HC Deb 28 March 1911 vol 23 cc1157-73

"Notwithstanding anything in Sub-section one of Section twenty-six of the principal Act the Commissioners may, on the request of the owner of any pieces of land which are contiguous, value those pieces of land together for the purposes of that Act, although those pieces of land are under separate occupation, if they are satisfied that in the special circumstances of the case it is expedient to do so; and any such valuation may be made under this provision, although any of the pieces of land have been valued before the passing of this Act, if the request for the valuation under this provision is made by the owner of the land within three months after the passing of this Act, and in that case any valuation previously made shall be of no effect."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]


I beg to move, after the word "contiguous" ["pieces of land which are contiguous"] to insert the words "and which do not in the aggregate exceed ten acres in extent."

If my Amendment is accepted, the material words of the Clause will read, "The Commissioners may, on the request of the owner of any pieces of land which are contiguous, and which do not in the aggregate exceed ten acres in extent, value those pieces of land together, although those pieces of land are under separate occupation." The object of the original Clauses, adopted by the Government on the suggestion of hon. Members opposite, was quite clearly stated last night by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave). It was to meet a particular case which he illustrated by an estate within his own knowledge in Paddington. There was a street of houses, the leases of which were falling in, and he complained that the Government valuers came down and valued each particular house site as the lease fell in. These sites were subject to certain easements depending upon the other houses upon the same estate, and by this method of valuation an unduly low value was set upon these isolated house plots. He very rightly urged that these easements reduced the value of particular plots of land and improved the collective value of the whole estate. The whole of the site value given in the new Domesday Book, therefore, was incorrect, incomplete, and ought to be put on a correct basis by allowing the landlord to take the whole estate into consideration. It was to remedy that difficulty that this Clause was introduced. I entirely agree with the hon. Member that it is desirable that a street of houses where there are special easements of that description should be valued as a whole and not individually. You will get a more correct value of the estate in that way. If that be the object, and the only object, of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it would be entirely met by the new Clause as amended by my Amendment. My Amendment does not affect that in the least; none of these streets of houses exceed ten acres in extent, and therefore they will be able to get the fair value of the land in towns whether there are streets of houses or whether there are open spaces.

4.0 P.M.

We object to the Clause as originally put down by the Government, because in addition to meeting that particular difficulty it injures the complete valuation of the property. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] I do appeal to hon. Members opposite. I am not trying to obstruct the course of the debate; I am merely anxious to get this put right. If this Clause is allowed to stand as it is it not only affects urban land but suburban and country land as well. It will enable owners of large agricultural estates to average down the value of land along a road or near a station by taking in all the purely agricultural land of low value at the back with the valuable land, and thereby getting the total value below £50 per acre, so as to avoid the ½d. tax on undeveloped land. That is a very serious thing. You are valuing by 1,000 acres instead of by field, by farm, or by plot, and, in doing that, you get an absolutely untrue value in the new Domesday Book. I do ask hon. Members to listen to what I have to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide; divide."] This valuation is one which affects us on this side of the House very considerably. I should like to ask the Noble Lord the Member for Thirsk (Viscount, Helmsley)——[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."]


Has an hon. Member on this side of the House any right to speak at all?


You need not occupy the whole time.


I wish to emphasise the fact that it is essential to get a correct valuation. We want it to be a genuine one, and not faked, so that big landlords owning many farms may not be able to average their land down to a figure which is not really representative of its value, but which has been averaged down by taking large areas into account. This clause as it stands would enable big landlords to evade the ½d. tax. You may have a road on one side of which there will be a big landlord with several thousand acres of land. He will get the value of that land brought down below the £50 limit by including the whole acreage. On the other side you will have the small owner of from three to five acres, who will not be able to average the value down, and he consequently will be called upon to pay the Undeveloped Land Tax, which his rich neighbour opposite will escape. That is obviously unfair.

