-five shillings and sixpence per hundredweight, Mutton at the general average price of forty-one shillings per hundredweight, Pork at the general average price of thirty-two shillings per hundredweight …"
Am to be told that that is the valuation which the Government are going to enforce for the purposes of this Bill in Ireland If so, the whole principle of this Bill for Ireland is to be one thing, and the whole principle in England is to be another, and each valuation is to be fixed having regard to the rent which the tenant can pay year by year, deducting insurance and deducting depreciation. Why this valuation under this Bill is capital value. One is annual value and the other is capital value, and for Sir John Barton to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is prepared to give a valuation within that Statute and under that Act, passed long before he was appointed, and that this valuation was anticipated under Griffiths, why Sir John Barton has no such power. If I may say so, when encomiums are now being showered on Sir John Barton, it was the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy), think, who got a Select Committee upon him in this House within the last four or five years. At any rate, he was examined before the Committee, and I believe he was a Member of it. I say any Commissioner of Valuation who has asserted that he can step over the words of this Clause and fix the valuation except in the manner hereinafter provided, say he will be impeached, and say he deserves it, because the provisions of this Bill are these—the right hon. Gentleman laughs, but the words must be taken into account, they are:—"The Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the passing of the Act, cause a valuation to be made of all land in the United Kingdom showing separately the total value and the site value, and, in the case of agricultural land, the value for agricultural purposes." Those three valuations are to be made by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. He must make them upon a given date. I respectfully say that in the Act of 1840 neither Sir John Barton nor anybody else can discover the data on which are laid the foundations of this Bill.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I really cannot understand the position of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. He told me he welcomed this now, and I thought that was exactly what he wanted, but he has a very curious way of welcoming it, to say that we should impeach the gentleman who is responsible for this opinion. I can only restate the opinion that it will not be necessary for the purposes of this Bill to send men from Somerset House or anywhere else to tramp over the agricultural land of Ireland to find out its value, because they have already got full particulars to enable them to ascertain its value. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] I have already said so.
Sir ROBERT FINLAY: How are you to get the site value?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have already told the House of Commons before the hon. and learned Gentleman arrived. I gave full information on this out of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The whole information will be in the Debate, and hon. Gentlemen must remember this: that Ireland is in a different position as to the valuation of land from Scotland and England and Wales, because you have at least two or three different official valuations already there.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what they are?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The first is Griffith's valuation. I say this on authority which is quite good enough for me. The second valuation is the valuation under the Land Acts. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not a general valuation."] It is a valuation of the value of the land of Ireland, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who has been going round backwards and forwards in Ireland saying that there would be a valuer sent to every little holding there, now that he finds that is not going to be the case, is naturally very angry.
Mr. GORDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what general valuation there is under the Land Purchase Acts, because have something to do with them in Ireland, and have never heard of them. It is only in cases where there has been a sale or a fair rent fixed, and they were only treated as a valuation on questions between landlord and tenant.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is the question of the value of the land.
Mr. GORDON: Not at all.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If you value the land as between landlord and tenant it is the value of the land. I am making no new announcement at all. This is an announcement I made in the last Parliament, and I say that is the view the Government take, and that is their interpretation of this Bill. It is altogether irrelevant in the Debate on this Motion, but thought would have to correct the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am purely restating the position took up in the late Parliament, and the statement on which framed estimates in the late Parliament. It is the view taken that we have got plenty of material at the present moment to frame a valuation of the agricultural land in Ireland. Especially as agricultural land in Ireland will never produce a penny under these taxes, we do not feel we would be justified in going to any further expense, inasmuch as we have got all the material that is necessary. The third valuation is a valuation which I agree does not cover the whole of Ireland. It is only a valuation which you have got under the Land Purchase Acts.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if these valuations are annual value or capital value?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: They are annual value. That is the basis. Under the Land Purchase Acts they would be annual, of course. At any rate, am here to state again what the Government stated in the last Parliament, and stated without challenge by any hon. Gentleman on either side of the House, that we were not going to have the expense of valuing the agricultural land of Ireland because we have abundant material for the purpose. We did not think we were justified in going to the enormous expense of valuing land of this kind which cannot possibly produce any taxes. You are in a position there different from that which you are in in Great Britain, where land at one moment may be purely agricultural and in a year or two afterwards may be most valuable building land, because either of the growth of towns or the discovery of minerals. Besides in Great Britain you have not the material to enable you to produce this valuation. If we had a valuation of this kind in Great Britain there would not have been the same justification for our valuation provision because we would have had two official valuations; and, as far as half the land is concerned, another
296
as well. I am only stating this again, and I apologise for making a statement which is not relevant to this Amendment.
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I do not wish to pursue further the question of valuation except on this point, and that is that am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General must be aware that any valuation, such as has been referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have nothing to do with the valuation of site value. I wish further to say that unless and until that is done under this Bill there never has been a valuation on the site value basis for any purpose whatever. So exceptional is it that, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General will remember, the late Lord Farrer, who was a great expert, stated that in his view you could not have a valuaation on the site value, because the condition of the premises necessary for such a valuation did not exist in fact. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider what was said in the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, of which had the honour to be a Member, he will find there that one of the great-objections to taking site value for any purpose is the extreme difficulty and novelty of the valuation. The majority of the Commissioners thought it was impossible, and others thought it was a matter of extreme difficulty and novelty, and in reference to which we could not get any guide whatever from any existing valuation at the present time. On the question of valuation it must be true of the vast majority of agricultural land in this country that it can never come under Increment Value, or what is called Development Duty. Of course, in the neighbourhood of large towns you may have a change from agricultural land, but that has been the same in the neighbourhood of Dublin and in the neighbourhood of Belfast. If the argument against providing a site value of land in Ireland is because a very large amount of agricultural land can neither come in for Increment Duty or Undeveloped Duty, then exactly the same argument applies to the great mass of agricultural land in England. Surely, speaking on behalf of England for the moment, one may say this, that if Ireland is to escape valuation under the Bill it is a monstrous thing as regards agricultural land in England, that a valuation should be made by the same body as is interested in imposing the taxation. I agree with everything that was

297
said by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth upon that point. In fact, he emphasised the unfairness with which England was treated when you propose to impose upon agricultural land in this country a form of valuation from which you say agricultural lands in Ireland are to be exempt, although, as regards those lands, no valuation has ever yet been made on the site value basis.
May I say one word as to the principle of the Clause. There must have been a misapprehension in what the Attorney-General said. I think he will not differ from me when I say that the principle of the Clause is to charge Increment Duty when the land has a higher value for other purposes than for agriculture. The words are quite clear. So long as it has a value for agricultural purposes only, it is to escape taxation, but so soon as it has a higher value for any other purpose, Increment Duty is to be chargeable. The insertion of the words "market value" and "at the time for agricultural purposes only" make not the slightest difference whatever to the principle. If the principle of the Clause is what have stated, how can the Attorney-General say that these words affect what is in substance either a sentimental or a residential value do not care which it is called. There is not the least difference principle in the valuation of the two. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that although land may have a higher value than for the purposes of agriculture, either on a sentimental or on a residential basis, yet so long as it is used for agricultural purposes it is to escape taxation under the words now introduced. Surely that is a wholly illogical position. If you are to allow land used for agriculture to escape, even if it has a higher value from sentimental or residential reasons, how do you seek to exclude all other purposes In the case of other purposes the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks it logical and right to tax the land, although it is still used for agriculture only. We want to know what is really meant by the word "land." Does it mean that so long as land is used for the industry of agriculture it comes within the category of agricultural land That is a plain question. If it does not, these words are only a mockery and a delusion. It does not matter whether the land is used for agriculture or not; if it has a higher value for residential or sentimental purposes, or for the purpose of erecting a factory, or for building pur-
298
poses, it will come in to be taxed under Clause 7.
We have had considerable discussion as to the way in which Increment Duty will be charged, assuming it is chargeable in a particular case. The Attorney-General stated the other night, quite accurately as understand, that the difference for the purposes of Increment Duty would be between the original site value and the site value ascertained at the date when the duty was imposed. If that is true, you are putting a monstrous and unjust charge upon vast quantities of land used for agriculture. There are a large number of cases where the original site value has become an improved site value for agricultural purposes, and if the tax is assessed in the way suggested by the Attorney-General the whole of the increased agricultural value created by the industry of agriculture and by those engaged in the industry will fall to be charged under the head of Increment Duty. A moment's consideration will show how extremely unjust that is. Take two plots of land together, the value of one of which has been doubled by agricultural industry and expenditure, while the neighbouring plot has been allowed practically to go to waste. Under this Clause, when these two plots come to be assessed for Increment Duty, they must be assessed to the same extent, and the whole benefit of the expenditure for the industry of agriculture will be wholly thrown away. Under these circumstances you cannot expect people to expend money in improving the industry of agriculture. There is, no purpose in this country for which land wherever situated can be more beneficially used than for the industry of agriculture, because in that way you not only benefit agriculture itself, but you give employment, and leave open spaces used for the purposes of agriculture just where they are wanted most—in the immediate neighbourhood of our large town populations. Therefore you are really imposing a fine on the people who use land for agricultural purposes just where such land is most wanted.
My last question is. Does the Attorney-General think, from his legal knowledge of these matters, that either the words "if sold at the time in the open market" or the alternative words "its market value at the time for agricultural purposes only" have the smallest effect upon the meaning of the Clause, or in any way alter the point am making, namely, that

299
the only test is whether the land in question has some higher value if used for purposes other than agriculture? If that is the test, these words axe absolutely useless, and have no meaning at all. The words are absolutely misleading if anyone thinks, as the Irish Members apparently do, that he is getting any benefit from them. On the other hand they may lead to a heritage of litigation which this House ought to avoid as far as possible by putting the Clause into language about which there could be no doubt, and which would clearly express the intention of the Government as regards the agricultural land of the country.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Arising out of the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the valuation in Ireland, may I ask whether the same principle will apply to Scotland? As far as our valuation is concerned, under the Act of 1854, we are in exactly the same position as Ireland, except that our valuation is made up year by year, and is not stereotyped. I take it therefore that in Scotland there will be no capital valuation made, but that this annual value will be taken.
Sir W. ROBSON: Apparently in Scotland they have the good fortune to possess materials for valuation which are brought up to date year by year.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Annual value.
Sir W. ROBSON: What better basis can you get for the ascertainment of capital value than the annual value in normal circumstances, together with such differences as may be created by proximity to a town, obvious building value, and so on1? The Scotch valuation clearly will enable immense quantities of land to be dealt with without any specific valuation and without any visit of the Commissioners or their agents. My hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir A. Cripps) asked me whether I thought these words made any difference. I think they give some additional clearness to the terms of the Clause. I hold the view, which, perhaps, not every lawyer would adopt, that the particular kind of value which hon. Members from Ireland, and those representing agricultural districts desire to protect, was already protected by the Clause as it originally stood. In my view the value for agricultural purposes was the value which land would fetch in the open market for agricultural purposes. These
300
other vague terms, such as "market value," "improved value," and so on, are expressions which, no doubt, might have importance in particular districts; but, in truth, the value that the law looks at when the word "value" occurs in a Bill of this kind is the market value—that is to say, the value which would be fetched at an open sale in the market under normal conditions. Under these circumstances, in my view, what may be called "land hunger value "—that is, the presence of a hunger for agricultural land—would in reality be part of the agricultural value. What a peasant wants land for is agricultural purposes, and he will give more for the land for agricultural purposes than a strictly economic farmer would give. An economic farmer would in many parts say, "I must not buy land and use my labour and capital upon its development unless I can get at least a normal rate of interest. A normal rate of interest for such an amount of capital and for the work and skill which shall put into the land ought to bring me, say, 10 per cent., and will not apply my capital and labour for anything less." That is what is popularly called the economic value. But the peasant perhaps cares very little for economic value. We have had instances showing the enormous sums sometimes given at auctions in Ireland for the right to occupy land for purely agricultural purposes. From whatever cause the hunger may arise, whatever may be the necessities of the peasant, he is buying for agricultural purposes, and he is buying in the market for agricultural purposes. Therefore the whole of that value will be exempt. But the word "value" is like the word "right," in regard to which we have continual difficulties, especially in the sphere of law. Has a man a "right" to do this or that? So it is with the word "value." It lends itself to much ambiguity, and therefore these words are inserted for greater clearness.
6.0 p.m.
I do not think in strictness that they make any legal difference. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, "You axe going to tax improvements in agricultural land under Clause 7. Whatever words you add to the Clause you are leaving a liability on the back of the owner of agricultural land, or person interested in agricultural land, by a tax on their improvements." think the hon. and learned Gentleman does not sufficiently distinguish between the different meanings of the word "value."

301
Let me put it to him as simply as I can. You have in agricultural land prairie value; you may have value for the purposes of agriculture, and also for the purposes of building. It may be that at a given time your agricultural value is in excess of your building value. It may be that no one particularly desires to build upon that land. Under those circumstances your land is strictly agricultural land, and will be exempt from Increment Duty as agricultural land. But the building value may grow until it exceeds in amount the agricultural value.
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: What agricultural value does it exceed—the original site value or what?
Sir W. ROBSON: I am taking agricultural land for the purpose of the original site value. That is the case with which we are dealing. All agricultural land at present in England will be put under valuation. Its original site value will, of course, be agricultural value. It is called site value; but the word "site" is not very appropriate to that value. [HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Well, if hon. Members, opposite will suggest better phraseology we shall be glad to consider it in subsequent Budgets. It is a sufficiently clear word to those who have studied the Budget itself. Its value, as agricultural land is the original site value. The land grows into building value—a building value attaches. Let us see what the situation is. We talk about taxing land. I find that there is generally an ambiguity attaching to the very simplest words that create confusion and logical differences. Do not let us talk for a moment of taxing land, but let us talk of taxing an owner in respect of his land, or some particular element of value in his land. The talk of taxing "goods" has been productive of more mental confusion than anything else since the fall of man. You do not tax "goods." You do not tax land. You tax persons in respect of land, or goods. You may tax a person in respect of particular elements of value in land. Under this Bill we are, speaking generally, taxing persons, owners, in respect of building value attaching to land. That is what we tax. We tax that building value, and no other value.
We do not tax agricultural land. We do not tax agricultural labour. We do not tax agricultural capital. We tax simply the building value attaching to land. It is suggested on the other side
302
that you cannot do that without taxing agricultural value; and a case is put of land whose value was originally £20 an acre for agriculture. That land goes up to £30 an acre, and beyond. So long as it is improving agriculture up to £50 there is still no tax upon it, because the increment is agricultural increment. By and by, it comes to have a building value. It goes up to £51, and from that to £100 or £150. What has happened then? The real value of that land is no longer agricultural. The proper value of an article is that which it will fetch at its highest price, and the proper value of that article has ceased altogether to be agricultural— absolutely ceased. When the owner comes to sell it he does not sell it upon an agricultural basis. He takes no account whatever of the agricultural improvement. He throws that away. People talk about our taxing this agricultural value. We do nothing of the kind. When the owner sells his land for building he throws away his agricultural value. He treats it as absolutely non-existent: if anything it is decrement. What we tax, and what alone is taxed—the hon. Gentleman seems to express dissent, but I think if he would only wait and give a little reflection to it he would see that I am right—is the building value of land. We are taxing the value which has superseded the agricultural value altogether. We are entitled to tax the whole of that value. What hon. Gentlemen opposite desire us to do is to take from the building value the agricultural value which the owner is throwing away when he is selling the land for building purposes. It is absolutely certain that we tax no kind of agricultural value, or of agricultural land, while it is in any proper sense agricultural land. We tax the value of building land alone. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me a question: whether I was willing to exempt land so long as it is used for agricultural purposes. Mark the insidiousness and ambiguity of that. You go to a man whose land for building near a town is worth £1,000 an acre. You say, "That is building land, and we shall tax on the building value." "Oh," says my hon. and learned Friend, "you must not do that; look at that blade of grass there."
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: Of course, I mean land bond fide used for the purpose of agriculture.
Sir W. ROBSON: Do hon. Gentlemen really mean that any land, so long as a blade of grass or a cabbage is allowed to

303
grow upon it, it is not to be treated as building land? Would that be making the land in any sense correspond with the common phraseology of building land? I venture to say that people perfectly well understand the meaning in practice and from reading the Bill, if they ever undertake that task. They know we are taxing building land. We are not taxing agricultural land. We are not touching the agricultural industry, or labour, or capital! We are putting a tax upon the owner of agricultural land which has ceased to have in any proper sense agricultural value, and instead has acquired a building value which it has not earned, and which may very properly be made subservient to the needs of the community as a whole.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: We should like to know something of the point that has been raised by the hon. Member below me as to whether the system of valuation to be adopted will be the same as in Ireland and Scotland, because, as pointed out, the Scottish valuation is totally different from that in England. I should like to know what is the basis of value to be adopted in England? Is the value of a pair of cottages to be the capital value of those cottages, which may be £400, or is the valuation to be based on the annual value of those cottages, which is only represented by a rent of £3 or £4 a year for each of them?
The CHAIRMAN: I do not see what that has to do with the Amendment.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: Perhaps I was rather led astray. To turn to the actual Amendment which we were discussing, so far as I can gather from the course of this Debate, the only good we derive from this Amendment of the Government is that we discover the fact that the market value of land—that is to say, the price which a willing purchaser is willing to give to a willing seller in the open market—is not the true value of the land. That may be an Amendment which is very suitable to Ireland. There may be some reason for accepting it for the Irish people, but it only adds still more difficulty to this Bill, in which I believe there exists already no less than thirteen different descriptions of the value of land. There is only one definition of the true value of land. What we were told this afternoon was that what we all thought was the true value of land is not the true value of land.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: In Ireland we have a term known as "true value," which is settled by the courts. It is peculiar to Ireland. As a matter of fact, it is from 25 per cent, up to as much as 60 per cent, under the market value.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: At any rate, that particular true value does not exist in England. That only adds point to my argument that this particular Amendment of the Government may be acceptable to the Irish people—it is certainly not acceptable to the people of England, where this true value does not exist. I am not surprised at the hon. Gentleman the Member for East St. Pancras expressing a certain dissatisfaction. In the first place, he apparently was led to believe that it was safe to trust the Government. Secondly, he was led to believe—and foolish to believe it—that if you vote for a drastic Closure Resolution upon a Bill, there was likely to be any chance at all of discussing the particular point which you wish to raise. I can only express the hope that the hon. Gentleman will in the future see that it is by no means safe to trust any Government—and this Government in particular—and that it is also rash to vote for any particular Closure Resolution if you want to discuss a Bill. A case was instanced of a man who desired to go back to his own country and purchase a small farm of his own. The point I wish to emphasise is this, that although the Government do not mean them to be taxed in Ireland, at any rate they will be taxed under the Bill as it now stands. Take the case of a man who for years wanted to come back to the neighbourhood of his own home and bought a farm for £5,000, at the time that agricultural land was standing at a high value. The value of that farm in April this year had been reduced, owing to economic causes, to £2,500, in the course of the next ten years, say, the value rises partly owing to the general increase in agricultural property, and partly also owing to the energy and the enterprise of the owner himself, and owing to the amount of labour he may have spent on it, and owing to the intensive cultivation of the property. Supposing, then, in ten years' time the value of the farm rises again to what it was originally—£5,000. The Government valuer comes along, and he says, "This farm is worth £5,100 to somebody who may buy it for building purposes. People are building here all round upon

305
the hills," and the Government valuer accordingly puts that value upon the land. He will have to pay increment value, not upon the £100, but upon the difference between the sum of £2,500 and the value of the land at the time the Bill was passed—that is, £5,100, which is the building value that the Government assessor put upon it. That is monstrously unfair. I say, in the first place, the purchaser ought to be entitled to have deducted the price which he originally gave for the land, and he ought to be entitled to the benefit of any increase brought about in the value of the land entirely by himself.
Under this Bill you are not perhaps, directly speaking, taxing agricultural land as such, but you are undoubtedly taxing agricultural land, and that is the point that we on this side of the House disagree with most strongly. We say, if you wish to exempt agricultural land altogether, you ought to exempt from the building value of the land that part of the agricultural value which has been due either to the increased energy and labour of the cultivator of the farm, or to the increased general value of agricultural land throughout the country owing to the general rise in agricultural prices, or owing to intensive cultivation and so on. It would be perfectly possible for this to be done by anyone who wishes to obtain the benefit of it giving notice to the Commissioners and proving to their satisfaction that the land has risen in value on a particular date for agricultural purposes only. If you really mean to exempt agricultural land, as you say you do, from the Increment Value Duty, the only way you can do it is to satisfy the Commissioners that the land has risen to an increased agricultural value owing to certain causes, and to allow them to take that as the datum line from which to deduct agricultural value. That is the only possible way to do it.
Mr. RODEN BUXTON: Many hon. Members upon the opposite side of the House wish to alter the datum line from that which is proposed in the Bill and to place the datum line at a point where the land has received increased agricultural value and to take the increment value from that upper datum line instead of from the lower datum line in the Bill. Listening to this Debate, it almost seems as if the echoes of the last Parliament are still ringing within these walls, and that people are subjected to the atmosphere of those old conflicts and struggles of which we heard so much. Hon. Members on the
306
opposite side seem to be at cross purposes, for really they axe quarrelling about something which is easily comprehensible when looked at from an outside, independent point of view. As the Attorney-General has just said, the building value and the agricultural value are two independent and separate things. They have grown up parallel to one another; they may exist side by side, but so long only as one or other has a potential value. When one or other comes to be realised they can no longer co-exist; they are incompatible in point of time; they are two entirely distinct things. That is the contention upon this side of the House. I am aware that is a somewhat theoretical description, and I am aware that the case is somewhat subtle and complex. But surely that is no reason why it should be preposterously misrepresented and should not be looked at in a calm manner. As a matter of fact, what is the practical effect of that distinction? I think that is a point which has not been, so far as I have heard the Debate, brought out. The practical effect is this. The owner of the kind of land we are dealing with, say a market garden, such as the hon. Member for Wycombe referred to, knows that at a certain point the building value of his land will be realised, and the agricultural value will at that moment come to an end and be extinguished. He takes that into account, and takes particularly good care as a business man that he will get the full return for his money and labour out of the agricultural value before the land passes into the category of building land. He takes care that he will be fully rewarded, and he puts no more labour and capital into the land than he knows he will get a return for before the land becomes building land. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad hon. Members agree with me.
A man would not be so foolish—take an extreme instance—as to plant trees here because he knows that long before he would get a return for his money from the trees the land would pass into the category of building land. He takes very good care not to put more capital and labour into the land than he will get a return for, because at a certain moment he knows the land will cease to be agricultural land and will lose the whole of its agricultural value. That is an incident of the transaction—in any case it has nothing whatever to do with the putting on of this tax in the Budget—it is an incident of the transaction inherent to the transaction; it happens now. We are not creating that grievance, if it is a grievance; it exists already. The very moment

307
that that man—that very fortunate market gardener I should call him—sells his land to a builder he destroys and extinguishes every penny of agricultural value in it. The builder gives him nothing for the agricultural value. It is no advantage to the builder that there are cabbages on the land, and that a cow was on the land would be of still less value. The whole of the value that the builder buys is the building value, and it is that value we are taxing, and that is the only value that we are taxing. The agricultural value has ceased to exist. We are taxing the building value and that alone. A man in that position has realised two values. He has first of all realised the agricultural value. He realised that while he was enjoying that value previous to the land becoming building land, and he gets out of that value the full return for capital and labour. When that is done he sells the land for other purposes. At the moment he sells he realises the second value, and it is upon that that we are taxing him. Take the case put by the Leader of the Opposition, where the increase was £35—that is the increase from the original datum line, up to the present value—we ask that man to pay £7 of the £35, while he puts £28 in his pocket, which is clear increment to him upon the building value. It seems to us that these are two altogether distinct values, and I cannot understand the unfairness complained of.
Is it unfair that that man should be taxed upon that value? I cannot see that it is. How do hon. Gentlemen opposite propose to remedy it? They propose to exempt that man who has put some capital into his market garden, and not to exempt another man side by side with him who perhaps has not used his land as a market garden but has let it out as a football ground all the time. We say it is grossly unfair to exempt a man who has used his land as a market garden and to tax the man who has let his ground as a football ground. The two are in the same position, and each has got his return from the land before it became building land, and therefore I say there is no reason why the man who has made the land into a market garden should not be taxed on the building value, but should be let off while the other man is taxed. We have it now admitted, I believe, that agricultural land is not taxed in any respect by any of these taxes except as alleged under the Increment Tax. The issue is narrowed
308
down to that one point. Hon. Members opposite have ferreted out this one exemption, which is a very rare, very exceptional, and very extraordinary exemption, and on the strength of that they are going among the tenant farmers to their "ordinaries" in agricultural districts to tell them that their land is to be taxed. I say that is not a fair or true representation of what the Government is doing. Hon. Members opposite assent to that, so I am glad to find that my prognostication is correct. Tenant farmers will be addressed at their market "ordinaries," tenant farmers, who are doubly protected, and they will be told they are to be taxed. If we have done nothing but to show how inconsistent these statements are as to the market gardeners' land and as to ordinary agricultural land, we have done some good by this Debate.
Mr. GEORGE CAVE: It would be difficult for any one of us to put the argument against this Clause as it stands more forcibly than it was put by the hon. Member who has just spoken. What the hon. Member says is this: "I defend this Clause upon this very ground, that when a man takes agricultural land which may some day have a building value, he will be extremely careful not to put a penny into that land or to improve it in any way for agricultural purposes."
Mr. RODEN BUXTON: I said he did do so now, not that he would do so.
Mr. CAVE: I am afraid that I cannot have understood the hon. Member's argument. He said, "You will not be taxing agricultural value, because when a man realises that it may become building land he would not put any increased capital into it."
Mr. RODEN BUXTON: I did not say "would not." I said "does not now."
Mr. CAVE: If the argument is good now it will be equally good when this Clause passes. Surely those who defend the Clause, including the Attorney-General, are under a total misapprehension as to the point we are putting. The hon. Member who has spoken makes the same mistake to some extent, because it is thought we are trying to exempt from taxation to a certain extent land which has become building land. That is not the point at all, because this Clause deals solely and entirely with land which remains agricultural land. If it is sold for building we

309
all agree this Clause no longer applies, and the whole thing applies only to agricultural land. The point is that when land under this Clause, which is still agricultural land and used for agricultural purposes, comes to have a building value, however, small, it becomes subject to the tax, and you tax it not only on the building value, but on the increased agricultural value.
The point does not arise on sale only. I will take a simple instance. It arises on death. Take the case of a man who is doing his best to farm his land well. He dies. Of course his land has to pay Increment Value Duty. Some valuer comes along and says, "I have looked at the land. It is not very far from the town. It is a district in which building might very well take place. Therefore this land has a building value of so many pounds per acre." What happens? The tax is levied not only, as the Attorney-General suggests, on the building value, but on the whole of the agricultural value which that man has put into the land. I say without fear of contradiction that the effect of that will be to discourage the improvement of agricultural land, and will make it foolish for any man whose land is fairly near a town, and is likely to acquire a building value, to put his money and his brains into agricultural land for agricultural purposes. That is the whole basis of our complaint, and that is not touched either by the Government Amendment or by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy). That is the point we are anxious should be met. When the Prime Minister introduced the guillotine Resolution he said he meant to deal with this point, and he used these words:—
"We propose to insert declaratory words in the Clause which will make it perfectly clear as regards Increment Duty that the increases in the value of purely agricultural land are not subject to the tax."
It cannot be denied that in the way I have endeavoured to explain the moment land has a building value, not only the building value, but the increase in the agricultural value of that which is purely agricultural land will be subject to the tax.
Mr. MASTERMAN: In that case it is not purely agricultural land.
Mr. CAVE: Yes it is at the moment agricultural land within the meaning of the Bill, that is it is "land used for agriculture," and, although it is still agricultural land, the agricultural increase in
310
value is going to be subject to the tax. I had not the advantage of being present when the Chairman indicated that the later Amendments intended to alter the Government Amendments might be out of order, but those Amendments were intended to give this proposal the effect which the Prime Minister said it would have. I regret those Amendments may be held to be out of order, and I still hope we shall have a chance of discussing them. If that is not so, I think we have reason to complain. The Prime Minister promised that he would meet this point by an Amendment; the Chancellor of the Exchequer said his words would meet the point, and he promised that if we put down Amendments to those words he would consider them. The effect of the ruling of the Chairman is that the words put down cannot be considered, and the result is that whatever hon. Members may say Increment Value Duty will be charged upon agricultural land. That will be found in time to come to be a really heavy burden. We have been taunted with raising this point only on the Increment Value Duty, but who is to blame for that? Under the guillotine Resolution we cannot move Amendments to Clauses which the Government do not desire to amend. If we had had the chance of raising the point on the other duties we could have done so with equal effect. It is only because we are shut out by the Rules of Order that we cannot raise this point when the other duties are under discussion.
Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: If any trouble has arisen over this point it is owing to the good nature of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in trying to provide that agricultural land should escape Increment Duty. What was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reason? He said that agriculturists had had a bad time. He might easily have proceeded by making the datum line either the price the man paid for his estate or the amount at which it was valued for the purpose of succession, and any increase ought to pay Increment Tax just the same as building land. I will put a case to the Committee. A owns agricultural land, and we put the value at £500. That is the datum line. He sells it to B for £800, and B's solicitors say, "How about the Increment Tax?" A replies that there is no Increment Tax. B sells it to C for £1,000, and C's solicitors ask, "What about the Increment Tax?" and B replies, "It is only a stamp for about £200." They reply, "Oh, no. There

311
is a stamp for £500. B has escaped that stamp, or at least A escaped it, and B has to pay it." I think if you were to say frankly that any increase above the datum line shall pay Increment Duty, whether it is building or agricultural land, it would be the best way to proceed. The hon. Member (Mr. Roden Buxton) said that when it becomes building land the agricultural value disappears; but it does not. It disappears, it is true, up to the datum line, but it still remains up to that line. I agree that there is a difficulty about this point, but it will not occur very often, and it has arisen entirely in consequence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's good nature in trying to leave out agricultural land. I contend that there is no hardship in letting the man start the datum line on what he has put into the land or the figure he paid for it. Let that be the line, and let all above it pay Increment Tax, just the same as upon building land. I met a landlord the other day who said that five years ago he could not get £80,000 for his estate, but if he sold it to-morrow he could get £120,000 for it. Why should he not pay Increment Duty? If the £80,000 is what it cost him there is an increment of £45,000 by reason of the growth in the value of the land and why should he not pay Increment Duty on that amount? I know another owner in Essex who bought an estate with a house upon it twenty years ago, and he sold half of it for as much as he gave for the whole of it, and he has now got half of his estate for nothing. Why should he not pay Increment Duty? It is entirely because of this desire to relieve agricultural land that this little difficulty has arisen, and I think the best way to proceed is to say that the datum line shall be the line, and all value above that, whether building land or agricultural land, should pay the tax. That was the standard which John Stuart Mill set up, and he clearly had that point in view. I see no reason why if you strike a datum line agricultural land should not pay duty if there is a clear profit, just the same as building land.
Mr. WALTER LONG: I have been moved to say a few words on this subject by the speeches to which we have listened from two hon. Gentlemen opposite. Nobody can deny that the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson), who has frequently addressed us on these taxes, brings to bear upon these technical
312
questions a vast amount of experience, and he also has the power of putting his case very clearly before the House. No hon. Member has succeeded more completely in establishing the whole contention we have put forward on this point than the hon. Member for Ashburton. There is one remark made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeen which I venture to take exception to. He says that this proposal is due to the "good-nature" of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that is a curious term to use in this connection. What does this good-nature mean? It is an attempt on the part of the Government to keep their word. A definite proposition has been laid down, and we are trying to give effect to it. From the very beginning when this Land Tax was first suggested, we have pointed out that the Government are not doing that which they professed to do, namely, exempting agricultural land, and the reason we have given, I admit not with the lucidity of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, is the identical reason that he has given. He thinks there will be few cases of injustice, but I think there will be many more than he contemplates, and, in support of my view, I adduce the fact that there is no question which has aroused a, greater feeling of anxiety, not only among the owners of land, but in the minds of all the most experienced valuers connected with land throughout the country. Every Member of the Committee must have received an immense number of letters calling attention to the fact that injustices will arise. There will be cases of injustice, but whether they will be many or few does not matter to the argument, because, even if they are few the injustice ought to be removed. There will be cases in which it will be so difficult that in all probability it will be impossible to differentiate between the value at the time of the sale and the original value.
The Under-Secretary for the Home Department said that my hon. Friend in his argument took land which would really be building land, and which could hardly be described as agricultural land. The Attorney-General, whose speech I am bound to say did not in any way justify the conclusions at which he asked the Committee to arrive, however, said most emphatically at the end of his speech:—
"We do not mean to tax agricultural land or agricultural capital,"
and so on. We ask to-day, as we have asked from the beginning of these pro-

313
ceedings, whether, if that is the deliberate intention of the Government, it passes the ability of the Attorney-General, the Law Officers, and the draftsman who are responsible for the language of the Bill to put in words saying in definite terms: "We do not mean to tax land whilst it is agricultural, but only when it becomes building land." You are doing nothing of the kind. You are adhering to ambiguous language, and the Amendment in no way carries out what we understood to be the declarations of the Prime Minister when moving the Closure Resolution early in the Session. I listened to him very carefully, and I certainly gathered that the Government would introduce an Amendment in the Bill which they hoped would meet the case, and that they were determined before we parted with it that the language of the Bill should meet the case. Here we have had an admission from probably one of the most experienced supporters of the Government that this difficulty exists, and can only be removed either as he suggests by exposing agricultural land to the tax or by a precise exemption.
The taunt which has been levelled at us that we only raise this question upon one of the taxes is most unfair, coming from hon. Members who have supported the passing of a Closure Resolution which makes the discussion of the Bill almost, if not completely, a sham. Surely this Debate has disclosed this afternoon that there may be an injustice. Finding our Amendments have been ruled out of order, we can only raise the question in a general way, and we are face to face with this undoubted fact, that the Bill will do that which the Government have declared it is their intention not to do, and must leave this House with that defect in it. Consequently, not only will the Bill fail to do what the Government said it should do, namely, altogether exempt agricultural land, but it will place a new burden upon an industry which bears enough burdens already, and which is in no position to have fresh burdens added to it. I do not know why the hon. Member for Mid-Devon (Mr. Roden Buxton) talks about our making speeches to tenant farmers at market ordinaries in the depths of the country. I venture to say it is quite right to say at those meetings what we say in this House—that this tax will fall on agricultural land. This Clause will not exempt agricultural land. We said it here last Session, we repeat it to-
314
day, and we shall say it again, as the hon. Member rightly said, because we believe it and because it is true; and in support of our argument we shall adduce the speech he made himself and the speech just made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson). The two speeches made on that side of the House marked by their ability, have made it evident the Government have failed to carry out their original intention and that they are proposing to add by this Bill an additional burden upon an industry already overburdened both by taxes and rates.
Mr. GEORGE TOULMIN: I do not agree at all with the right hon. Gentleman when he claims that this will lay a tax on any industry. It will not lay a tax on the agricultural industry in any way. The tax will not come upon the land until it has ceased to be agricultural land. If it were a tax on the industry I should consider it an unjust tax. It would be treating the industry of agriculture in a different manner from other industries in the country; but, if the tax does not fall until the land ceases to be agricultural land and becomes building land, it cannot be a tax on the industry of agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman said that the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Roden Buxton) showed the justice of their whole contention. If that is their whole contention, the limits of dispute are narrow.
Mr. WALTER LONG: I made that remark in reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson), and I went on to say, in reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Devon (Mr. Roden Buxton), that I certainly should adduce it in support of our arguments that this tax would be an unjust one and would be laid on the industry.
Mr. TOULMIN: I wish to point out how narrow the limits really are. The hon. Member for Aberdeen gave certain figures, and I will take some figures per acre. Supposing land is of the value of £50 per acre, and it rises to £80 per acre, so long as it is agricultural there is no tax; but, supposing it goes up to a value of £100, and it becomes building land, is the tax to be fixed as between £80 and £100, or as between £50 and £100? The point is, I say, a very small one. The question is where you draw the line. The rise in value of any agricultural land as agricultural land is not very great, but when it passes from agricultural to building land the rise is great. It is not a

315
question as between £50 and £90, or £80 and £90, but rather as between £50 and £800 and £80 and £800, and the point is whether you would calculate the Increment at £720 or £750. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen as to it being a question of the good nature of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understood that it was his intention that the industry of agriculture should never be taxed, and I consider he has done all he can to make that clear, and I hope he will stick to his own proposal.
Mr. R. A. SANDERS: It has been stated that the object of this Amendment is to make it clear that agricultural land shall not be taxed. I am afraid that is a slight misstatement. I think the real object of the Amendment is to make the Irish think that agricultural land will not be taxed, and I must say that the affect of it appears to me to be that it will deceive no one except an Irishman who wants to be deceived. The hon. Member for Mid-Devon stated that we should go about the country telling the tenant farmers at their market ordinaries that they were not to be reassured, that they had some justification for their fears, and that they were going to be taxed under this Budget. I think it is very clear, from what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) said, that we shall very likely tell not only the tenant farmers but the freeholders, and especially the small freeholders, that this Clause will not remove the fears which I think they are perfectly justified in entertaining. When we here talk of big landlords and farmers on a big scale, it sometimes occurs to me that in my own Constituency there are whole districts in which many of the occupiers of the soil own the land which they till. All those freeholders are frightened, and I think they are justifiably frightened, by these Land Clauses in the Budget. This Amendment is not going to remove those fears. It seems that if their land is not going to be taxed, there is no reason why it should be valued.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said earlier in the evening that the reasons why the land was going to be valued in England, although the same careful valuation is not apparently to be made in Ireland, and the reason why men were to be sent down from Somerset House to value the land in England was that,
316
although it might not have a site value at the present time, it might sometime acquire one. Take Sedgemoor. There are miles of country there which in wet weather is under water. Is it ever possible to get a site value for land which is under water whenever you get, not an exceptional winter, but a winter when there is anything more than the ordinary rainfall. Take the allotments of Exmoor. Each of them to be separately valued. They are quaking bogs. They have undoubtedly a value as a sheep run, but, if anyone wanted to build a house on them, I would not insure that man's life for a great deal. The fear agriculturists and freeholders have is not entirely as to what is going to happen to them at once, but what is going to happen to them in the future, and the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen will, I think, be of considerable service to the opponents of the Budget, having put it so plainly that, at all events, there is a section on his side who are very disappointed because agricultural land is not avowedly included in these taxes.
7.0 P.M.
The very day that the Budget came out the "Daily Chronicle"—and in the West Country the "Daily Chronicle" is the Liberal paper par excellence—mentioned that the most important tax was the halfpenny tax on capital value, and if this is to be regarded in its first application to certain clauses of the Land Act there is little doubt that it will ultimately become universal. If these fears are to be reassured, if the small freeholder is to have his fears taken away from him, then I say there is a perfectly simple way for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do it. Will he get up and openly disavow those opinions which are expressed by so many of his supporters, and will he say that neither in this nor in any future Budget does he mean to extend these taxes to agricultural land?
Mr. JAMES MASON: The question of building value in connection with agricultural land has been very much discussed, but I should be glad if I can to get some information on the question of one or two other values which seem to come into this matter. The Attorney-General told us that the intention was to tax building value and no others, but it is quite evident land may receive an increment value for other than building purposes. It may or may not remain agricultural land. We heard just now a reference to the question of football grounds. It is quite possible

317
that a particular field may have a special attraction as a football ground, and may, therefore, be sold at a high figure for that purpose. I should very much like to know whether, in the case of a field being sold at a high value for the purpose of a football ground, and evidently that is not a building purpose, that would come within the meaning of the Increment Tax? Will a field sold at a higher value than its agricultural value, because it is to be devoted to football purposes, be liable to the Increment Duty? There is another point upon which I am not quite clear. Supposing that in a particular place there are three fields, the original value of which was £50 per acre. These fields may attain an agricultural value of £80 per acre. But then a railway may be made through that country, and through that particular spot, and the railway company's action enhances the value of the fields to £150. The company buys two of the fields out of the three. On one of the two fields it erects a station and other buildings. I suppose there is no doubt whatever that the field bought by the railway company for the purpose of building the station becomes building land, and would be subject to the Increment Tax. The other field it buys possibly in order to have control of the land, and that remains agricultural land, and probably will always remain so, although the company has paid the same price for it as it did for the other field on which it erects the station. In the first case, where the station is erected, it is building land. In the case of the other field there is no prospect of its being built upon, and it will therefore remain agricultural land, and not subject to the tax. But then we come to the third field, which adjoins the other two. It has got an enhanced value for agricultural purposes, because it is near the station, and becomes to all intents and purposes accommodation ground. It is placed nearer the market, and therefore gets an enhanced value, although it may still remain agricultural land. Its enhanced value is due to the railway. I presume that that enhanced value will be subject to Increment Tax, while the other field, which the railway holds in reserve, will not be. I think it would be interesting to know whether in a case of that kind the owners of these three different fields will be differentially treated in regard to the payment or nonpayment of Increment Duty.
Mr. REES: I confess I was unable to accept the argument of my hon. Friend
318
near me when he attributed the Government action in exempting agricultural land to the good nature of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although I would not like to accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any want of good nature, I would rather attribute his action in this respect to an endeavour to do justice to the situation and to recognise the fact that agricultural land is upon an entirely different footing from building land, and, therefore, properly calls for exemption. As for good nature, I should think it is not a quality in which Chancellors of the Exchequer can afford to indulge to any very great extent. It is a luxury denied to right hon. Gentlemen occupying that very distinguished position. It appears to me there are exceedingly good reasons for this exemption in the case of agricultural land. What is to happen in the case of small holdings in my own Constituency—in the rural portion of it. The average of the holdings is about fifty acres. If there is a tax on agricultural land it is imposed in the end on the tenants of the land, and it must diminish the prosperity in the agricultural district concerned, and so affect the market towns. When my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen spoke of an estate which lately changed hands at £80,000, now passing for £120,000, he must have been referring to property under exceptional circumstances. It most certainly is not the case that agricultural land has appreciated in late years by anything like that amount; whether it has really appreciated at all I myself entertain considerable doubt. He said that the effort of the Government to carry out its undertaking in this respect had not been successful. It is the function of the draftsman to carry out the intention of the Executive Government, but finally the lawyers come in and interpret what was intended to be made clear in the Act. I understand that hon. Members from Ireland are satisfied with the effort which have been made by the Government; I believe they are sincere, and earnestly anxious to bring about the exemption of agricultural land. But they have the reputation of being hard task-masters, demanding that bricks shall be made without straw, and if they are satisfied, as they are, probably the exemption provided in the Bill is very likely to be effective. They have urged that Ireland, being an agricultural country, should not be subjected to these taxes. I believe that is a good argument,

319
but I would point out that Ireland is no more entitled to this exemption than agricultural land elsewhere. I think Wales is entitled to every concession made to Ireland. I venture to suggest that, as far as agricultural land is concerned, there are a great many districts in this country which are equally entitled to exceptional treatment. I am not complaining of the action taken by the Government. I am not attempting to draw any invidious distinction. I am arguing the fact that hon. Gentlemen speaking for an agricultural country are satisfied with the efforts made by the Government to carry out their pledges in this respect, and that it is probable, therefore, that the effort is effectual. It may be asked what has this to do with the representative of boroughs. I altogether deny that there is any natural antagonism between their interests and those of that portion of the country which I represent. Their interests are identical in this respect, that where you get a small market town with rural surroundings it is chiefly, and in many cases absolutely and solely, dependent on the prosperity of the surrounding agricultural land, and no distinction and no such antagonism between industrial and agricultural interests can therefore be fairly drawn. It is for this reason that I, as representing boroughs, have always taken this side upon this question, and I regard it as being the only sound one from the point of view of the national prosperity as well as of those market towns in rural areas, several of which I have the honour to represent. Then I would also point out that unless there are minerals, or some exceptional circumstances accruing to any particular land, that the rent which is drawn from it—the mere agricultural rent—is small. The greater part of such rent often goes in repairs and other expenses, and unless the owner of land has some other resources, in point of fact he has not the apoplectic revenue which is suggested by hon. Members who I am assured cannot have any first-hand acquaintance with agricultural problems, or they would not put forward such contentions on that point as they do. I mention that more for the purpose of introducing another matter as to which I should like to have the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I apologise for referring to a matter which may have been referred to in another part of the Debate, because, although I spend a great deal of time here, I confess I am
320
sometimes absent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer promised, I think it was an under-standing, that he was going to transfer land from Schedule A to Schedule D.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The speech of the hon. Member is, I must point out, somewhat wide of the question before the Committee.
Mr. REES: I am sorry to be out of order, and that I have not had an opportunity of asking the question at the right time. If, moreover, that point is out of order, then the further question that I was about to ask as to slate quarries is equally out of order. I have really no further observations to make, but I may remark that this is the first time that I have opened my mouth on this subject, though I myself have often listened with greater patience and resignation to far longer discourses from hon. Gentlemen possessing less acquaintance with the land than that with which they have listened to me, but, notwithstanding that, I will take the opportunity of thanking them for the modified patience with which they have heard me.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Having expressed my views as to the wording of the Amendment at an earlier period of the evening, I do not intend to repeat what I then said, but I cannot let the Amendment go without referring to the extraordinary announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the methods and principles on which the valuation of agricultural land is going to be made in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that his announcement was not a novel one, as he had made it at some previous portion of the Debates. I am sure if the right hon. Gentleman says so that it did occur, but I must confess that I failed to notice that announcement on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer previously, and the information which he has given to the House came upon me as a complete surprise and as an announcement of a very startling character indeed. It is to the effect that in valuing the agricultural land of Ireland the Executive Government propose to disregard the Act of Parliament and to proceed in that country by different methods and on different principles to those which are to be pursued in England, Wales and Scotland, and that, although the Act of Parliament makes no distinction between different parts of the United Kingdom, and directs the Execu-

321
tive to proceed with their valuation by exactly the same methods and upon the same principle in Ireland as are to be followed elsewhere. The odd thing about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement is that he made it as one to allay feeling and to remove what I suppose he admitted to be a grievance. The statement had been made that valuers were to be sent from Somerset House or Dublin, it does not matter which, on to every holding in Ireland for the purpose of making valuations in accordance with the provisions of this Act. It would be very exasperating if such visits were made, and an experience of that kind would no doubt be highly calculated to alarm and distress holders of agricultural holdings in Ireland. But Ireland may have a worse fate; it may be a bad thing that valuers should visit agricultural holdings in Ireland for the purpose of making valuations, but it would be a worse thing if the valuation is to be made without any examination at all, and that, it appears, is the state of things which is now brought before the Irish agriculturists.
In England you are going to have a scientific valuation—you are going to have a valuation made ad hoc by officials specially appointed for the purpose. In Scotland you are to have the same good fortune. [An Hon. Member: "No."] Perhaps I am wrong about Scotland, but I did not understand that the Attorney-General assented when it was urged that the same methods were to be adopted in Scotland as in Ireland. Still, it is obvious that in England, if a valuation is made, it may be a grievance, but against that it is to be made by persons of skill; but in Ireland every inch of agricultural land is to be valued, and that without any process of examination at all. I can very well understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying: "We do not propose, or we do not expect to get any revenue from agricultural land in Ireland under the provisions of this Bill, and therefore we will not value it." But that is not what the right hon. Gentleman says. He says: "We do not expect to get any revenue from agricultural land in Ireland, but we will value it, only instead of a scientific valuation we will have a go-as-you-please one." Certainly, Somerset House may be bad, but the valuation which is made without any valuation of Irish land—what I call a blind fold valuation—may be ten times worse. Observe, also, the extraordinary claim that the Government set up that this
322
matter is not to be regulated by Parliament or controlled by statute, but by the caprice of the Executive, and observe that the right hon. Gentleman may not even be in office when this extraordinary process is to take place. This valuation might take place in six months' time, when other Gentlemen may occupy those benches, and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement may be a perfectly bond fide one when it is made at this time, what guarantee have we that his successors will take the same view? In all these matters affecting the taxation of Ireland under this Bill we have been constantly referred not to the terms of the Act of Parliament, which ought to regulate it, but to some supposed dispensing power resting in the Executive. That was the way in which we were met last year when we complained that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment relating to the Death Duties were not properly framed. It was admitted it was not properly framed, but he had issued orders, he said, to his officers in Ireland to construe it as he desired. That is all very well, but these matters must not be settled by the Executive, but by the law of the land, and the right hon. Gentleman's power will not last a single moment longer than he is in office, and his successor may have different views, and say, "This matter is not to be governed by the views of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, but by the express terms of the Act of Parliament."
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should like to have your ruling on this. All this has arisen out of a correction which I made of a statement about valuation in Ireland. It is absolutely irrelevant to the Amendment and even to the Clause. The valuation clause is Clause 26, in respect of which there is no Amendment at all. The question of whether you are going to value Ireland and how you are going to value it is absolutely irrelevant. There has been a good deal of latitude by way of question and answer, but the hon. and learned Gentleman is now entering into an elaborate examination of the method of valuation, which I shall have to reply to, and there will be others to discuss it. There are other questions which it is desirable should be discussed before eleven o'clock.
Sir EDWARD CARSON: Has it not always been the rule of this House, Sir, when we are discussing under a gag that we should discuss the material points?
Mr. T. M. HEALY: During the whole time when the Chairman sat in your place, Sir, the discussion proceeded on this point and was treated as relevant and without a single point of Order. May I also say that the whole discussion has arisen by reason of a statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, which he now is trying to prevent being discussed. Surely if the Chairman himself, whom I presume you would naturally be inclined to follow, permitted this discussion without censure, we should not be overborne now by the intervention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Mr. JOHN DILLON: On the point of Order, Sir. I do not desire to say a word about the exclusion of this matter from discussion, but I trust you will keep it in mind if you allow it to proceed, that you will permit some of the majority of the Irish party to reply to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must, on a point of Order, correct the statement made in error by the hon. Member (Mr. T. M. Healy). There was no discussion. I came in, and the hon. Member made a statement about valuation in Ireland. I got up and corrected that. I said it was not the case. The hon. Member afterwards got up to make some statement about it, and I apologised to the House for referring to it because it was out of order, and I could only do it by the indulgence of the House. Then the discussion proceeded on to other matters. There was no Debate at all in the ordinary sense of the term. Now a formal discussion has been raised on the whole question of valuation in Ireland, which has nothing to do with the Clause at all.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I submit that every word I said was relevant to the particular Amendment. We are discussing the taxation of agricultural land, and the securing that agricultural land shall not have this burden imposed upon it. Everything which is relevant to the method of valuation of agricultural land is, I submit, relevant to that topic.
Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether it is not for the Opposition to choose the Amendments they desire to discuss under a Closure Resolution, and not for the Government to impose this gag?
Mr. JAMES HOPE: If a Minister makes, not a correction, but a detailed statement of administrative policy of con-
324
siderable length, is it not in order for the Members of the Opposition to dispute that statement?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I should not have allowed the hon. and learned Gentleman to proceed as far as he has done had he not stated at the beginning of his remarks he was replying to a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and while he was in the House I had already ruled against the hon. Member (Mr. Rees), who was raising a matter which is only pertinent to another Clause of the Bill. I understood from the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Maurice Healy) that he was replying to something which had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I certainly cannot allow the discussion to proceed further than his definite reply to the statement made by the Chancellor. No further Debate can occur on that matter.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I apprehend that your ruling will allow me to say that I consider that the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman has made as to the adoption of Griffith's valuation as the basis of valuation for the purposes of this Section was not only improper in that it arrogates to the Executive power a function which should only vest in Parliament itself, but also because in my opinion he could not select a worse or a more unsuitable valuation for the purpose. The right hon. Gentleman said he had consulted Sir John Barton, the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland, who informed him that there was existing in Ireland full material on which this valuation could be made without setting up any special machinery for the purpose. On this subject Sir John Barton knows no more than the first man the right hon. Gentleman might meet in the street. It is not the function of Sir John Barton or his Department to value agricultural land. It was their function fifty years ago, and they made a valuation then, but the Statute expressly prohibits them from making any revision of that valuation, and for the past fifty years Sir John Barton's functions have been limited to the valuation of premises and hereditaments which are not agricultural. Sir John Barton can tell the right hon. Gentleman what the valuation of agricultural land was fifty years ago. It was made on the basis of prices which existed fifty years ago. In other words, he can tell the right hon. Gentleman what was the right price to put

325
on wheat-growing land when it grew wheat fifty years ago, and what was the proper valuation to put on pasture land fifty years ago, when pasture land had no value. There is not in the whole world a worse, valuation which could be selected for the purpose than the Poor Law valuation. It was made fifty years ago, under a state of things which is wholly inapplicable at the present day. That, at any rate, might do no harm if the imperfections in it were equal all over Ireland, but the Poor Law valuation is high it one county and low in another. Nay, it is not a question of counties. In the rural district of Kinsale I have put a holding into court the rent of which was half the Poor Law valuation, and have got a very large reduction. In another union in the same county I have put a holding into court in which the rent was twice the Poor Law valuation, and have not succeeded in bringing down the rent to the valuation. The reason is that one was a wheat-growing area when the valuation was made, and the other was not. The result is that, whether you take the Poor Law valuation as applying to land or to buildings, you could not, for the purpose of constructing a scientific valuation, go to a source which would land you in more error and more disaster than the Poor Law valuation.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member has exceeded the limit I allowed him of a reply to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He must not argue the question of the principle of valuation. [HON. MENBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I am sure you have good reasons for your ruling, but the only reason hon. Gentlemen who cheer have is that they think they are suppressing the truth. I cannot accept as final, or even legal, the right hon. Gentleman's announcement that in making this valuation he will proceed on the principles which he has laid down, or that it is leaglly open to him to do so. I should regard it as disastrous for Ireland if that was possible, because, though it would be a bad and a dangerous thing for Ireland that there should be a valuation made without examination or investigation, it would be a still worse disaster for the country if a scheme of valuation, which must ultimately be used for a purpose far beyond the limits of this Bill, was once inscribed upon the taxing books of your Imperial system which, instead of being made with the care
326
and skill and judgment which should be brought to any valuation of the kind, is to be made in a casual and haphazard way which the right hon. Gentleman considers good enough for Ireland.
Mr. H. S. FOSTER: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his view is that the moment the site value rises above the purely agricultural value the land ought at once to cease to be cultivated and ought to be thrown open for building. If the definition of this Clause were that so long as land is used for purely agricultural purposes it will be exempt from Increment Tax, there would be no difficulty on either side of the House. But there must be thousands of cases in which no mortal man could say, when he is cultivating land for agricultural purposes, what view the valuers will take, and whether they will put a site value upon it. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is a good and a desirable thing that the large amount of land which is being used for purely agricultural purposes should be driven out of cultivation from fear of this Increment Tax? There must be thousands of cases in which the valuers themselves will not be able to say, until they come to meet their difficult task, whether or not they will put a site value on the land which will raise it above its purely agricultural value. If the result is that the site value is going to be but little in excess of the agricultural value, is it the view of the right hon. Gentleman that, although the land may not be absolutely ripe for building, but may yet have site value, the land should cease to be cultivated? If it is not his view that it should cease to be cultivated, he is putting by this Increment Tax a direct tax upon agriculture. The distinction drawn by the Government is that so long as land is purely agricultural land no Increment Tax will be imposed upon it, but the moment that, in the opinion of the body of valuers, there is any value in that site above its purely agricultural value, it has to come under the Increment Tax at once, not merely for the margin of increase over the agricultural value, but actually for the increased agricultural value from the datum line of the original valuation. If that is really his policy, he is in fact putting a very heavy tax upon land which may continue to be used for agricultural purposes, although conceivably it may have some slight increase in value over purely agricultural purposes in the opinion of the valuers. If that is so, in the words of the hon. Member (Mr. T.

327
M. Healy) the other night, you are taxing the food of the people, because you put a tax upon any land which, as a matter of fact, is being used for purely agricultural purposes. Whatever theory there may be about its site value you are putting a burden directly upon agriculture, and that will apply not in a small number of cases, but in many thousands of cases all over the country.
Mr. DILLON: Two powerful speeches have been delivered as representing the views of Ireland in response to the Chancellor's observations on the question of valuation, and I claim the right to place before the Committee the true view of Ireland, as this subject has been grossly misrepresented. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) has just entertained the Committee at enormous length on the question of Griffith's valuation. His speech from beginning to end was an elaborate argument in favour of a new valuation for Ireland. I take issue with him on that subject, and I claim to speak the opinion of the vast majority of the Irish people when I say that we do not want a new valuation. Griffith's valuation was described by the hon. and learned Member as disastrous. Listening to him you would suppose that it was not used at present for any purpose in Ireland. He pointed out how unequal it was between county and county and district and district. As a matter of fact, Griffith's valuation is the basis of local taxation in Ireland at this moment, and, although it may be open to criticism, we are content with it. The real explanation of the situation is this. Somerset House valuers have been doing duty in Ireland on a large scale, and a great many farmers in Ireland have been alarmed that these valuers are going to revalue the land. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up and announced that there would be no Somerset House valuers under this Bill, there was consternation among the hon. and learned Member and his Friends. The disappearance of the Somerset House valuers is the disappearance of a valuable electoral asset. Griffith's valuation is not a perfect valuation, but it is good enough for us, and we are quite content to use it for the purpose of general taxation as well as for the purpose of local taxation. Over and over again in the last thirty years Government after Government has endeavoured to
328
pass Bills to revalue Ireland, and the Irish representatives have systematically opposed any such valuation. The hon. Member for North-East Cork said he would regard the use of Griffith's valuation as the basis for Clauses 7 and 25 of this Bill as disastrous. That is the point I am answering. I differ from the hon. and learned Member, and I believe I speak on behalf of the vast majority of the Irish representatives when I say that we accept and endorse what was put forward by the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy). We are content to rest upon Griffith's valuation for this purpose. As a matter of fact, Griffith's valuation is in full use to-day by the Inland Revenue for the purpose of the Death Duties. In point of fact, it is used for taxation purposes. We have no other measure in Ireland, and we infinitely prefer it to any further valuation that may be put on the country. So far as we on these benches are concerned we are content that the Government should stick to their statement and to their intention that there shall not be any further valuation except so far as may be necessary. It will be necessary in a small degree, because this tax on increment value will apply to an infinitesimal small quantity of land in Ireland.
Mr. BALFOUR: May I say with regard to the question of Griffith's valuation that, as I understand the matter, it is a valuation which is, or used to be supposed to be, a low valuation of the land? Every low valuation is an injury to the tenant as soon as the land develops for the purpose of taxation under this Bill.
Mr. DILLON: The rents have come below it now.
Mr. BALFOUR: There may be cases, I quite agree, but I think there are a great many cases where you will find that the valuation is below the actual rent. But if that were the case, the tenant would suffer as soon as his agricultural land became liable to this tax. It will become liable when it sells above a certain value, or when it goes into a different category. Then he will be taxed upon the difference between Griffith's valuation and the new valuation. That may be a gross injustice under any circumstances, but the injustice will be manifestly increased if you start from too low a datum line, such as Griffith's valuation. Every tenant who improves his land raises its value by improving it, and when he comes under the new category he will suffer. I cannot

329
understand why hon. Gentlemen are anxious for Griffith's valuation, which, in certain cases, must obviously do gross injustice to the Irish purchaser.
Mr. O'SHEE: The Leader of the Opposition appears to be imperfectly informed with regard to Griffith's valuation. As a matter of fact, 90 per cent, of the fair rents fixed in Ireland are under Griffith's valuation. At the present moment Griffith's valuation is rather a high valuation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated early in the evening that he was going to take Griffith's valuation as the basis, but that he would take it corrected by the valuation of farms carried out by the landlords of Ireland. I think that is a desirable thing to do. In extreme cases it would correct too high a valuation or too low a valuation. Too high a valuation is the kind of valuation which requires to be corrected. I do not share the view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition that we have anything to fear in connection with the taxation of agricultural land. I think if ever it was made clear in any Act of Parliament that there was no danger whatever of the intentions of Parliament being frustrated, it is made clear in this Bill. It may be said that Parliament can never make its intention clear by any form of words. That is the contention of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork. The words of this Clause have, so far as I can see, been drawn to ensure that the intention of Parliament that agricultural land is not to be taxed will be carried out. I think the doubts expressed in Ireland as to whether the original words were sufficient to carry out the intention of Parliament were not justified. The Clause as originally drawn would have been quite sufficient to carry out the intention of Parliament. We have, however, much stronger words inserted in the Clause now, and if any doubt did exist it has been removed. The only basis for the argument that there was doubt as to the meaning of the words was to be found in the fact that under the Land Act of 1881 we had two kinds of values. We had the "true value," which was the value upon which the landlord served notice to the tenant when he wanted to pre-empt a holding, and we had the "market value." It was on this account that some ingenious lawyers suggested that this distinction would be observed by the courts. I do not think there is any real foundation for that view. The hon. and learned Member for Cork City and his friends have made
330
Ireland ring with denunciations of the bogey men coming from Somerset House who were to fleece the farmers. Now that that great injustice is not to be done they seem to be in greater agony than ever. Now they complain that we are not going to have a scientific valuation by men from Somerset House, but that we are to have a valuation by Sir John Barton. They made the farmers of Ireland squirm during the past few months with fear of the individuals who were coming over to make a raid upon them. It is almost pitiful to see the position they are in now. This new party from Ireland is led by a very remarkable man, namely, the hon. Member for Cork City. He is well supplied with legal advisers. He has a very remarkable man as his adjutant who is a solicitor, and he has his nisi prius counsel to advocate his ideas. The bogey that has been raised in Ireland has now disappeared, and the hon. Members to whom I refer will have to reverse the arguments they have been using during the past few months and take a different line altogether.
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Wait and see.
Mr. O'SHEE: They are now absolutely willing and ready to attack the Government because they will not send over Somerset House valuers. The Amendments which have been accepted by the Government to-day make it clear, if that were necessary, that nobody in Ireland will be charged Increment Duty in respect of agricultural land.
Mr. HAMERSLEY: In the course of this Debate it has been made abundantly clear that the Government have no desire that agricultural land should be taxed, but in deciding whether it will or not be taxed, we must be guided by the words of the Clause under which the Increment Tax is to be imposed, coupled with the interpretation put on Clause 7 by the Attorney-General. I listened with great interest to the statement of the Attorney-General that when agricultural land became of value for building sites, or for building land, then it would be subject to the tax. Turning to the interpretation of "site value" in Clause 2, I find these words:—
"Site value shall be estimated for the purpose of this provision by reference to the consideration given on the transfer in the same way as it is estimated by reference to the consideration given on a transfer where increment value is to be collected on the occasion of such a transfer after the passing of this Act."

331
8.0 P.M.
That being the case, if you bring in Clause 7, and make it read as the Attorney-General wishes us to read it, it would read in this way: "Increment Value Duties will not be charged in respect of agricultural land as long as that land has not any site or building value, but directly it gets from the value of agricultural land and clothes itself with site or building value, then it will become liable to Increment Tax"; and that Increment Tax is calculated in the ordinary way under the other provision. But the whole question is this, whether agricultural land under this Clause will be liable or not. Directly it departs from its value as agricultural land pure and simple, then it becomes subject to Increment Tax.
I ask the Members of the Committee whether, with very few exceptions, in certain parts of England, land has not a value beyond the pure agricultural value, that is the sentimental value, or site value? Directly it gets out of that category it becomes liable to the Increment Tax, and being liable to the Increment Tax, the agricultural land having that building value becomes liable to a very heavy burden. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in earnest in his desire to exclude from this Act all agricultural land when it is used for agriculture, it would be very simple to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), which entirely meets the case. Why that Amendment is not accepted I cannot conceive, because it carries out the promises of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister made in this House to exclude agricultural land from the burden of this tax, and to bring in the class of land that the right hon. Gentleman does want to tax, and it may be properly wants to tax—that is, land near towns that has an accrued value due to the community given to it as an added value over its agricultural value. The tax that is advocated by this Bill has not been placed upon any land in all the experimental Land Taxes or any of our Colonies or Dominions over the sea. No one has attempted to bring it into practical effect, not even in New Zealand, where they have had more experimental Land Taxes than in any of our Dominions over the sea. In all our Dominions, with certain exceptions in New Zealand, where they put capital value taxes on land, they have left it to the locality to put the taxes on, and not
332
done it through the Federal Government. The reason is that in each particular locality they have different reasons for putting on an Increment or Land Value Tax, so that it is better to leave it to the locality rather than to the Federal or Imperial Government.
Last evening the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that all industries in this country were booming and increasing in prosperity. Surely he must have forgotten, when he said that, the agricultural land and the hop land. Take the hop lands of Kent. Should not they be included in agricultural land? Should not they be left free of any Increment Tax when used for hop-growing purposes—for purposes of an industry which is declining, to the enormous loss of the country? I submit with confidence, notwithstanding what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said as to the intentions of the Government, that when a judge has to interpret the Clause as proposed now there would be very little, if any, of the hop lands of Kent that would not come under this Increment Tax, because there are very few of those lands that have not a sentimental or site value beyond what might be called the agricultural value. This has been clearly demonstrated by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in the concrete instance which he brought before the House of the increase of value of land beyond its agricultural value as it grows into site value. That has not been answered. I have listened to a great part of the Debate, trusting that someone on the opposite side of the House might answer that concrete instance, but I have heard no one, and I have heard one hon. Member on that side support it as being unanswered. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingston, and thus remove the very grave doubt which exists in the matter.
Mr. GORDON: I wish to emphasise the last observation made by the hon. Member who has just spoken. So long as there is any doubt on this question it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to remove it. The right hon. Gentleman and his supporters from Ireland say that the other Nationalist Members have made Ireland ring with the suggestion that there will be a tax under this Bill upon Irish farmers and upon agricultural land. It is all very well to sneer at that and to suggest that those fears are groundless. But does the right hon. Gentleman know that so

333
well grounded were those fears of farmers in the South of Ireland that an association of farmers in Tipperary themselves instructed a solicitor and obtained the opinion of eminent counsel in Ireland who knows the law with reference to land in Ireland as well as most members of the profession, and that that opinion was obtained on several important matters in reference to this proposed Budget, and one of the questions put to counsel was: "Is agricultural land liable to Increment Duty or Site Value Duty, and if so, under what circumstances?" Notwithstanding the high position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or of the Attorney-General for Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman would perhaps pay some attention to this opinion of counsel, who is an eminent member of his profession. If the right hon. Gentleman does so, perhaps he will not say so airily that there is no danger.
In giving his answer counsel goes through all the sections, and after carefully considering them, says: 'Again, Section 7 enacts that Increment Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that land has no higher value than it has for agricultural purposes only. In my opinion it is unsafe to rely on this enactment as a protection against the competition value of agricultural land being rendered liable for Increment Value Duty, and I think there is danger lurking in the language of the section that it will be judicially construed in a sense that will impose Increment Value Duty on the part of the price of agricultural land which represents or is referable to competition value"; and he goes through the different Sections of the Bill and compares the language used, for instance, in Section 14 and Section 17, where you want to deal with things specifically. He says that in Section 14 it is made clear that no Reversion Duty is to be charged on any land which is at the time of determination agricultural land, and learned counsel reasons out from the way in which the exemption of agricultural land in other parts of the Bill is dealt with, that from the language which is used here, in his opinion there is grave danger of a court construing that it does affect agricultural land. We and Members from the South of Ireland have contended that it does affect agricultural land, and that being so, I would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take into consideration that it is a far more important thing to have the considered opinion of counsel which it is the duty to give to the best of his ability, and to give
334
honestly, than to have any mere expressions of opinions from Members of this House, however they may be in the House. Every lawyer knows that in interpreting the laws you cannot look at the Debate. You must use the language of the Act of Parliament, and therefore it is incumbent upon the Legislature to put into the Act of Parliament words which will express its actual intention.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. As I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks it is not quite relevant to the subject in hand, but it is a question that he has dealt with himself. That is the question of valuation. From my point of view there would be a great advantage I think in entrusting to the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland the duty, which in England would be imposed upon Commissioners appointed solely for the purpose under this Act, of ascertaining what is the site value, what is the original site value, and what are the other valuations that seem to be necessary for the purpose of carrying out this Act. I think it will be a very good thing to put in his hands, but that does not get rid of the necessity of its being done by somebody. As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Louth pointed out, under Section 26 there is a mandatory provision that the site value and the original site value, and all the other values of agricultural land, shall be ascertained, and there is no provision in the Act enabling the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other authority to get rid of the necessity for that valuation by someone. I know these Valuation Acts in Ireland as well as most lawyers, at all events, who have had to deal with them. I have been in a great many appeals, and I have dealt with these matters in various ways. I think the right hon. Gentleman was, perhaps, speaking too hastily when he spoke about the Griffiths valuation in Ireland, which was made a long time ago, and, so far as agricultural land is concerned, it cannot be altered. While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking my hon. Friend the Member for North Belfast reminded me that some years ago I appealed to Sir John Barton to revalue some of my agricultural land, and his reply to me was that he had no power to do it. That is exactly the way in which the matter stands. You have certain powers with reference to other classes of property, but not in respect to agricultural land. In the Land Commission, when a tenant brings his land holding into court,

335
they set out the Griffiths valuation and they set out the rent, as evidence of how much the tenant ought to pay, and they deduct for drainage and various other things. But there is nothing in the nature of a valuation of a farm which would suit the purposes here as to site value and things of that kind, and I think the right hon. Gentleman spoke too hastily in regard to these valuations. There can be no doubt that there must be this valuation in Ireland if this Bill is to be carried out in that country. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to get rid of this danger. He does not want agricultural values to be taxed. We are dealing with two different things—agricultural land and agricultural values. The value of agricultural land may be increased enormously by reason of a town growing up, or by reason of a railway station being brought to a particular locality. It may also happen, and I know places where in all probability it would happen, that the land would have some potential value owing to the possibility at some time of its being used as building ground through the extension of a prosperous town. In those cases the potential value would come under consideration in ascertaining the site value of the land, and the whole of the agricultural value would be brought in, and the increment treated for the purpose of this tax. I do think that the right hon. Gentleman should get rid of this difficulty, which would certainly be a great convenience and advantage to people interested in agriculture.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: After the word "value" ["its value for agricultural purposes only"] insert the words "at the time."
Leave out the words "if sold at the time In the open market."
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): The next Amendment in order stands in the name of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) on Clause 53.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Bucks on Clause 16 is in order. Are the words which my hon. and learned Friend proposes to leave out new words underlined?
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: On a point of Order. As regards the Amendment which
336
I propose, it is to leave out the words which are underlined, "and every subsequent" ["for the financial year ending the 31st day of March, 1910, and every subsequent financial year"].
The CHAIRMAN: In the original Bill the Clause read, "Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, there shall be charged, levied, and paid for every financial year in respect of the site value of undeveloped land a duty called Undeveloped Land Duty," etc. The substantial alteration here is not in the words "every subsequent financial year." That Amendment is merely an alteration of the words. The real alteration here is "the financial year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910. "That is a substantial alteration. The other proposal is a mere alteration of the words.
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: The point I wish to raise—I am not questioning the ruling of the Chair—is that it should be limited to one year. I understand what you say, Sir, on the point of Order, but I do raise that question.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I quite see, Sir, that as a matter of substance your ruling would be obviously right, but I submit that, when we are working under a very severe closure, the guillotine Resolution must be interpreted with the utmost latitude in favour of the Opposition; in fact, you must have the same sort of prejudice in favour of the critics of this Bill as the courts have in favour of the taxpayer who comes into court.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: What does the right hon. Gentleman wish?
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I put it that if technically we can be brought within the limits of the rule we are entitled to have the advantages of any technicality when we can get it.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would point out that by straining the interpretation of a technical rule we would cause a restriction of the Debate on other Amendments. If the Chairman could possibly strain the rule in such a way, it must mean the reduction of Debate on other Amendments which are to come on, and therefore I think it would hardly be fair to the movers of the other Amendments.
The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the Amendment is in order. Even if it were, I

337
should have to take the technical point that it does not read as it is put down on the Paper.

CLAUSE 53.—Temporary Provision as to Expiration of Licences.
(1) All Excise licences for the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor which are to be taken out annually and are in force at the time of the passing of this Act (in this Section referred to as existing licences) shall if they have not previously ceased to be in force cease to be in force on the thirtieth day of June [thirty-first day of December] next after the passing of this Act, and the Commissioners shall repay or allow to the holder of any such existing licence which ceases to be in force on the thirtieth day of June an amount of duty proportionate to the time by which the period of the currency of the licence is diminished under this provision after deducting in the case of licences granted since the first day of July, nineteen hundred and nine, any additional sum which the licence-holder may be required under the provisions of this Act to pay as duty for the period since the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and nine, or, if the licence was granted after the said thirtieth day of September, for the period during which the licence has been in force.
If the additional sum to be paid by the licence-holder exceeds the sum to be repaid or allowed the excess shall be treated as an addition to the duty to be paid in respect of any licence granted in substitution for the existing licence.
(2) For the purpose of recovering the duty which would have been payable on certain licences if they had expired on the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and nine, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) Where an existing licence ceases to be in force after the date of the passing of this Act but before the thirtieth day of June next after that date, there shall be payable in respect of any licence granted in substitution for the existing licence an amount equal to the sum by which the proportion of the annual duty payable under this Act for the period between the thirty-first day of December and the date of the expiration of the licence exceeds the proportion of the annual duty payable before the passing of this Act for that period; and

338

(b) Where the holder of an existing licence was on the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and nine, the holder of a similar licence which has expired before the passing of this Act, there shall be payable as an addition to any duty or additional sum to be paid in respect of any licence granted in substitution for the existing licence, an amount equal to the sum by which the proportion of the annual duty payable under this Act for the period between the thirtieth day of September nineteen hundred and nine and the date of the expiration of the licence, in the case of an expired licence granted after the first day of July nineteen hundred and nine, and for the period between the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and nine and the date of the expiration of the licence, in the case of an expired licence granted before the first day of July nineteen hundred and nine, exceeds the proportion of the annual duty payable before the passing of this Act for the same period.

([2] 3) Where any licence granted under this Act in substitution for a corresponding existing licence expires by virtue of the provisions of this Act before the expiration of a full year the duty payable on the licence shall be proportionately reduced.
[(3) The duty upon a licence to a brewer of beer for sale granted to expire on the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and ten, may be paid, if the licence-holder so desires, as to the last one-fourth part thereof, upon the first day of July, nineteen hundred and ten, and if the payment is not then made the licence shall thereupon cease to be in force.]
Mr. JAMES HOPE Mr. JAMES HOPE moved in Section (l), after the word "they" ["if they have not previously ceased to be in force"] to insert the words "or similar licence granted by way of renewal of them."
There are two Amendments, of which I have given notice in respect of this Clause, and they must be read together, and there is a third Amendment which is really consequential on the second. I am quite aware if these Amendments were passed they would involve consequential Amendments, and I am not quite sure that that would be possible under the procedure under which we are working. I think it might be possible to introduce other words as consequential. Even if that

339
were a formal difficulty, it would not be a practical difficulty for some months to come, and whatever might arise could be corrected in the next Finance Bill in a few months. The intention of the Amendment is to put off the payment of the new duty for another six months, and that it should not be collected until the end of the present year, which, of course, would still be within the current financial year. The revenue to be obtained for these licences will be applied within the same financial year. The accounts of this financial year will not suffer by this delay in collecting these new duties. We heard to-day that the duties collected under this Finance Act will not go into last year's accounts, which, I presume, would mean the Sinking Fund, but will be applied towards the accounts of the current financial year. Therefore, although there may be some Treasury objection to it, still I think there is very little objection to the collection of these amounts being postponed, as far as the total balance sheet of the present financial year is concerned. I submit it will be a very great relief to those who are to be called on at an interval of three months to meet enormous burdens which when they went into their business they could never contemplate was possible. Under the Act as it stands with these Government Amendments, licence-holders will be called on to pay a very large sum in July and another very large sum in October, far in excess of anything to which they have been accustomed. I am not going to quote extreme cases, because I know that the cases which are most obviously excessive might be dealt with under the alternative system of assessment, and that in some cases that system will produce relief, and in other and many cases it would not. Without an examination into the details in each case it would not be possible to say whether in those cases some mitigation under the alternative system might be possible.
Therefore the instances I give will be instances under the £500 limit assessment, and to which the alternative system does not apply. I take instances of free licensed houses. I find in a case at Ipswich the present duty is £35, the new duty, under this Bill, £125, an increase of 250 per cent. I think if you work that out you will find that the licensee in the case of that free house will for the current year, which will end in July, and for the next
340
year, which will be in October, pay a sum of £180 more than the £70 which he would normally pay for those two years. I take another free house at Kingston where the duty at present is £45, the duty under the Bill £210, and pursuing the same method of calculation, that works out to something like £330. I confess I have not checked all those figures very carefully in detail, but I imagine they will not be found very far out. In a case at Marylebone, the present duty is £40, the new amount £162, and the extra amount on the two years £250. In a Birmingham case the present duty is £40, the new duty £150, and the difference £180. In a case in my own city of Sheffield, the present duty is £40, the new duty £225, and the difference in the two years £370. All those are cases in which the alternative system of assessment is not possible, and they are all free houses. If you come to the case of beerhouses, although the actual amount of the increase is less, still the proportionate increase is very much more. There is one beerhouse in Sheffield where the difference amounts to 1,000 per cent., and there are many others which can be quoted in this way. There is a Leeds case where the difference comes to 2,400 per cent., and the total increase to something like £170, and another with the same percentage, and where the gross difference in the two years totals £194. In a case in Cardiff of a beerhouse with a wine licence the difference comes to no less than 3,650 per cent., and an actual rise from £8 on the two years to no less than £300.
I know it is not in order to argue the merits of the Licence Duties now, but the point to which I would draw attention is the extraordinary hardship of collecting these very large sums within so very short a period. There has been no certainty with regard to these duties. It is well known that the actual certainty that these duties would be collected has been only a certainty for a very short time. Personally I think the injustice is the same whether those who have to pay are rich or poor in this respect, but of course in the case of breweries the actual incidence of the injustice is less severe on them than in the case of free houses. The instances I have given are of free houses. The injustice and hardship is very great in the tied houses, but it is absolutely crushing in the case of free houses. What can the licensees of free houses do when they are suddenly called on to pay these enormous sums? One of two things will happen;

341
either they will come to an end in many cases, or they will rush to the breweries, and become tied houses on almost any terms. Those very evils, if they be evils, of tied houses, which hon. Members opposite have been accustomed to denounce, will under this exorbitant system of double taxation within a very short time become accentuated to a great degree. I do feel, even if an increase is necessary, that the procedure is harsh, arbitrary, and unjust in the extreme, and really is not necessary because you can get the same amount of money by extending the period, and the payment at any rate within the limits of the present financial year. In fact I believe it would be better for the revenue, because if you drive these men to despair obviously they will not attempt to keep their licences; and they will go under unless they can get some brewer to float them on. Many of those breweries will have to pay enormous duties, and will not be in a position to pay for fresh licences. The result will be that the Exchequer will lose rather than gain. But apart from the point of view of the Exchequer, I think it will be a great hardship on these men themselves. I speak for all classes of licence-holders, but I would direct special attention to the case of the free houses. There are thousands of these free tenants, many of whom will be exposed to greater burdens than those who have somebody behind them to fall back upon, hard as their case is also. I do not believe hon. Members opposite in voting these Licence Duties realise the hardship they are inflicting. Many of these men have not taken to the business from love of it; from one circumstance or another they have had to take over the houses, and as they have conducted the business honestly under the law I submit that hon. Members opposite should be as indulgent to them in the operation of the law as their principles will allow. To ask for this mitigation is not to ask for much. Many of these men will be ruined right out if you do not allow this slight alleviation. I cannot understand how supporters of the Government can broaden their philacteries on Sundays when by their votes they are causing the ruin of many honest families. As some slight alleviation of what I regard as a grievous injustice I beg to move.
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: I join in the appeal of my hon. Friend for some little generosity towards these unfortunate licence-holders, who by the Budget are placed in the position of having to find an
342
enormous sum of money within the next few months. My hon. Friend's Amendment proposes that the period for the payment of the retrospective taxation should be the month of December. I myself have an Amendment on the Paper suggesting 10th October. My reason for taking that date was that the existing licences, in England at all events, granted in October last expire on 10th October this year. An announcement was made last night by the Postmaster-General that with regard to the payment which in ordinary circumstances would be due in advance for licences from 10th October next, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes, having regard to the heavy burdens placed upon these people, to take the payment not all at once in October, but in a series of instalments spread over the financial year. That leads me to think that the Government would view with reasonable favour a proposal to postpone the payment of the retrospective duty, at all events, until 10th October. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to ask in view of the enormous liability which is being placed upon these people— a liability which I do not think it will be possible for many of them to meet, and certainly not if two payments of the kind are exacted within such a short period.
It would be out of order to deal with the tax itself, or to propose any reduction, but it is in order within the limits of these cases to which we are now referring to deal with the time and the manner in which this payment should be made. What is the position from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own showing? He expects £2,100,000 to be paid on 13th June. Where are the funds to come from? My hon. Friend dealt with the case of the free houses. These people are in a parlous condition. Many of them will not find it possible to meet this charge; the burden will be too excessive to be borne unless they can get out of it by some such method as my hon. Friend suggested. But one of the peculiarities with which we have to deal in this proposal is that under a system which has prevailed in England, especially for many a long year, you have large aggregations of public-houses in the hands of single corporations. There is collected in the hands of the great brewers throughout England large aggregations of public-houses, the Licence Duties of which in the aggregate amount to a very large sum of money. You have placed upon the people who have put a tie upon those houses the obligation of finding the difference

343
between the old duty and the new; they will have to find that difference in June, and they will have to find it again in October, or in such a way as may be decided upon. Where is the money to be obtained? Every shilling of property which these corporations possess is in almost every instance mortgaged to their debenture holders. They have not a shilling of property to offer their bankers for any money they may wish to borrow to meet this charge. They can only get the money by in some way increasing the profits of their business — by increasing their prices, by reducing their quality, or by some other method of that kind. That is not open to them at the present moment? The endeavour of the brewers in London last year to meet the position with which they were faced by increasing the prices of their beer by something like 6s. a barrel resulted in a reduction of their turnover by 15 per cent. When the Lords suspended the Budget they were only too glad to take off the additional sum, because the reduction of their trade cost them a great deal more than the 6s. a barrel. So that they are perfectly unable to make any provision in that way against these duties. They have had a depressed trade since, and they are at the present moment in a worse position than they have been at any period since the corporations were floated and became limited liability companies. In the interests of the revenue, therefore, if the Government do not wish to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, as they have to a large extent done in the case of whisky, they should make the passage of the money from these people to the Treasury coffers as easy as possible. That certainly will not be done under the proposals of the Bill. Everyone realises that there will be a great struggle on the part of every licence-holder to meet the duties in the first instance. They will do their best to preserve the licences of these houses, and they will make great sacrifices in the endeavour, in the hope that even the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he realises the havoc he is working and the grossly unfair burden he is placing upon these people, will himself propose to modify the burden in the next Budget and, to some extent, ease the difficulty he has created. Some of the licence-holders will succeed in their attempt; some, no doubt, will fail; but surely it is not too much to ask that within the period which I suggest they should be given time to turn round, and, what is
344
very important, that there should be time given to the authorities to make some kind of alternative valuation. The difficulty in that is very great. The Bill in this respect is not a finished article. While it states that there is to be an alternative licence value, it does not say how that is to be arrived at. Under those circumstances a little time is necessary—a month is no use at all—to go into that question. I think the Postmaster-General will not contradict me when I say that it is not a question of easy settlement. In all probability the individual cases will have to be considered apart. There will have to be separate consideration of the factors which go to make up the annual value. If, therefore, payment is postponed till 10th October there will be a chance for those concerned in the case of the larger houses making an arrangement as to whether they will take the option or not. It is no easy matter. The whole position is wrapped in complete and Cimmerian darkness. No one has the least idea what the alternative value may be. In many cases there will be no value at all. In many cases a third of the licence value, if that be the option, will be of no use at all, because the assessable amount upon which the Licence Duty will be assessed will be very much larger in the case of the option than in the case of the rateable value. So that on many grounds—on the ground of fairness, on the ground of a reasonable generosity—though there is mightly little generosity in these taxes— I think we are entitled to ask the Government to consider this proposal fairly and make some further concession than they propose to do in the Bill. I do not know what their views are on the subject. I do-not know whether they mean to have their pound of flesh out of these unfortunate people. I hope not. Certainly, I do think, in the interest of the revenue, apart from any other consideration, that they will be much more likely to get the bulk of the £2,100,000 asked for on 10th October than they are likely to receive it if asked for on 30th June. There are many other points in connection with this matter which might be considered. I do not know that it is necessary to bring them forward now. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night, in observing that there had been no discussion on these Licence Duties when the Resolutions were before the House, was good enough to say that I had spoken about them in a casual manner.

345
Well, I have never used very extreme language in this House when dealing with this question. I have avoided it with great care.
I have never accused the Chancellor of the Exchequer of vindictiveness. I have only accused him of ignorance. I do not believe he has any idea of the terrible hardships which these taxes are going to inflict. I do not believe that he has ever taken the trouble to realise what these hardships will be. We have given him figures and cases over and over again. They have fallen from him like water off a duck's back. They never made the slightest impression. Although I have not used strong language, I do think that ignorance of that kind on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is almost criminal. I say that advisedly. I am very sorry that so little consideration has been given to the matter by this House. I believe the whole scale has been adopted in a haphazard manner from some extreme fanatic on the other side. Nothing could be more ridiculous than the proposal or the idea. It has been exploded by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield in his book, and by anyone who knows anything about the matter. It has been exploded before this Committee in a way to which I have already alluded. We say that while acquiescence in what we ask, will relieve the burden in many cases, that it is an appalling thing that the House of Commons can allow itself to vote in a matter of this kind at the dictation of a Minister who has never taken the trouble to make himself acquainted with the terrible hardships he is going to inflict.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): To follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in reference to many of his observations into the merits of the case, and to discuss this duty which has been imposed, would be, as I take it, out of Order. I quite appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was entitled to some extent to rely upon what had already been in the Bill for the purpose of making his point upon the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, and also the further date of October which is involved in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs, in order that he might make out the hardship upon which the whole argument rested. May I point out to hon. Members, apart altogether from discussion, the merits of these duties which will be imposed—and which
346
is, according to my view, travelling far beyond what we are entitled to do on this Amendment—the sole question which is involved upon this Amendment is as to whether there should be a postponement of the date of payment in order, as it has been urged—and if I may say so, very forcibly—that there should be some mitigation of what has been described as a hardship. Let me for a moment remind the Committee of this, which is a very pertinent consideration on these Amendments. The fullest possible notice has been given to the duties which are going to be charged. It cannot certainly be said that anyone can be taken by surprise by the imposition of these duties.
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: I did not say that at all. I did not complain of lack of notice. I only complained that the means those concerned naturally took to protect themselves against the duties had resulted in hopeless failure.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Gentleman has misapprehended me. I was dealing with the point I was for the purpose of meeting the grievance which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield made of the hardship of collecting these duties at the dates which are mentioned in the Bill now before the Committee. Not that we complained of anything the hon. Gentleman had said, but I desired to remind the Committee where we stand in regard to the dates which are now stated in the Bill. They are dates which have been altered in order to meet the new circumstances. They are dates which are easier for the licence-holders than the dates which appeared in the last Bill. They are dates which have been purposely fixed in order to give them the opportunity of making these additional payments which have to be met by the increased duty. And I must further remind the Committee of this: That the statement was made quite explicitly by the Prime Minister that all these taxes would be re-enacted. Therefore, in any event, there is no question between us of any notice. Notice having already been given for some considerable time, it might well be urged that there is no hardship upon the licence-holder who is now going to be taxed. He has had a very full and lengthy notice, and has been able to keep money up to the present which otherwise he would have had to pay. It might well be said that that creates no hardship upon him. Let me further remind the Committee

347
of this important factor—that the reason why the tax will only be collected at the present time is, as we all know, in consequence of the action taken by the House of Lords towards the end of last year.
This necessitated the readjustment of the dates on which the Licence Duties shall be paid. What is the whole grievance that has been made by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment and the hon. Gentleman who seconded it? It really rests upon nothing else than this, that it is a large sum for a man to be called upon to pay over upon 30th June, or 1st October as the case may be, and that, therefore, there should be some mitigation of this hardship, and the proposal is made that the dates should be altered. This point has already been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General in the speech he made last night, when he pointed out that care would be taken that there should be power to make this payment by instalments.
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: The October payment?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Yes, certainly for the new period.
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: That has nothing to do with this Amendment.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It involves the point made by the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, and I am meeting that. All we have to consider is that he will have to pay at this moment the duty which it was thought he would have to pay last June; and in respect to the new payments the statement is made that every consideration will be given by way of instalments, so that the licence-holder may have his burden eased and the hardship mitigated. Having regard to these facts, it does seem a little difficult to appreciate the hardship relied upon and dwelt upon by the hon. Gentlemen who proposal and seconded this Amendment. There are provisions already in the Bill dealing with some of the matters upon which the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs expatiated. He made reference to the difficulties with reference to annual licensing value, but there is a provision for that already in the Bill.
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: I know that.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It would be better when this is referred to and relied upon as a hardship that the hon. Member
348
pointed to the provisions in the Bill in respect of the annual licence value which mitigate the difficulties to which he refers. I am only calling attention to it for the purpose again of meeting the observation made by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs.
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: What I said was that it would take time to arrive at it. There is a proposal that a portion of the Licence Duty should be paid. I merely used it as an argument in favour of the completion of the transaction in October.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Under the Schedule there is provision to this effect. It deals with the particular point where the annual licence value has not been certified, and says:—
"(b) Where the annual licence value has not been certified, the licence shall be granted on a provisional payment of the minimum duty payable under this provision, or of one-fifth of the full duty, whichever is the higher, and, upon the annual licence value being certified, the duty shall be adjusted by the return of any over-payment or by the recovery, as a debt to His Majesty, of any sum by which the amount paid falls short of the amount which is found to be payable."
That is the point of my reference to the Schedule. I submit we deal with this complaint about hardship both by provisions in the Bill and by the promises made by the Postmaster-General when he spoke of the instalments that will become payable.
9.0 p.m.
I quite appreciate that the payment in October is a matter which is outside the narrow consideration of this Amendment, but of course reference has been made to it, and reliance has been placed upon it for the purpose of increasing the hardships which will nave to be borne by the licence-holder. Here again in determining this matter you must also consider what is very important that is the statement made about the payment by instalments. I will not travel into the more technical grounds which are really involved in the Amendments of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield. He frankly recognised it would not be possible for the Committee to accept. It would have necessitated a redrafting, which would be quite impossible in the present state of affairs, and all that he could possibly hope from this Amendment was that when the matter came up on a future occasion some means might

349
be taken for making the very kind of statement that was made by the Postmaster-General yesterday.
Mr. JAMES HOPE:I fully realise if this Amendment was passed it would possibly cause some inconvenience in the future which would have to be met, but it could not arise until October, and it could be formally put right in the next financial proposal.
Mr. GEORGE CAVE: We all recognise the technical objection to the form of the Amendment, but I think it is desirable that under the Amendment we should discuss the question as to whether a portion of this retrospective duty could not be postponed, at all events, until some day later than 30th June. It is quite possible to postpone the payment for at all events three months without affecting the machinery of the Bill. Dealing with the matter on the merits the Solicitor-General said, I think quite correctly, that the purpose of the Amendment is to put off the evil day—to postpone for a period the payment of the retrospective extra duties for the year now coming. That sum was put at £2,000,000 extra as the amount payable for this Bill in the current year. The answer given to the obvious hardship is this: "There is no hardship, because you knew all about it last December. The Prime Minister gave you notice that not a comma of the Bill would be altered." Is that treating the taxpayer fairly? The Prime Minister, who is going to dissolve, says if he comes back into power he is going to impose certain duties. Is that giving the taxpayer full notice that the duties will be imposed? In December last who could prophesy that the Government would again return to power? And even when the Government was returned to power, who could prophesy that the Budget was going to be passed? I do not think the Government themselves knew that so recently as three weeks ago. If you had asked the question whether the Budget was going to pass or not a very short time ago you would have had a very ambiguous answer. Is it fair to treat the taxpayer as if he knew at the last election that the present Government were going to remain in office? I think that disposes of the argument of the Solicitor-General. It is obvious that people in this trade do not save up for this purpose. They make both ends meet as best they can, but they do not have a large margin for contingencies. They do not save, and the consequence will
350
be that you will find these men will be in very great difficulties to find this very large sum of money. How could they save enough to pay this duty? You say they could have charged more to their customers. May I remind the House that that was tried in London with very indifferent success, because it reduced the sales, and, therefore, there was no increased income. Whatever warning may have been given, it was not reasonably possible for these men to provide in advance for the large sum which they will now be called upon to pay. You are going to impose taxes to the amount of £2,000,000 at the end of April to be paid at the end of June, and this Amendment is to give them a little longer time to pay. I do not think any real answer has been given to this proposal.
We are always being taunted with giving figures which have not been verified. I have some figures to-day which have been very carefully verified by those upon whom I can rely. There is one case where the Licence Duty is now £60, the assessment £900, and the new duty £450, making the increase to be paid at the end of June £390. The total income of this man is £1,500, so that he must pay one-fourth of his income away on 30th June. The sum of £390 is a very heavy fine on 30th June, and I think you might give him a little longer time to provide the money. There is another case where the Licence Duty is £55, the assessment £675, and the increase of the Licence Duty is £282. The total income is £460, out of which this man must pay £282 increase, reducing his net income to £178, or considerably less than half his present income. What is the answer to a case of that kind?
The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I have given the hon. and learned Member the answer at least twenty times. In the cases he has quoted they will not pay those duties, because they can be assessed on the lower valuation in proportion to the trade they do.
Mr. CAVE: In these particular cases the point has been looked into from that standpoint, and no relief is given by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman always assumes that this option is going to be beneficial in all cases. The fine has to be paid in these cases, and it is a very heavy one. We are told there is to be some concession in the next Budget in the shape of payment by instalments, but we are not told when it is going to be, and, therefore, we cannot rely upon it now. The point we

351
are dealing with is the urgent one of the payment on 30th June, and I do not think the least answer has been given to the arguments that further time ought to be given for these very heavy payments. The purpose of Clause 53 is equally obtained whether the date is 30th September or 30th June, because the object is to get the duty for the current year in some way or other. This point has not been thoroughly met by the Government. This House has to consider whether it is fair treatment of the men who have to find the money to insist upon payment within three months.
Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I should like to refer to one point which has been omitted in this discussion. It has been said that brewery companies have not had ample notice of the increase in these duties. Anyone who will look through brewery company reports that have been issued during the last few months will see frequent allusions to the fact that they were anticipating and making a fair provision for the additional taxes. I have gone through a good number of these reports, and I find a very large sum in many cases put to reserve funds. I also find additional sums have been carried forward, and, in fact, I do not think there is any doubt that brewery companies, as good business men, have not failed to make provision which might occur to anybody, of putting by such sums as would meet this new taxation when imposed.
Sir F. BANBURY: But that is income which ought to go to the shareholders?
Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I will take a case showing the weight of these new burdens on a particular brewery company. We have had from the other side the fallacy of extreme figures over and over again, and although the hon. and learned Member for Kingston is exceedingly fair and reasonable in his arguments, yet in the Debate which has taken place he has pressed extreme figures to a point which is not quite fair. Take the last case he has given, namely, that of a house which has its Licence Duty extended from £60 to £450. He says that case will get no remission or no abatement by being charged on the licence value, or on its compensation value, as it used to be called. We know this particular house cited is doing a very large alcoholic trade, and a very short calculation will show that the value of the licence, apart from
352
the structure, could not be less than £13,500. I do not think that in the case of a house doing that kind of alcoholic trade you ought to expect the owner to escape with the old duty it has had in the past, or that it is an exaggerated claim on the part of the State, whose restrictive action has given to this house an immense amount of trade which it would not otherwise have had, to impose the increase in the Licence Duty which is now proposed.
Mr. CAVE: The hon. Gentleman is rather arguing the general point of the amount of the duty. I put the case on the question of the date.
The CHAIRMAN: I was just going to point out to the hon. Member that he is arguing the general question. He must confine himself to the Amendment.
Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I was referring to the particular case which the hon. Member brought forward, and on which he based his statement of the hardship in virtue of which he asked for some mitigation. The particular case which I was going to quote is that of a brewery company which carried forward £39,000, which paid 15 per cent, on its ordinary shares, which put about £7,000 more to special reserve, and which said the extra taxation which it would have to meet was between £2,000 and £3,000. I do not wish to argue the case further, but I do think the other side has put forward extreme cases. These brewery companies and various licence-holders have known perfectly well that this taxation will very likely fall upon them, and they have made reasonable provision. When you take into account the fact that after all there is to be no remission to the Income Tax-payers and that the Land Duties are to be dated backwards, it does not seem to me to be unfair or unjust to also claim that in the course of the two years these duties shall be payable by this particular trade.
The other side have again persistently ignored the fact that in all these heavy cases of duty which they quote there is the provision to pay by instalments already in the Bill, and we understand it is going to be extended to other cases besides. We were told last night it was to be done in the next Budget. The case has been put of breweries with large aggregates of licensed houses. It is said that a brewery company which owns a number of houses has a claim for this remission of the extra three months. I

353
would like to point out that of the 87,000 licensed houses in the Kingdom, 50,000 at least are under £50 annual value. In those cases there will be very slight additional taxation, and in 5 per cent, of the cases there will a year's remission. It is therefore only in a minority of the cases where brewery companies hold aggregates of licensed houses that they will have to meet the additional charge. I think, therefore, the general case of hardship has not been established, and all you get is a general sense of unfairness produced by the quotation of extreme cases which have to be averaged with the other cases where no additional duty is charged. This degree of injustice and unfairness has really, therefore, not been properly established.
Mr. JOHN GRETTON: Every speech we have listened to from the other side tonight has been based upon the old fallacy that there is some extraordinary profit made by the licensed trade out of which any demand of the Government can be met. We on this side of the House have again and again given cases, which hon. Members opposite never attempt to meet except by saying they are extreme cases, showing exactly the opposite. They will not understand that the licensed trade, as the figures of their own Government show and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley {Sir Thomas Whit-taker) argued last night, is a declining trade with a diminishing output. They still persist in the argument that it can meet any demand the Government makes upon it. Really, in a very large number of cases throughout the kingdom, there is not the money to pay this tax. It may, of course, be borrowed, but in a large number of cases there is not the security on which to borrow the money.
I can assure the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Charles Roberts) that the case he quoted is not the average case. Hon. Members opposite accuse us of taking extreme cases, but I say, with my knowledge and experience, that the case he has quoted is an extreme case, and does not represent the general position. The right hon. Member for the Spen Valley argued last night that a very small proportion of profits will be required to meet this enormously increased taxation. For a considerable number of years I kept a record of the profits made by the brewing trade. In 1898 breweries were making a little over 5 per cent, on their capital, but in the year ending 31st December, 1908, those profits on a much decreased
354
capital had shrunk to a bare 4 per cent. The total sum which is payable to all the debenture holders was only £6,000,000, and the Government on their own confession are going to take a very large proportion of that, because they mean to extract from the brewery companies chiefly some £2,100,000.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is again debating the general question.
Mr. GRETTON: I was trying to convey to hon. Members opposite that the money to meet these vastly increased charges is not immediately available, and many companies as well as retail traders will be in an inextricable, difficulty and will not be able to meet the charge on 30th June. The case of the retail trader has not been met. The only argument offered was that of the Postmaster-General, who said that in cases of high licences they will have some mitigation under the Schedule of the Bill. We have not been able, with the most careful investigation, to find that particular exemption and mitigation, or where the reduction of duty is to be effective. It is still a myth in the air, and experience is necessary before that particular Clause can be declared to be of any value to anyone engaged in the licensed trade. It appears to me, and I think to everyone who carefully considers this subject, that there is a very real grievance. There is not the money which can be made immediately available on 30th June in a very large number of cases to meet these increased duties. The Government would be better able to obtain the full amount they estimate if they postponed the date of collection. They can well afford to do so, and the argument used that in some Budget which the Government hope to introduce at some period which they have not announced they are going to make some arrangement about payment by instalments which they have not explained has nothing to do with this particular Budget, and the payments demanded under it on 30th June. That extreme pressure we ought to avoid. If the Government wish to drive a number of persons engaged in the retail trade into ruin, they are going the best way to work it by trying to enforce their demands on the 30th June. They might show some sense of consideration for the taxpayers from whom they intend to tax this duty.
Mr. GEORGE FABER: It is only too apparent that the Government do not intend to make any concession in this

355
matter. They have hardened their heart like Pharaoh. After all, the question is a narrow one, and there is no need to go into the merits. All we ask is that a certain period of time should be allowed during which the duties shall not be collected. What are the new duties? Two millions at the end of June. In addition to the old Licence Duty a sum of £2,000,000 more will then have to be collected, and again at the beginning of October another £4,000,000 will be collected. Therefore no less than £6,000,000 sterling will be collected from the licensed trade in the country between now and the beginning of October. That is a tremendous sum of money to ask from any trade, however profitable. The argument has been adduced by the Solicitor-General that the trade knew, through the introduction of the Budget last year, that these new duties would be imposed. But you must take human nature as it is, and there was a feeling that the new duties would not come into force; therefore the members of the trade did not keep in their banks a sum representing the new duties. After all, they are not all men who keep their money in their pockets or at their bankers. References have been made to the case of Whitbread and Buxton's brewery company. The increased Licence Duties there represent over £80,000, and there is the manufacturers' Licence Duty of £15,000, thus totalling £104,000. That is an almost prohibitive sum.
Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I am almost certain that these figures were quoted and that they did not allow for the abatements.
Mr. GEORGE FABER: I am not going into the question of abatements. Nobody knows how they are worked out. I prefer to take the duties as they are under the new scale. Whitbread and Buxton's Brewery will have to pay £104,000 extra as Licence Duty and Manufacturers' Duty. That is a tremendous sum to ask of anybody, and when you come from companies to individuals, take the case of the free licence-holder. The duty will often be extraordinarily high, and he has no brewer to fall back upon; he has to find the extra money himself. The Solicitor-General says he knew that would happen when the Budget was passed. Yes; but he probably hoped that the Budget would not pass, but it will, and when it comes into law he will not have the money to
356
meet the new duties. All we ask for is time. Surely we have a claim for that? May I refer to another point? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed the new Licence Duties-by his Budget of last year, in his Budget speech he said that he intended that the publicans should get an advantage out of the extra Whisky Duty, and he intended that they should recoup themselves by putting up their prices for whisky. He intended that the publicans should reap such an advantage from the extra duty that they should thereby recover the increased Licence Duty. His words were:—
"This is an experiment which enables the retailer to take it off the consumer. I have done that deliberately because I have not thought it fair in oases of this kind to put on the tax in a way that would embarrass trade and make it very difficult for them to pate it on to the consumer. Here they are able to do it. It is fairer to them, and it not only enables them to pass it on to the consumer, but it enables the retailer to charge practically his increased Licence Duty upon the whisky in most cases, and he is doing it."
That was the bait which the Chancellor of the Exchequer threw out to the trade, but, as a matter of fact, there is no increased profit to be made out of whisky. The trade have the whole Licence Duties to meet and no extra whisky money to meet them with. Surely they deserve some sort of consideration, but I fear we shall meet with no mercy in this matter.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I do not wish to discuss the question whether or not a great loss has been incurred owing to this particular form of taxation. But by acceding to the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me giving an extension of time down to October they may possibly do something to meet the difficulty. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln put the case from his point of view in an extremely fair manner. He endeavoured to argue that the cases cited by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston were exaggerated. I have no doubt that he put forward facts which he sincerely believed were within his knowledge, but having a good deal of experience of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston, I must say I do not think that there is any Member in this House who is less likely than he is to exaggerate his case. Therefore, I am prejudiced because I start with the belief that what my hon. Friend says is absolutely correct. The hon. Member for Lincoln, as I understood him, cited the figures of a brewery company which he knew had made something like £40,000, or, at any rate, a large sum of money, and well knowing that they might be sub-

357
ject to this duty they had put aside £2,000 to provide for it. And he seemed to think that under these circumstances the Committee might take the particular instance which he cited and those cited by my hon. Friend, and then assume that everybody was equal. But may I point out to the hon. Member for Lincoln that if he happened to have an A. B. C. shop, and out of that shop he had made £40,000 in one year, and put aside £2,000 for a possible duty upon it, it would be no consolation to my hon. and learned Friend if he had only earned £2,000 by his trade and had to pay £40,000 duty. It would be no comfort to him that the hon. Member opposite was in a better position, but that was what his argument amounted to, that because one particular brewer was in a fortunate position all the other brewers, who were in an unfortunate position, were to console themselves because the other brewer whose case has been mentioned was fortunate. I do not believe that the brewery company whose case was cited by the hon. Member for Lincoln is going to divide their gain with the brewers mentioned by my hon. Friend who have not been fortunate.
What I rose to do was to ask the Government to consider a suggestion in the face of these conflicting statements, because I do not wish to cast any reflection upon the hon. Member for Lincoln or to doubt his figures, and there may be some persons engaged in the brewing trade who, by superior intelligence, will be able to avoid the loss put upon them by this duty. But, on the other hand, there are a large number of people, as instanced by my hon. Friend, who will not be in that fortunate position, and I should suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should postpone the collection of this duty from June to December, or at all events October. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General (Mr. Herbert Samuel) comes of a business family, and will agree with me in what I am saying, that if there is no doubt about securing the revenue, it would be wise to defer the collection. I presume that all he desires is to secure the revenue, and he has no arrière pensée against anybody, and does not want to inflict a penalty upon people, and if he only wants to collect the revenue he should take into account the fact that in view of the statements made it is inevitable that some hardship will be inflicted by the insistence that these taxes shall be paid in June. If that is done, there will be no opportunity for recoupment or for
358
measures being taken to find the money, and this being so, it would be better to give the opportunity provided by the Amendment, and to defer this tax till October. The object of the right hon. Gentleman being to secure the money, would it not be better for him to delay the collection of his tax for three or four months, and make sure of getting the money, or, at any rate, of giving the people concerned a chance of paying it, rather than to insist upon it now? The revenue will not suffer, the money will be paid to the Government in the course of the year, and the result will be satisfactory to everyone. When, however, we hear so much of the triumph of Free Trade finance, it seems strange that the Government cannot defer the collection of a certain amount of revenue till October. It is not at all likely that I shall occupy the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, but if I ever was in that position, and I found that I could not defer the collection of my revenue from June to October, I certainly should not say that my system of finance had triumphed. I appeal to the business instincts of the Postmaster-General, which I am sure are just as strong in him as they are in the rest of his family, to look upon this Amendment from a business point of view and endeavour to collect the revenue in a manner which will meet with the least possible resistance.
Mr. WALTER LONG: I wish to say a word or two before this Debate closes, as this is the last time that we shall have an opportunity of saying anything with regard to these particular proposals of the Government. The suggestion in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend behind me is that there should be a delay granted before these heavy additional payments have to be made. I agree with the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) that the case against this Amendment, and indeed the whole case in support of the Bill, has been put to-night with absolute fairness by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts). I have often wished, when I have heard him and some other advocates of the great reform with which he is identified, that everybody would put it with the same clearness with which he has spoken. Notwithstanding the fact that that opinion is shared by everybody in the House, what do we find? We find the hon. Gentleman answering my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) by the argument

359
that the case put by him is an extreme one, and what does the hon. Member for Lincoln then do? He gives another case, which I think everybody must admit, and he will admit himself, is, if not extreme, not in any way a general case, and I am sure he will not question the fact that there are a large number of people who will be affected by this new Licence Duty who will not come under the description which he has given in regard to one particular brewery. In this respect this particular tax illustrates the fallacy of the position of the Government. This has been recommended to the country as the Poor Man's Budget, which is going to tax the rich for the benefit of the poor. Hon. Gentlemen argue that rich people can bear an extra burden of this kind, but they ignore altogether the majority of cases in which the resources are insufficient to bear the burden without very considerable strain and difficulty. Then the hon. Member told us that provision is to be made in the next Budget to enable payments to be made by instalments, and he and others have argued that the history of his Budget has been such as to make it almost compulsory upon licence-holders to make provision for this new tax. As far as the next Budget is concerned, I do not attach much importance to the assurances which have come from the other side of the House. In the first place no one knows who is going to introduce and pass the next Budget—we are not even allowed to know when the next Budget is going to be introduced. We have humbly asked to be told, and only yesterday I asked a question as to when the Budget statement will be made, but the Prime Minister could not tell us. In face of that fact I do not think we ought to be asked to attach very much importance to the suggestion that we are going to get relief in the next Budget.
But what becomes of the next Budget argument when the speeches we have heard, even from hon. Gentlemen opposite, have not attempted to deny the fact that there may be, and probably will be, hardship in some cases? We are told that those people upon whom the new burden wall fall ought to have made provision. Will not exactly the same statement be made when the new Budget is brought in? The concession will be something like the concession on the Land Taxes, something which will do nothing for those who are pressed, and when they raise their grievances they will be told "You know
360
what passed on the discussion of the late Budget, and you have no right to ask Parliament to relieve you from the burden which you ought to have prepared yourself to bear." The whole of this Debate is like the one which preceded it. Hon. Members opposite are unable to deny that there is a grievance, and that there may be a mistake in the phraseology of the Bill, or in the effect which it will have upon those who pay the taxes. The Committee stage is to conclude to-night, and the Third Reading to-morrow. That means that there is to be no Report stage. The Government resist Amendments, not because their case is a good one, and not because a grievance is not made out, but because it will not fit in with those closure by compartment arrangements under which the whole of the legislation for which the present Government are responsible is apparently to be passed.
The Postmaster-General said he had answered my hon. and learned Friend twenty times. I thing I have heard him give the same answer more than twenty times. The answer is, "Your figures are wrong." The Postmaster-General is a distinguished Member of the Government, but, able though he may be, he is not infallible, and to tell us that our figures are wrong and his figures are right, and that he does not think it necessary to pay any attention to the statements we make, is not argument, but simply denial. We have argued this with the Postmaster-General frequently in the last Parliament, and we stated what I state now, and what is absolutely correct, that these figures which have been presented to the Committee time out of number are not cooked figures, produced in order to set up a case which does not really exist. They have been submitted to the most microscopic examination. They have been examined by people who are competent to test them and ascertain their accuracy. I have no personal knowledge of these questions, but I have myself discussed them with those on whose behalf the figures are put forward, and, whatever authority the Postmaster - General may have for his figures, there is at least equal authority for the figures which are put forward by my hon. and learned Friend and other of my hon. Friends who have pressed their case on the Government. Therefore, simply to answer us, as the Postmaster-General has done for the twentieth time, with exactly the same statement, that our figures are

361
incorrect, is not to make any answer to those who present the case or to those outside the House on whose behalf the case is presented. Once again we come to this conclusion, that a case of hardship and injustice has been made out.
I do not think anyone doubts that there is a very large class of people in the country upon whom you are going to lay, by these taxes, a very heavy burden. All that we are asking by the Amendment is not that you should lighten that burden, not that you should get rid of it altogether, but postpone for a very short time the period at which it will come into existence. Surely it is a moderate proposal, and if it were not for closure by compartments, if we were debating this under ordinary conditions, and if it were the desire of the Government, as it generally has been the desire of Governments, to meet reasonable criticisms and objections, and so frame their Bill that, while it will produce the revenue they require, it will fall with the least possible hardship upon those who have to pay it, I believe the Government would accept a moderate, reasonable, and fair Amendment of this kind. They cannot do it because it will upset the whole plan of their legislation. Therefore injustice is to be done to people who are as worthy of fair treatment as any other class in the country, not because a case has been made out against them, but because the exigencies of the position of the Government make it impossible for them to accept the Amendment. It is only another proof of the way in which legislation is now being carried through this Parliament, and I believe the Government will in the end get their reward, because, if legislation is passed in this way and contains any such proposals, they will react on those who have been responsible for them.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government must have been convinced of the reason and moderation of the Amendment, and resisted it only because the Rules of Procedure forbid its acceptance. Indeed, that is not so. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman quite sincerely that that consideration has never entered into the mind of the Government. As a matter of fact it need not do so, for the guillotine cuts short the Report stage as well as the Committee stage. In any case we regard the Amendment as really having no justification behind it. In the vast majority of cases the Licence Duties to be imposed involve either no increase at all, or only
362
a very small increase. There is, however, a very considerable number of houses where the increase is considerable, and there are some where the Licence Duties have in the past been absurdly low in proportion to the trade done in the house and in proportion to its rate-able value, and there the increase of the Licence Duty is large. Today, however, we are not discussing, and we are not entitled to discuss, the weight of these duties, or the justice or the injustice of the burden that they impose. We are only considering whether it is right and reasonable to require that on 30th June, 1910, the duties for the year 1909–10 should be paid. I would ask the Committee to look at this question of dates and to go back a little way. The Budget was introduced in April, 1909, and the trade were told that a considerable increase of Licence Duties was in contemplation. The Finance Bill was introduced, and it made provision for the increased duties to take effect on all licences granted after 1st July last year. The licences were taken up on 10th October by the ordinary retail publicans in England and Wales, and they might have been justly expected and required to pay the Licence Duties when they took up licences for the year. They were not asked to pay as the Budget did not pass. But previous to that, when it was known that it would not pass by 10th October, the date 30th November was inserted in the Bill as that on which these increased duties should be paid. Still there was a prolonged delay and prolonged discussion—I will not say obstructive discussion—on all the clauses of the Bill. Consequently, when 30th November came, the Bill still was not law. The date on which the trade were to be required to pay their duties was consequently postponed until 31st December. When 31st December came still the Finance Bill was not law. It was rejected by the House of Lords, and further delay ensued. Meantime the licensed victuallers' trade, which might have been justly called upon to pay the Licence Duties on 10th October, were able to retain this money in their pockets. The Prime Minister, in December, announced formally to the whole country that in this Budget these taxes would be re-imposed. The complaints hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have been making for a few weeks is that we have not brought on our Budget soon enough, and that we have not got it already. What an inconsistency it is for them to-night to raise their voices in

363
favour of still further delay in the collection of these duties! I think the Government, without any injustice or any inequity, were fully entitled to say at least that from the date of the passing of this Bill these duties should be collected. That would have been on 30th April or thereabouts. That date will apply to the collection of the Income Tax, the Super-tax, and almost all the other duties in the Budget. The Government have not done that. Not only has the collection of these duties been postponed, first, from 10th October to 30th November, next from 30th November to 31st December, next until after the General Election, and next until the passage of this Bill at the end of April, but now we have gone further, and we have anticipated the very claim that has been made to-day, and instead of asking for the duties to be paid on the passage of the Bill, we are allowing a further delay of two months and to have the collection on 30th June. In these circumstances I suggest to the House that there is no substance in the complaint that has been made.
10.0 P.M.
The hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) have urged that this is a mere postponement that is now proposed, and that after all it would be a very great convenience to the members of the trade. They say, "You are not foregoing revenue, and if you are really anxious to meet their convenience, you should make this concession." That is not so. It would be more than a mere postponement if you were to adopt the date 30th September. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), who moved the Amendment, very candidly admitted that the consequence of such a postponement must be that in next year's Budget there must be a further adjustment. If you postpone the collection of last year's duties to 30th September, you would not be able to collect the duties for the year 1910–11 within that financial year at all, and the consequence would be that for some years to come, possibly permanently, the collection of the duties would have to be thrown back some months, and possibly a quarter's or a half-year's revenue would ultimately be lost. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), with much sweet reasonableness and many kind words, appeared to make sure
364
of the money for the Treasury. He said, "Postpone the collection until 30th September and you will get your money collected, but on 30th June you will not be able to get it."
Sir F. BANBURY: I did not guarantee it.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: At all events, the hon. Baronet suggested that we should get more if we collected on 30th September instead of 30th June. I suggest that the opposite would be the case, and that if we postponed the collection until 30th September we should lose next year a large proportion of next year's revenue. His suggestion is, indeed, that we should surrender that revenue in order to avoid the risk of losing it. We have been told of a man who committed suicide in order to avoid being killed, and the hon. Baronet's suggestion is akin to that. The suggestion does not appeal to such business instincts as I possess. I would point out to the Committee that there is already in the Bill a provision that in any year if a licence-holder has to pay more than £60 he will only be required to pay one-half when the licence is taken out, and the other half during the remainder of the financial year. We propose in next year's Budget to extend that principle and to make it work for smaller men as well as larger men, and possibly other adjustments may be made as well. Certainly there is nothing vindictive in the dates chosen and in the course the Government have adopted. I agree with hon. Members that we should indeed be departing very widely from our duty if we asked the trade to bear a considerable burden and also collected the tax with harshness and without consideration. I think I have shown to the Committee that precisely the opposite is the case.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman said quite truly that all the greater questions connected with the Finance Bill are withdrawn from our consideration by the action of the House. That is true, but it is quite inconsistent with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when he complained that he had no opportunity of discussion, and the Chancellor interjected, "You will have plenty of opportunity to-morrow." We have no opportunity. I hope that that will be understood by the country and by the very large number of correspondents who press upon my Friends and myself that we

365
should take this opportunity of raising once more some of the hardships which this Budget is inflicting upon the taxpayer. We do not do that because we are unable; all we can do on the present occasion is to seek for these people, not any relief from the burden imposed on them, but some slight alleviation in the matter of collection, by which they may be allowed a little more time to pay the very much heavier tax which they will now have to pay than they have paid in the past. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are inconsistent in making such a demand, we who were foolish enough to expect the Prime Minister to do what he said he would do, we who were impudent enough to ask him to do what he said he would do, and to proceed as his first act in the new Parliament with the Budget. It appears that that was a gross act of impertinence and folly on our part. The Postmaster-General and those who sit behind him obviously feel a contempt for us for having placed any reliance on the Prime Minister's words, but we set more store on it than his followers and colleagues do.
But is there any inconsistency in our action? What we pressed the Government to do was to bring this Budget to an issue at once. They did not do it. They had not at the time got a majority for it. They did not know whether they could get a majority for it. They were still bargaining. They need not have bargained for so long, because what is the end of it all? Abject surrender on their part. The Prime Minister ate his words again, and accordingly now they are able to proceed with it and to pass it. But when we pressed that they should proceed with the collection of the taxes, we were pressing specially with regard to Income Tax. There is a clear differentiation between that and this. The money Lad already been to a very large extent taken out of the taxpayers' pockets. Whatever injury was to be done, whatever loss was to be suffered they had already incurred. The money was lying in the hands of bankers waiting for the Government demand, and the Government preferred to borrow it and to pay interest on it. And because we pressed upon them in that case to take the money which was waiting, which everybody was ready to pay without gross hardship, we are to be debarred from asking for a little more time for poor men who cannot pay these burdens under any circumstances, and least of all in the time allowed, without
366
the grossest hardship and injustice. The right hon. Gentleman said he cannot accept any delay in the payments for the year 1909–10 without postponing the payments for 1910–11. I do not quite know what he means, but I thought that was exactly what he had undertaken to do. He made an announcement yesterday that the Government, in order to temper the wind to the shorn lamb, would make arrangements for spreading the payments for 1910–11, as I understood, over a longer period, and now he has taken away what yesterday he offered. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I cannot exactly interpret the meaning of it, but it is one of two things: Either he takes away what he offered yesterday or what he offered yesterday was a hollow sham. Once again the Government were pretending to make concessions when in fact no real concession was either intended or made, and the only purpose at their disposal was to do the country as to their intentions.
Mr. J. W. WILSON: What has been said by the other side about tempering the wind to the shorn lamb comes very ill from a party which speaks for a body of interests who have already escaped payment of their fair taxes. The working men of England have been paying their share of taxes during the past nine months, while the interests that are proposed to be taxed under the Budget by the Income Tax, the Land Taxes, and the Licensing Taxes have been avoiding the payment of those taxes. Is it unfair to give them two months' notice to pay what they should have paid six months ago? Surely the public can judge of such complaints as have been made. I can hardly imagine how the House can sit and listen to them in patience. I have not taken much part in debate, but I do claim to know what the country feels about these taxes that have been so long delayed, taxes which might have been paid over, taxes many of which have been paid over, but have been withheld by the bankers. With regard to these License Duties, which the Government have proposed to meet by deferred payments of the extra duty, they have gone a long way, longer than they might reasonably have been expected to do, to meet the case of those who have to pay taxes that should have been paid long ago. When I hear about tempering the wind to the shorn lamb, I feel that language such as that which has been used ought not to be allowed to pass without

367
strong protest, not only from the Front Bench on this side of the House but also from those who sit behind and support the Government.
Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 296.

Division No. 64.]

AYES.

[10.15 p.m.

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

Greene, Walter Raymond

Newman, John R. P.

Adam, Major William A.

Gretton, John

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gulney, Patrick

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Attenborough, Walter Annis

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Haddock, George B.

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)/

Balcarres, Lord

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Baldwin, Stanley

Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Parkes, Ebenezer

Barnston, Harry

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton).

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

Harris, F. L. (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

Peto, Basil Edward

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

Proby, Col. Douglas James

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Quilter, William Eley C.

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Helmsley, Viscount

Rankin, Sir James

Boyton, James

Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Brackenbury, Henry Langton

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hills, John Walter (Durham)

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Ridley, Samuel Forde

Bull, Sir William James

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Burdett-Coutts, William

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Butcher, John George (York)

Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Royds, Edmund

Calley, Col. Thomas C. P.

Horner, Andrew Long

Rutherford, Watson

Carlile, E. Hilldred

Hunt, Rowland

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Cave, George

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerry, Earl of

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Keswick, William

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

Kimber, Sir Henry

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Clive, Percy Archer

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Stanier, Beville

Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Starkey, John Ralph

Courthope, George Loyd

Knett, James

Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Strauss, Arthur

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Lawson, Hon. Harry

Sykes, Alan John

Crean, Eugene

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Lewisham, Viscount

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

Llewelyn, Venables

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Duke, Henry Edward

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

Tullibardine, Marquess of

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

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Valentia, Viscount

Fell, Arthur

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm, Edgbaston)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Finlay, Sir Robert

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droitwich)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Mackinder, Halford J.

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Fleming, Valentine

Macmaster, Donald

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

Fletcher, John Samuel

M'Arthur, Charles

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Forster, Henry William

M'Calmont, Colonel James

White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc. Southport)

Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Gardner, Ernest

Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Martin, Joseph

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

Gibbs, George Abraham

Mason, James F.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Gilhooly, James

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

Gilmour, Captain John

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Yerburgh, Robert

Goldsmith, Frank

Mitchell, William Foot

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

Gordon, John

Morpeth, Viscount

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

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

Mount, William Arthur

NOES.

Abraham, William

Allen, Charles Peter

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Armitage, Robert

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Alden, Percy

Baker, Harold, T. (Accrington)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott

Barnes George N.

Hancock, John George

Nuttall, Harry

Barran Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Barry, Edward (Cork, S.)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Barton, William

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

O'Doherty, Philip

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

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

O'Dowd, John

Bentham, George Jackson

Harwood, George

Ogden, Fred

Bethell Sir John Henry

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Grady, James

Black, Arthur W.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Boland John Pius

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Malley, William

Brace, William

Hazleton, Richard

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Brigg, Sir John

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

O'Shee, James John

Brocklehurst, William B.

Henry, Charles Solomon

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Bryce, John Annan

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Higham, John Sharp

Pearce, William

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hindle, Frederick George

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Buxton C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Hodge, John

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Buxton Noel (Norfolk, North)

Holt, Richard Durning

Pirie, Duncan V.

Buxton Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Hooper, Arthur George

Pointer, Joseph

Byles, William Pollard

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Cameron, Robert

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Hudson, Walter

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

Chancellor, Henry George

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Illingworth, Percy H.

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

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Pringle, William M. R.

Clancy, John Joseph

Johnson, William

Radford, George Heynes

Clough, William

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Clynes, John R.

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydfil)

Raphael, Herbert Henry

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Rea, Walter Russell

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Reddy, Michael

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

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Keating, Matthew

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Condon Thomas Joseph

Kelly, Edward

Rees, John David

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Kemp, Sir George

Rendall, Athelstan

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Richards, Thomas

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cowan, William Henry

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich).

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Lambert, George

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Crossley, Sir William J.

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Cullinan, John

Leach, Charles

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roe, Sir Thomas

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rowntree, Arnold

Dawes, James Arthur

Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

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

Delany, William

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Devlin, Joseph

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Scanlan, Thomas

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lundon, Thomas

Schwann, Sir Charles E.

Dillon, John

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

Donelan, Captain A.

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Seddon, James A.

Doris, William

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Shackleton, David James

Duffy, William J.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sheehy, David

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M'Callum, John M.

Shortt, Edward

Edwards, Enoch

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Elverston, Harold

Manfield, Harry

Snowden, Philip

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Markham, Arthur Basil

Soares, Ernest Joseph

Esslemont, George Birnie

Spicer, Sir Albert

Falconer, James

Marks, George Croydon

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Farrell, James Patrick

Masterman, C. F. G.

Summers, James Woolley

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Meagher, Michael

Sutherland, John E.

Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Sutton, John E.

Ffrench, Peter

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Field, William

Menzies, Sir Walter

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Middlebrook, William

Tennant, Harold John

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Millar, James Duncan

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Molloy, Michael

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Molteno, Percy Alport

Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

Gibbins, F. W.

Mond, Alfred Moritz

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Gibson, James Puckering

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Toulmin, George

Gill, Alfred Henry

Mooney, John J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Glanville, Harold James

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Twist, Henry

Glover, Thomas

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Greenwood, Granville George

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Verney, Frederick William

Grenfell Cecil Alfred

Muldoon, John

Vivian, Henry

Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Wadsworth, John

Gulland John William

Muspratt, Max

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Walsh, Stephen

Hackett John

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Walters, John Tudor

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Nolan, Joseph

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Wardle, George J.

370

371

Waring, Walter

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Wing, Thomas

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Wiles, Thomas

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wilkie, Alexander

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Waterlow, David Sydney

Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Watt, Henry A.

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

White, Sir George, (Norfolk)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Whitehouse, John Howard

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

Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER moved to leave out the words "thirtieth day of June" ["cease to be in force on the 30th day of June"], and insert instead thereof the words "10th day of October."
There is a substantial difference between this Amendment and that upon which we have just voted. My hon. Friend proposed that credit for the retrospective duty should be granted licence-holders until 31st December. I propose that that credit should be granted only to 10th October, my reason being that on that date the existing licences expire in England, and the new Licence Duty to carry on the licence till 10th October next year will become payable. We have had an announcement from the Postmaster-General that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to make a rearrangement of the payments in connection with the duty, and therefore under my proposal there would be no overlapping. It is obvious that if you ask from these people within a short period such an enormous sum as the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees they will be called upon to pay, you ought to show a certain amount of generosity and give them reasonable breathing time in which to find the money. Many great corporations have in their possession an aggregation of these licences, and, having pledged practically the whole of their security to their deben
ture-holders, are not in a position to raise money to pay the tax. It is a different matter in the case of single licence-holders who may possibly manage to find the money. I beg to move.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot move his Amendment in the same line as that upon which the Committee have just divided, as we have already decided that the words shall remain in.
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER moved, after the word "period" ["for the period during which the licence has been in force"] to insert the words, "since the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and ten."
This Amendment deals with the Scottish case. The hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. G. Cave) has stated that the Scottish licence-holders have obtained an exceptional advantage from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no doubt owing to the arguments which I have used. I am afraid I cannot claim that credit. In this particular case I am asking the privilege of a further extension. They are to be asked to pay the retrospective duty from 1st. January. I now ask that they should pay it only from 1st March. I beg to move.
Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 320.

Division No. 65.]

AYES.

[10.30 p.m.

Adam, Major William A.

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Beresford, Lord Charles

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Bird, Alfred

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

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Boyton, James

Clive, Percy Archer

Attenborough, Walter Annis

Brackenbury, Henry Langton

Coates, Major Edward F.

Bagot, Captain J.

Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

Colefax, Henry Arthur

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford)

Balcarres, Lord

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

Baldwin, Stanley

Bull, Sir William James

Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Burdett-Coutts, William

Courthope, George Loyd

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Butcher, John George (York)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Butcher, S. H. (Camb. Univ.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Barnston, Harry

Calley, Col. Thomas C. P.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Craik, Sir Henry

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Crean, Eugene

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Cator, John

Dairymple, Viscount

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Cautley, Henry Strother

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Cave, George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Duke, Henry Edward

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Proby, Col. Douglas James

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Kerry, Earl of

Quilter, William Eley C.

Faber, George D. (Clapham)

Keswick, William

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

Kimber, Sir Henry

Rankin, Sir James

Falle, Bertram Godfray

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Fell, Arthur

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Finlay, Sir Robert

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Remnant, James Farquharson

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Knott, James

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Fleming, Valentine

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Ridley, Samuel Forde

Fletcher, John Samuel

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Forster, Henry William

Lawson, Hon. Harry

Rolleston, Sir John

Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Gardner, Ernest

Lewisham, Viscount

Rothschild, Lionel de

Llewelyn, Venables

Royds, Edmund

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Rutherford, William Watson

Gibbs, George Abraham

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Gilhooly, James

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

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Gilmour, Captain John

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sanderson, Lancelot

Goldsmith, Frank

Lowe, Sir F. W (Birn. Edgbaston)

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Gordon, John

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droitwich)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Greene, Walter Raymond

Mackinder, Halford J.

Stanier, Beville

Gretton, John

Macmaster, Donald

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Guiney, Patrick

M'Arthur, Charles

Starkey, John Ralph

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

Haddock, George B.

Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Mason, James F.

Strauss, Arthur

Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Sykes, Alan John

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Mitchell, William Foot

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Harris, F. L. (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

Morpeth, Viscount

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

Morrison, Captain James A.

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

Mount, William Arthur

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Healy, Timothy Michael

Newdegate, F. A. N.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

Newman, John R. P.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Helmsley, Viscount

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Nield, Herbert

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

White, Maj. G. D. (Lane. Southport)

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

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

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Hills, John Walter (Durham)

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

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

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Yerburgh, Robert

Horner, Andrew Long

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)

Hunt, Rowland

Perkins, Walter Frank

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Peto, Basil Edward

NOES.

Abraham, William

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Clancy, John Joseph

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Black, Arthur W.

Clough, William

Agnew, George William

Boland, John Pius

Clynes, John R.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bowerman, Charles W.

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Alden, Percy

Brace, William

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Allen, Charles Peter

Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

Armitage, Robert

Brigg, Sir John

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Brocklehurst, William B.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Bryce, John Annan

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Cowan, William Henry

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Barnes, George N

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

Byles, William Pollard

Crossley, Sir William J.

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Cameron, Robert

Cullinan, John

Barry, Edward (Cork, S.)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Barton, William

Chancellor, Henry George

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

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

Channing, sir Francis Allston

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Bentham, George Jackson

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Dawes, James Arthur

374

375

Delany, William

Leach, Charles

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Robinson, Sidney

Devlin, Joseph

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robson Sir William Snowden

Dilke, Rt. Hon Sir Charles

Lewis, John Herbert

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Dillon, John

Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Donelan, Captain A.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Doris, William

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Roe, Sir Thomas

Duffy, William J.

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Rowntree, Arnold

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lundon, Thomas

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

Edwards, Enoch

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Elverston, Harold

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Scanlan, Thomas

Esslemont, George Birnie

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Schwann, Sir Charles E.

Falconer, James

M'Callum, Join M.

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

Farrell, James Patrick

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Seddon, James A.

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Manfield, Harry

Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro

Markham, Arthur Basil

Shackleton, David James

Ffrench, Peter

Marks, George Croydon

Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

Field, William

Martin, Joseph

Sheehy David

Masterman, C. F. G.

Shortt, Edward

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Meagher, Michael

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Median, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Snowden, Philip

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Soames Arthur Wellesley

Gibbins, F. W.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Soares, Ernest Joseph

Gibson, James Puckering

Middlebrook, William

Spicer, Sir Albert

Gill, Alfred Henry

Millar, James Duncan

Stanley Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Glanville, Harold James

Molloy, Michael

Strachey, Sir Edward

Glover, Thomas

Molteno, Percy Alport

Summers, James Woolley

Greenwood, Granville George

Mond, Alfred Moritz

Sutherland, John E.

Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Sutton, John E.

Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

Mooney, John J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Guest, Capt. Hon. Frederick E.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Redcliffe)

Gulland, John William

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Tennant, Harold John

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Hackett, John

Muldoon, John

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Muspratt, Max

Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Hancock, John George

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Nolan, Joseph

Toulmin, George

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Nuttall, Harry

Twist, Henry

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ure, R. Hon. Alexander

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Verney Frederick William

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

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Vivian, Henry

Harwood, George

O'Doherty, Philip

Wadsworth, John

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Dowd, John

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Ogden, Fred

Walsh, Stephen

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Grady, James

Walters, John Tudor

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Walton, Joseph

Hazleton, Richard

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Malley, William

Wardle, George J.

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Waring, Walter

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Henry, Charles Solomon

O'Shee, James John

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Higham, John Sharp

Parker, James (Halifax)

Waterlow, David Sydney

Hindie, Frederick George

Pearce, William

Watt, Henry A.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Pearson, Weetman H. M.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Hodge, John

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Holt, Richard Durning

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

White, J Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Hooper, Arthur George

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Whitehouse, John Howard

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pointer, Joseph

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Hudson, Walter

Pollard, Sir George H.

Wiles, Thomas

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wilkie, Alexander

Illingworth, Percy H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

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

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Johnson, William

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

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

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

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pringle, William M. R.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Radford, George Heynes

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

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Jowett, Frederick William

Raphael, Herbert Henry

Winfrey Richard

Joyce, Michael

Rea, Walter Russell

Wing, Thomas

Keating, Matthew

Reddy, Michael

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Kelly, Edward

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Kemp, Sir George

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Rees, John David

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Kilbride, Denis

Rendall, Athelstan

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Richards, Thomas

Lambert, George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 18th April, left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Bill reported; as amended, considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 18th April; to be read the Third time to-morrow (Wednesday).

DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDS ACT (1909) AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. Whitley in the Chair.]
(In the Committee.)

CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of Number of Development Commissioners.)
"Ten" shall be substituted for "five" as the number of Development Commissioners who may be appointed under Section three of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, and one Commissioner shall retire every year, instead of every second year as provided by the said Section.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH Viscount CASTLEREAGH moved to omit the word "Ten" and to insert instead thereof the word "Six."
I am not moving this Amendment for the purpose of opposing the Bill. The time for opposition to this measure has gone by. However much we may disagree with the principle it embodies, that principle is an accepted fact, and I move merely for the purpose of amending a Bill which is practically already on the Statute Book. Naturally, I would have preferred to have inserted "five" instead of "six," so as to have reverted to what was originally intended, but I am precluded by the Rules of Order from doing so, and I therefore move to substitute "six" in order to elicit from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a little more information as to the reason why he has multiplied the number "five" by two and said there shall be ten Commissioners instead of five. We have been endeavouring for some months past to elicit information with regard to these Commissioners, but we have been unable to obtain any information whatever either from the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was asked in the last Parliament to state the names of the Commissioners, and he stated
378
that they would be given before the Bill finally left this House. The Bill finally left the House last Session in October, but we have received no information from the Prime Minister carrying out his undertaking. We are in exactly the same position now. The right hon. Gentleman last night exhibited a spirit of reticence, and was under no circumstances willing to tell us the reason why he had augmented the number of Commissioners to ten, or the names of the Commissioners. This is an additional and conclusive proof of the position which the private Member occupies in this House at the present moment. A few years ago it would have been possible, by moving the adjournment of the House, to have compelled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have given us the information we require, but he knew the Rules of the House protected him, and consequently he sat on the Front Bench and was unwilling to give us the information we desired. The reticence he exhibited last night naturally makes us believe that there must be some sinister purpose behind this. I sincerely hope he will elucidate the mystery, and tell us for what reason these five Commissioners are increased to ten, after the House has accepted the proposition that there should be five. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that there was a provision which enabled the Treasury to add to the number of the Commissioners, but an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for the Oxford University, and it was accepted by the considered judgment of the House, that the Treasury should not have the power to increase the number of the Commissioners from five. Now, without any reason whatever being given, we are told that it is the considered judgment of the Executive that the number should be increased from five to ten.
The object of having a Commission of five was, I take it, that it should be of an independent character. I believe it is possible for a body of five Commissioners to exercise more independence than a body of ten. It was also the intention that those five should be appointed by His Majesty, and not by the Treasury, so that they should occupy a more independent position by reason of their appointment in that way. The right hon. Gentleman has been told that certain action on his part was attributable to his good nature. Will he continue that good character and give us the information we are asking for?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think I explained very fully the other night my reasons for proposing to increase the number of Commissioners. I told the House it was impossible, with the number limited to five, to get together such a body as would in my judgment discharge the very varied functions to be submitted to them. I therefore thought it necessary to add a few more names in order to make this a good working, efficient Commission. I had no other reason. I had no sinister or other motive. I have explained why I could not give the names of the Commissioners.
Mr. BELLOC: Why did you offer them to the Front Opposition Bench last night?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should have thought the reason was obvious. Of course no Minister has the right to assume that the moment it tables a Bill the House of Commons is bound to accept it. That seems, however, to be the assumption. I have just piloted a Bill through the House of Commons in regard to which the complaint against it was that there were so many Amendments to it. Therefore I cannot assume that the House of Commons will pass a Bill in its original form. Supposing the House of Commons reduced the number of this Commission from ten to six, if I had ten names I should have to cut out four of them, and I say that to publish these names throughout the country and eventually to have to cut some of them out would be a very invidious thing to do. There is a great difference between giving the names to my hon. Friends privately or to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and publishing them. [Mr. BELLOC: "None whatever."] If my hon. Friend really thinks that I do not think any argument would convince him. I certainly must have some knowledge that this Bill is going through in this form before I publish them, and that is why I said that if there was an undertaking that the Bill should go through in this form I should be happy to submit the names. There is an obvious reason why I cannot submit them to-night, but I hope I shall be in a position before the Bill comes on to-morrow night to give the actual names to the House as well as to the country. These are the reasons which led me to exercise the reticence which I have done, and it is no sinister motive at all. In order to show that it was not a sinister motive, I said I was quite willing to show the names to any Member as long as they were not published.
Mr. BELLOC: You did not say any Member.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not that I make any distinction between the front Bench and any other Members of the House. Not at all. What I object to is giving publicity to the names when eventually I may have to cut two or three of them out. I now come to the other point. The Noble Lord asked me why we did not announce the names before the Bill passed out of our hands. At the end of last Session there was a great Constitutional fight, and we were face to face with a General Election. It is much more-difficult to get a Commission like this together than the Noble Lord seems to imagine. We have to weigh and balance all sorts of considerations. You may ask certain Members and find they cannot possibly accept the position. Then there is a question as to whether one or two leading Members will take part, and then there is the class of man you wish fro have All these things take time, and I could not, and the Prime Minister could not, attend to them when we were on the eve of a General Election. That is the answer. I really did not apply myself to the question of the consideration of the names of the Commission until we came back, and when I began it I found it was impossible to do it without increasing the number, and I am, as the result of that experience, inviting the House of Commons to double the number. The Noble Lord feels himself that there is very little difference between five and six, and if we do leave it alone it would be left at five. One point I could not appreciate. The Noble Lord seemed to think that five would be independent and ten would not be. I cannot appreciate that view. If you can get five independent men you will get ten, and I have no doubt that when I give the names to the House of Commons it will be realised that the Government have done their best to secure ten perfectly impartial and independent men, and men whose names will, I think, command the confidence of the House as a whole. These are the reasons that I ask the House of Commons to assent to the alteration.
11.0 P.M.
Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman says he has endeavoured to meet the House fairly with regard to giving the names. It is not very often that I stand up in defence of the right hon. Gentleman, and when I do so I am animated by a sincere desire to support

381
him. The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to carry out the bargain to which he came with the House last night. He has offered to submit to any hon. Member confidentially the names of the Commissioners he desires to appoint, and I do not know what he could have done more. If the hon. Member had gone to the right hon. Gentleman, he would no doubt have been given the names of the proposed Commissioners, but what advantage would he have gained by that? The arguments that we intend to address to the House will probably influence hon. Members opposite, who are only influenced by a desire to do the right thing; who listen to the arguments in order to be swayed by them, and do not care in the least for the official whips. I am sure the hon. Member (Mr. Belloc) will agree that that description applies to him. Under the circumstances I do not think the hon. Member has anything to complain of.
As to the Amendment, my Noble Friend (Viscount Castlereagh) wishes to make the number six instead of ten, and says it will be impossible to make it five. I do not think it impossible. I have an Amendment to make it five, but I am going to support my Noble Friend because I am not sure that I shall carry my Amendment later on. Half a loaf is better than no bread, and six members are better than ten. The reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has given for increasing the number of Commissioners to ten were not the reasons which he gave last night. The reason he gave last night was that he could not find a sufficient number of Commissioners to represent the different interests which desired to be represented if he confined the number to five, and it was because we object to any particular interest being represented upon a judicial body that we objected to the number being increased. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he was extremely occupied during the last months of last year, and was unable to give the names to the House. Personally, I do not attach very much importance to the names of the Commissioners. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long), that they will probably be gentlemen to whom no one would take exception until we know what they do, and then we shall find perhaps that they are rather worse than the gentlemen who are ordinarily appointed to such offices. The Committee stage of the original Act was concluded in September
382
last. The Report and Third Reading stages were taken almost immediately, and the Bill became an Act in October. That is six months ago. Why has not the right hon. Gentleman in these six months appointed the Commissioners?
The proceedings in Committee were closured because we were told it was necessary to get the Bill through. I left that Committee because I thought there had been a breach of an arrangement—I do not say there was a breach—by which the Prime Minister undertook that we were not to sit in Committee when the Finance Bill was under discussion in this House. We were told it was urgent that the Development Bill should become law, and the Committee were forced to sit till five and six in the evening while this House was sitting on the Finance Bill. There was no urgency, for although it is six months since the Act was passed, the Commissioners have not yet been appointed. Now the eleven o'clock rule is suspended, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this amending Bill must be got through on account of urgency. If we had been allowed sufficient time to discuss the original Act last year, it would have been unnecessary to introduce an amending Bill. Now we are pressed to rush through this alteration before the original Act has come into operation. No arguments have been adduced to show that it is necessary to alter the number of Commissioners from five to ten. The right hon. Gentleman put no number in his original Bill, but five was the number which he himself brought in in the new Clause which he had carefully considered, and which was not brought before the Committee until the whole of the Committee stage had been taken. An Amendment was moved by Lord Robert Cecil to the first Clause, but in deference to the right hon. Gentleman Lord Robert Cecil withdrew his Amendment in order that the right hon. Gentleman might bring forward a Clause on his own initiative expressing his own views. This was brought forward at the end of the Committee stage, and in that Clause the right hon. Gentleman named five as the number of Commissioners. In this he was supported by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), who did not even stop there, but brought forward an Amendment to a certain extent identical with the Amendment now before the House. He said that certain interests ought to be represented, but he was convinced by certain arguments that were advanced, and he withdrew his

383
Amendment; and when he had withdrawn his Amendment another Amendment was proposed by the Noble Lord the Member for Chorley (Lord Balcarres) who for once made a mistake. The hon. Member for Merthyr voted against that as, in his opinion, five was the proper number.
The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University has said that the extension of the number of Commissioners from five -to ten was not a very important matter. But it is very important because it alters the whole character of the body. Do you desire to have a judicial body who shall investigate the schemes brought before them impartially, with no interest in these particular schemes? Or do you desire to have a body which shall be appointed for various interests, and who shall be each desirous of advancing the interests of the people who have put them upon that Commission? I do not desire that, and I do not believe that the majority of Members desire that, I believe that the majority of Members desire that it shall be a body free from all prejudice of any sort or kind, and free from all pressure, political, municipal, and trade unions, Free Trade, or Tariff Reform—I do not care what it is—free from all those particular influences, and who shall simply say, "We consider that the particular scheme brought before us is for the good of the country, and therefore we will recommend it to the Treasury," or "We do not consider that that is a proper scheme, and we will not recommend it."
It was not in the principal Act as originally introduced, and there is in that Act a power which will enable the Commissioners to introduce schemes themselves. This makes it all the more important that the Commissioners should be free from bias, because if you are going to have ten Commissioners, each of them desirous of advancing some particular object, the Commissioners, I suppose, being only human beings like ourselves, may agree among themselves, and those interested in a particular object might help the other Commissioners in order that in turn they might attain their own objects. My point is that, being human beings—right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not care about bargains—might make arrangements to promote each others interests. That is not what we desire to see in future. For many days we debated this question in Committee and in this House, and an Amendment by the hon.
384
Member for Oxford University was accepted not only without a division, but without any argument—in fact, he had only to move it and it was accepted—that the number of Commissioners should be five. Under these circumstances, I think the least the right hon. Gentleman can do is to accept the Amendment of my Noble Friend. I am inclined to make a bargain with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will make it openly so that there cannot be any mistake about it—of course, I can only make it for myself—if the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment of my Noble Friend and also accept my Amendment with regard to the quorum, I will assist him in getting this Bill through.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I heard the hon. Baronet talk about bargains. I know he is a business man, and is most admirable at keeping bargains. I have seen a good many of them, and he has no reason to complain of them.
Sir F. BANBURY: I did not get the worst of them.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No; quite the reverse. The Minister who drives a bargain with him goes away feeling very small. As to the first part of his bargain I really would not assent to it. For his own particular Amendment I think there is a good deal to be said. If he will allow me to say so, I think it is a very much better Amendment than the Amendment which he so chivalrously tried to drag into his bargain. I do not think it is possible to constitute the Commission effectively otherwise than is proposed. I agree that my words about representing interests were unfortunate. I did not mean representing interests in the sense of the Commissioners being chosen to represent various interests. What I meant was, that we wanted men with rather more varied knowledge than we could possibly get with only five Commissioners. I agree absolutely, if I may say so, with the hon. Baronet, that you must not have representation of interests in the ordinary sense of the term. With regard to the number, I am afraid I must adhere to it. When it comes to the question of a quorum, I am rather disposed to think he has reason on his side. The original quorum was three, and as the Noble Lord said last night, if you are going to increase the number of Members from five to ten, the quorum of three is not adequate, and therefore you ought to increase it.

385
I rather think the suggestion of the hon. Baronet is that the number for a quorum should be doubled. Here I would appeal to his experience, that a quorum of six out of ten is not a practical quorum. If he is disposed to close with five of a quorum, I will agree with that, so much importance do I attach to getting him out of the discussion. Although he says, as he is very modest, that he cannot speak on behalf of the rest, I really think he is worth purchasing at that price. I think six would be too large out of ten, and that the Noble Lord last night said that five would be an admirable quorum. When we came to the question of discussing an arrangement, I think the only point he pressed was that of a quorum. [Lord HUGH CECIL: "No."] If he says that was not the case, I am perfectly willing to assent. I make that suggestion to the hon. Baronet, and if he will accept it in the spirit in which I make it I think we will be able to make some progress.
Mr. BELLOC: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have misunderstood the point which I made. Neither I nor anybody present could possibly object to the keeping back of the names of those gentlemen under the circumstances. The point is not that at all. The point was that about twenty minutes to one last night, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was somewhat hard pressed by the Protectionists—and I saw the movement, beginning on the Back Benches and from which the Front Bench stampeded—he then said that he would be willing to communicate them privately as a matter of courtesy to the Chiefs of the Opposition, and which were not to be given to private Members. If he will deny that I will accept it to-night. When the names come out we shall all say how admirable, how just and wise the selection. If he will cast his eyes over the past and remember the time when I and the younger Radicals had an admiration for him as a very independent Member, he will be the first to admit that there is such a thing as the party system, the party pressure, and the rewarding of men who have served the party, and when we saw, we who regard that system as the root of all our political difficulties, when we saw what has all the appearance of a bargain between the two Front Benches, we simply made our protest last night, and to make my position quite clear I rise again this evening.
Viscount MORPETH: The point raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Belloc) is really
386
immaterial; we attach no importance whatsoever to the names. Nobody supposes that the executive could tolerate for a moment that the House should alter the names they put forward in the discharge of their duty. The House has practically no power to alter the names, but it has power to alter the Bill. The Bill is before the House, and it is open to us to amend it, to substitute five for ten, or even to diminish the number to three, which I think would be a great improvement. I only refrained from putting down an Amendment to that effect because I have no desire to continue the controversy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that certain Members on this side had persistently opposed the Bill in the past and would doubtless do so in the future. The Bill we opposed is now an Act, and no opposition on our part will affect it in any way. What we are opposing is not the Act of last year, but this Bill, which we consider involves an important departure from the principles of the measure of last year. That Act met with strenuous opposition, and many Members even on the other side of the House were very doubtful as to the wisdom of the machinery set up, agreeing with us that it might open the door to grave danger of corruption.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with that open mind which he brings to bear in these matters, accepted a proposal made by Lord Robert Cecil. I think he will not deny that we admitted frankly that he had improved the Bill, and much modified our attitude during the remainder of the proceedings in Grand Committee. But the alteration now proposed renews some of the objections which we urged then. Irish Members had Amendments down advocating not only that Ireland was entitled to a Commissioner, but that money should be allocated to Ireland, and, indeed, that the whole sum should be allocated to the different parts of the United Kingdom. The Government opposed that suggestion, I think rightly, but the present proposal to a large extent goes back on that position. Undoubtedly a large part of the pressure of interests—although the right hon. Gentleman now repudiates the word "interests"—is the pressure of national interests. In this House at any rate—I do not know what the private pressure has been—the pressure has been partly from Ireland, partly from Scotland, and there have been questions put by Members

387
from various parts. It may not be that pressure to which the right hon. Gentleman has yielded. He said yesterday that five was not enough, because, in the first place, we wanted a Civil Servant, and In the second place, a business man—not a business-like man. The Cabinet consists of nearly twenty Members, but there is not a single business man among them, although there may be business-like men. There is not one that can be described in the ordinary sense as a business man. I am quite sure that the Government do not think that the affairs of the Empire suffer in the absence of business men. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to put on this Commission representatives of every interest, profession, and business, you will find it quite impossible to set up a Commission, however limited. You will require forty or fifty members at the very least—a small Parliament—to carry out the duties of the Commission. I still hold that the proper Commission would have been a Commission of three— permanent people, working regularly, and it would have been economical to pay them a good salary. I believe a Commission consisting of two paid men and eight unpaid men—amateurs—eight honorary appointments will be very bad economy. As a matter of practice the work will be done by the two paid Commissioners, who, I presume, will be Civil Servants; and the others will drop into the Board room at no stated times, but when it suits them, or when a subject is to come up that specially interests them or takes their fancy. I think it is very regrettable that a Commission of this magnitude is not going to be put where I think it ought to have been put, into the hands of a competent body instead of the Commission, as stated in the present Bill.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I shall not intervene long in this conversation, because I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite, representing agricultural constituencies, are very desirous of getting the Bill through, judging at least by the way they are pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the grant promised to that industry by this Bill. Nor do I intend to oppose the enlargement of the body of Commissioners. In Committee upstairs I supported a proposal of this kind. My object in view now is to express the hope that since the original idea of a small impartial Commission has been abandoned,
388
and interests are now to be recognised on the Commission, one interest will not be overlooked. I refer to the working-class interest. The land-owning interest will certainly be represented. There will be no mistake made about that. Other interests will be too. Surely then, all sections of the House will recognise, whether they agree with our opinions or not, that we at least do represent an "interest" in the community. The Commission will, I think, represent nationalties—Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England. To that I do not object. I think that the one justification for the enlargement of the body of Commissioners—because, after all, as local committees and local divisions do differ, it is as well that they should be represented on a body of this kind. But the labour interest is one that we ask should also be specially represented on this body.
I gather from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Commissioners have already been practically appointed. I do not intend for one moment to join in the demand that has been made to disclose the names. But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some assurance that the large interests of the working classes will also be represented on this Commission when it comes to be appointed. There are schemes to be approved with special regard to the condition of the labour market, and surely that fact alone, if there were no other, would justify us in asking that the working classes should be represented upon this body. But apart from that special aspect we have always urged, even when the Labour Party was a much smaller body than it is to-day, that in all these appointments, whether they be Select Committees, Royal Commissions, or bodies of the kind we are now discussing, the working classes have a right to representation by members drawn from their own ranks. Otherwise the implication is that they are not sufficiently developed, and have not sufficient intelligence to take a place alongside other sections of the community in arranging these matters, and that implication we repudiate. If the working classes are to be overlooked in the appointment of this Commission, it will be regarded, and rightly regarded, as a slight placed upon their intelligence, ability, and probity by the Government in making the appointments. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some assurance that in this matter the claims of what is after all the largest interest in the State have not been overlooked or ignored.
Lord BALCARRES: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that the speech he has just delivered is precisely on the lines of the speech he delivered six months ago, in consequence of which the House modified the original proposals of the Bill. It was on the ground of special interests claiming special representation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer changed the whole basis of the Bill and said, "We will not have interests represented on the "body to be appointed, it shall be purely a judicial body." I do not dissent on its merits from what has fallen from the hon. Member. If interests are to be represented he and his friends have more right than anybody else to representation. He says the land-owning classes are to be represented, font surely if interests are to be represented there is no reason why they should not. There are two million landlords in this country. But that illustrates the whole weakness of the position taken up. The hon. Member claims that labour as such should be represented now that the judicial aspect is abandoned. Afforestation, coast erosion, agricultural education, small holdings, rural transport regulations, foreshores, fisheries, canals, waterways, are all interests that are to be dealt with under a vote of £400,000 a year—
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: And as much more as you care to offer.
Lord BALCARRES: These are some of the great subjects which are to be financed under this very insignificant sum. You have got all these immense subjects to be run by the Commissioners. You must either have the Commission thoroughly representative of them, and not merely of nationalities, or else you have got to have a judicial body. In the last Parliament the Chancellor of the Exchequer was forced to admit our case that the Commission should be based upon judicial lines. We gave way because that very largely stopped our opposition. That has now been altogether abandoned, and the whole structure of the Bill is to be changed. He says this change is not proposed on the grounds of nationality, but I differ from him in toto. I know that one member of the Nationalist party told his constituency that the drainage of the Bann would be practically secured by the passing of this Bill. English Members have also asked for assurance that England will have a look in with regard to the good things under this measure. The change which is now proposed materially alters the whole business,
390
and I regret it very much indeed. My objection was largely mitigated by the Amendment which was previously accepted, which to a large extent removed the Bill from the representative basis.
Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: If this Commission is to be made larger it does not follow that it will be less impartial. The Noble Lord the Member for South Birmingham (Viscount Morpeth), referred to the danger of unpaid Commissioners, but he has had himself a great experience among unpaid work on local authorities, and I cannot help thinking that the unpaid work on this Commission is likely to be as effective as a good deal of the unpaid work on local authorities. I think, in theory, it might have been better to have had a limited number, as originally proposed, but in the working out of the scheme I doubt whether the number of five could have been adhered to. Owing to the immense variety of objects which may claim the attention of the Commission, it would have been better to have had sub-committees, and I think that would have added to the efficiency of the work.
The pressure which it is alleged has been put upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer is probably very much exaggerated. So far as I know, very little pressure has been put upon him from Scotland. I cannot answer for what pressure has been put upon him from Ireland, but I should think that more pressure has been exerted by the agricultural industry, and not altogether unreasonably, because there are an immense number of questions directly affecting agriculture, such as reclamation, afforestation, in regard to which a certain amount of knowledge will be required by the Commissioners. I do not think it is unreasonable, but I think the pressure has probably come move from that quarter than from any other. Hon. Members opposite who are opposing the addition to the numbers might bear that in mind. Everything really depends upon the character of the men on the Commission, and upon their having public confidence behind them. I have never thought that that public confidence would be secured by parties, or by nationalities, or by interests nominating members of the Commission, or using undue pressure upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to secure nominations upon the Commission. There might in such circumstances well be logrolling upon a Commission of this kind

391
in connection with the work it has to undertake, and I believe the best security we can have is to leave the Executive a free hand in the selection of the Commission, and to attach the responsibility to the Executive for the nominations it makes. No one responsible for these nominations, to whatever party they belong, can afford to make weak nominations, and the best security the country can have is to attach to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the responsibility of making the nominations and to let him have a free hand.
Lord HUGH CECIL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a conciliatory speech, and everyone desires to meet him in the same spirit, but I do not think he has quite faced the difficulty which has arisen. Originally, this proposal came forward as a matter of repeal, and I myself accepted it, and have been rebuked by my hon. Friends above the Gangway for saying so. They say something much more than additional numbers is involved. It involves the character of the Commission. The Commission henceforth is not to be judicial, but a body in which all sorts of people are to work together in their own interests, pressing their own claims. The right hon. Gentleman has always denied that is to be the character of the Commission, but I think it is not unreasonable that we should have a little more adequate security. We suggested that the disclosure of the names of the Commissioners would give us some security, but the right hon. Gentleman has given good reasons why some of the names at all events should not be given. I cannot, however, understand why he has not taken the natural course of appointing five of the Commissioners. That would be a security that five judicial Commissioners had been appointed.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I quite agree, had it not been for the second part of the Bill, I might have taken that course, but I could not appoint the five Commissioners without having secured Clause 2 in the Bill.
Lord HUGH CECIL: No doubt the Commissioners would not be entitled to pensions until Clause 2 passes, but I should have thought such a proposal as that might have been guaranteed by the Government. The speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Bardie) at once arouses the very worst apprehensions entertained. His speech expresses
392
in the most clear and distinct form the idea against which hon. Members and the Government themselves have all along protested.
I think we are entitled to some guarantee that the Commissioners are really going to be judicial persons. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can be surprised at the delay which has taken place in the matter of the non-disclosure of the names. What has fallen from him leads to the impression that there is something to be disclosed which when made known will excite great opposition. I confess that the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman has aroused the suspicion in my mind that there is something behind—not necessarily a scandalous thing—but something which he thinks might lead to discussion. Perhaps I may be allowed to make a suggestion. If it is only a question, as some of us think, of the due representation of all parts of the United Kingdom, I for one do not attach much importance to that. But I think the right hon. Gentleman should give us some assurance that it is not contemplated to put on it members representing different industries or classes, or even local interest in any detail. I hold that they should be judicial persons who are appointed. It is surprising that the right hon. Gentleman should have suddenly desired to increase the number of Commissioners from five to ten, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is treating the House rather with a lack of confidence in the manner in which he is dictating to it. He is asking us to repose in him a good deal of trust, as if there were not grave grounds for our reasonable suspicions as to what is going on. We thought he might have accepted some Amendment which would leave it open to us to raise the matter on the Report stage, as in that case it would have placed us in a position to judge when the names were disclosed whether this is going to be a judicial decision or otherwise. If we found it was to be a judicial Commission there would be no further trouble.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am sincerely anxious to carry the Committee with me in this matter. I can quite see the suspicion in the minds of several hon. Members on the other side that I have some sinister motive in withholding information from the House. But I think the best way I can meet that is to point out to the Noble Lord that as the House win be in possession of the names to-morrow, if he then finds that his suspicions are justi-

393
fied, he will be in exactly the same position, as he is to-night. If there is a Report stage, he can raise exactly the same point to-morrow as he can to-night. I said that I knew why the hon. Baronet made the suggestion, and that was in order that the House should be in a position to-morrow to discuss the whole of this point by inserting an Amendment to-night. I have told him that I will accept an Amendment. He has suggested that there should be a quorum of six, and I suggest that he should move it in the form of five, and at any rate then there is an Amendment inserted in Committee, and the House to-morrow will have the whole Question thrown open to it, and it will be in a position to discuss it when I am in a position to announce the members of the Commission to the House.
The Noble Lord will see that I am not yet in a position to do so, but I hope to be in a position to-morrow, and I firmly believe that I may be able to announce, if not the whole of the members of the Commission, the vast majority of the members to the House. The House will then be in a position to decide whether there is any foundation for the suspicion which some hon. Members entertain. I think the Members ought not to be sent there in the sense that they represent a particular industry or class, or particular interests, because they are to be judicial. I have endeavoured to choose men who will command confidence because of their impartiality and their known integrity—men who ought to be free from any party bias, and who will not be dominated by any particular interest. These are the motives of the Government, and I am confident that when the names are given they will be recognised as being those of men of that character. I can quite understand that the Noble Lord feels a certain amount of suspicion, and that he wants to be in a position to-morrow to challenge the whole Bill if he finds his suspicions justified. The suggestion I make again is that the hon. Baronet's proposal should be accepted by hon. Members opposite, and that for the moment they should confine themselves to that, leaving themselves perfectly free tomorrow. If they confine themselves to an Amendment on the question of the quorum that will leave them free to-morrow to deal with the whole question. If that commends itself to them I should be willing to accept the. Amendment.
12.0 M.
Sir W. ANSON: I think the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to
394
be a very fair one, subject to this, that if the names of the ten Commissioners are before us to-morrow it would then be open to us to propose a reduction of their number. That would raise a very serious question of principle. I rise to speak on this matter because I was responsible for the Amendment accepted by the Government last August, by which the Treasury was precluded from going beyond five, but under this Amendment the Treasury may be able to appoint a larger number than five. The House then accepted the view that this was to be a judicial body of small size, not representative of any particular interest, but sitting in judgment on schemes submitted by the localities, and making recommendations in accordance with their judgment to the Treasury. If the names of the ten Commissioners are submitted to us to-morrow, will not that put us in a difficulty if it is desired to reduce the number of Commissioners to five or six?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the House wanted to revert to the reduction of the numbers, it would be very undesirable that I should give the whole of the names. I could give six names if it is proposed to move to reduce them to six, and withhold the rest until the question of the numbers is settled.
Sir W. ANSON: I think that is a fair suggestion. If the names of ten distinguished persons are put before us, I should feel some embarrassment in proposing to strike out four of them, but if the right hon. Gentleman will limit the number of names which he puts before us to the number, which has been suggested as the proper number, we can discuss the whole question without embarrassment.
Mr. G. L. COURTHOPE: I wish to correct an erroneous impression which is likely to be given by the Debate. References have been made to the requests of the agricultural members for representation on this Commission. I have been the channel through which some of those requests have been made, and they were not in the first place for representation upon the Commission, but that the right hon. Gentleman should, without delay, put the Act of last year in force. We agriculturists were perfectly satisfied with the quasi-judicial character of the Commission, and it was only when a few weeks ago the public Press reported statements in various parts of the United Kingdom,

395
particularly in Ireland and Wales, to the effect that those parts of the United Kingdom had secured promises that they should be directly represented, that the agricultural bodies thought it necessary to ask for representation also. Before any attempt was made by the agricultural bodies to secure representation I personally approached the right hon. Gentleman, and he stated emphatically that he proposed that British agriculture should have direct representation on the Commission. I am not going to give the name the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but suffice it to say that it was a name that would satisfy anybody. It was after that the agitation was started by the agricultural bodies. The right hon. Gentleman received most courteously a deputation introduced by myself, and it appeared then to be admitted that the Commission was to be a representative, and not a judicial body. Since then communications have been going on between agriculturists and the Government. Agriculturists would much prefer that the original arrangement should stand and that it should be a judicial or quasi-judicial body without representation of localities or interests. I think I can speak for most of the agricultural Members. At all events, I myself would be very glad to support the Amendment of my noble Friend because it would tend to have that effect.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I now appeal to the Committee. I think I have really gone out of my way to meet the view of hon. Members. I have accepted a suggestion which will leave the House absolutely free to-morrow. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will the Government Whips be taken off?"] There should be no party question in this at all. I make this appeal now to all parties in the House, and I hope I shall be able to meet them tomorrow even further after I have given the matter more consideration.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The right hon. Gentleman has taken up such a conciliatory attitude that I should not like to take any other course than to withdraw the Amendment. It was for the purpose of 'eliciting the information we have received from him that I moved the Amendment. I think it is not possible to have a judicial body of ten. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to add at the end of the Clause: "Five" shall be substituted for "three" in Subsection (4), of Section 3 of the principal Act, as the number of the quorum by which the Commissioners may act.
[In the Act of 1909, Sub-section (4) of Section 3, enacts: "The Commissioners may act by three of their number, and notwithstanding a vacancy in their number, and, subject to the approval of the Treasury, may regulate their own procedure."]
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I had a similar Amendment down, and I only rise to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very considerate manner in which he has dealt with the matter.
Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Lord BALCARRES: I wish to be quite clear about what the right hon. Gentleman proposes. As I understand once Clause 1, stating the number at ten, has been passed, the House shall be placed in possession of the ten names?
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not quite agree with the Noble Lord on this point. To my mind the success of the measure will depend largely upon the composition of the Board of Commissioners, and still more largely upon the chairman who will preside over their deliberations. It would be a great pity to hustle the right hon. Gentleman too much in the selection of the names. He told us last night that it was very important that one of them at any rate should have some knowledge of business, and I apprehend his great difficulty has been in finding that particular man whom, I hope, he will make chairman when he does find him. In all sincerity I think it would be a great mistake to force the right hon. Gentleman too much over the names at this time. I think it would be well worth our while to wait a week or two, or even a month for the chance of getting some really good man who could not be got to-morrow night. I venture therefore to suggest to my hon. Friend that it would be a mistake to press for the ten names to-morrow night.
Sir WILLIAM ANSON: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman will have the ten names ready to announce to-morrow night, but for the convenience of those who wish

397
to reduce the number to six he will withhold four until we have decided whether the number is to be ten or six. When that is all settled he will be prepared to tell as all the ten names.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEindicated assent.
Sir W. ANSON: Therefore we are not pressing him unduly in asking him to let us know the names of the whole lot.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There may be a difficulty about one or two names. There is a great deal in what the hon. Member below the Gangway has said. There are some names which it would be very desirable to have, and if the House of Commons forces me absolutely in the matter. I do not think it will serve the purpose which the hon. Gentlemen has in view. Therefore it is very desirable that we should have men who will command general confidence. I will do my very best to induce them to become members of the Commission, and I hope that tomorrow that I shall have their final answer. There is difficulty about it, and I cannot absolutely promise the whole of the ten names.
Captain CRAIG: The Committee should not be impatient on a Bill of this importance, which has to do with an Act which has been kept back for six months.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This is a very small point, but it is as well to be accurate about it. The hon. Baronet said that the Act was passed last October, but it was not passed until the 4th of December, and hon. Members know perfectly well what happened after the 4th of December. We really were not in a position to go about hunting for Commissioners, and trying to get the Commission together. The Act was not passed until the very last moment, and we had other matters to attend to.
Captain CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in what he states, and the point under discussion is a very important one. Personally, if we are to have ten members of the Commission, I would rather have the whole ten names announced to us, for then there would be no invidious distinction between those who are nominated last and those who are nominated first. If we are to have six members then the right hon. Gentleman will give us the six names, but if we are to have ten, then he will give us the names he has in alphabetical order, so that there shall be no reflection cast upon the remain-
398
ing four. I think it most important that the appointments should only be made from among men who are responsible, and who will command the same confidence as the five would have originally done had they been appointed by the right hon. Gentleman. I hold that no one is to blame but himself for delay in this matter.
We came to a definite understanding on the Act of 1909, but owing to the change of front on the part of the right hon. Gentleman we find ourselves at half-past twelve o'clock in the morning, as at half-past twelve yesterday morning, discussing what was settled under the Act of last year, and it is the right hon. Gentleman who is in fault, and not Members on this side of the House. I do not suppose that I occupied more than ten minutes in the discussions on the Act of last year during the many days which it was before the House and the Committee last Session. Yet it is sought to throw the blame for the delay on to this side, and to say that it is we who have kept the Act back. The Act of Parliament solemnly passed through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament, and then it is said that it is we on this side who have prevented it from coming into operation. I protest most strongly against such an assumption. Suppose that any other Act were treated in like manner as soon as it became law, and that when a Minister was not quite satisfied with it, he should, because of some technical objection, hang it up for six months or a year, and threaten the House that if it does not pass a small amending Act they were going to stop a great social legislative measure. It was ridiculous and he was wrong, and on these grounds I make my protest. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman is conciliatory, and he can be conciliatory when he likes. We all acknowledge that frankly.

CLAUSE 2.—PENSIONS.
(1) Where a person appointed to the office of Development Commissioner or member of the Road Board with a salary is at the time of his appointment a Civil Servant within the meaning of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909, Section twelve of the Superannuation Act, 1859 (which relates to the retention of the right to superannuation on transfer to other employment) shall apply in like manner as if such office was public employment

399
under the Crown and was a high office abroad conferred for a limited period within the meaning of that Section:
Provided that such part of any superannuation or other allowance or gratuity awarded by virtue of this Section as the Treasury may determine shall be paid out of the Department Fund or Road Improvement Grant, as the case may be.
(2) The Development Commissioners and the Road Board may, with the approval of the Treasury, make schemes providing for the grant of superannuation and other allowances or gratuities to or for the benefit of such officers employed by them as may be from time to time approved by the Treasury, and may out of the Development Fund and the Road Improvement Grant respectively pay to such officers on retirement or to their legal representatives on death such superannuation and other allowances or gratuities under the schemes as the Treasury may sanction in each case, and the Treasury may determine the Development Fund and the Road Improvement Grant to be public funds for the purposes of the Superannuation Act, 1892.
Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Lord BALCARRES: I wish to ask whether the Civil Servant who is to be appointed a Commissioner will remain a Civil Servant after the appointment? It is a very important question, as the Civil Servant directly after he becomes head of the Department cannot preserve, or even possess, that independence which the right hon. Gentleman told us last year was essential and imperative for the Chairman of this Commission.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: After he passed on to the Development Commission he would cease to be a Civil Servant, and the real reason for this Clause is that he would lose his pension, and we could not get a Civil Servant of the kind we require without making an arrangement of this sort providing for a pension.
Lord BALCARRES: I am quite satisfied if this excludes him from the Civil Service.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered this day.
Adjournment,—Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fuller.]
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock midnight,