There is more in it than that. A great many Members on this side of the House, including the Labour party, have looked upon this valuation as being of enormous value from the point of view of the purchase of land by local authorities. They consider that if local authorities found it necessary to purchase land compulsorily they would be able to refer to the valuation and to base upon it the price which the landlord will receive for the land. Nowadays, when the local authority wants to put up a new school what happens? You have expert witnesses on one side saying that the land is worth £100, while those on the other side swear it is worth £2,000. Between those witnesses the arbitrators come to some sort of decision which probably mulcts the local authority in ten times the proper value of the land. We had hoped that when once we had got this valuation the arbitrator in these cases would have something definite to go upon, and he would be able to dispense with expert witnesses and would say, "Here is a valuation, either made or approved by the landlord: we found the value he put upon the land is £100 per acre, and we consider that is all he shall get for it." Now, when you have this new Clause——


Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to discuss the whole Clause on his Amendment, especially as we have such a very short time at our disposal?


I think the hon. Member is travelling rather wide of the Amendment.


This is an important question; we are going to let the landlord average the value of his land down below £50 per acre, and we are anxious to provide a valuation which would enable judges and arbitrators to compel the landlords to accept a reasonable price for their land instead of the exaggerated prices they now demand. I submit that that directly arises out of my Amendment. We have here the means of protecting the local authorities in this country from the extortions of landlords.


That is all very general. I want to ask the hon. Member to apply himself to the question of ten acres. That is the point.


Yes; tie him down to the ten acres.


My Amendment provides that everything over ten acres shall be excluded from the purview of this Clause, and I maintain I am justified in showing that if you do not cut it down to ten acres you will be defeating the objects of the valuation set up by the Budget of 1909–10. May I point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are so anxious to defeat me, that the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) himself yesterday entirely approved of this Amendment, and said he would accept it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I have his words here.


On the point of Order. All these arguments were used two or three times yesterday. Is not the hon. Gentleman transgressing Standing Order 19 as to irrelevancy?


That is a matter which must be left to my discretion. This is a new Amendment, and the hon. Member must have a reasonable chance of stating his case, but I do again ask him to try and come to the actual Amendment and not deal simply in generalities.


I will certainly confine myself to the Amendment. I deny that these arguments were used last night. If anyone will look through the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find no reference whatever to the prices paid under arbitration by the local authorities who compulsorily purchase land. This is what the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford said. I wish he was here, as I am sure he would support me. He said:— I see the force of the argument used by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wedgwood. I am bound to say that it never occurred to me, nor has it been suggested by anyone that large areas of agricultural laud could be aggregated in the manner he suggests. I quite see that it might be so interpreted. But that is not our object. Our object is that there should be aggregation, where by dividing you do not get at the value. I am sure the hon. Member must see that that is a reasonable suggestion. I personally should not object to a limit of acreage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1911, col. 1013.] I want to impress upon hon. Members the importance of getting this true valuation. I see the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker) in his place. No hon. Member has been more active in going up and down the country urging that we should help people to purchase their own land in order to have small holdings. If you get a fair valuation, such as you would have got under the Budget of 1909–10, you would have a basis on which you could fix the price for land to be compulsorily acquired for small holdings. If you allow the three Noble Lords below the Gangway opposite to prevent this Amendment being carried, you will enable landlords to snap their fingers at the valuation under the Budget and to insist upon exaggerated prices for their land. Do you want to help the small cultivator or not? Do you want to help him get his own land? If you do you want a fair and impartial valuation and not that sort of valuation which apparently they want at Thirsk and Malton. The Government Clause was asked for by the landlords opposite. I am only sorry that the Treasury accepted their suggestion and that they have been enabled——


Order, order. That is on the Clause and not on the Amendment.


My Amendment will make it perfectly clear that the Government Clause refers only to urban land, and if it is carried all rural land will be left out of the purview of the Clause. On that ground I am proposing that we should carry this Amendment, in order to exempt all except purely urban land from the operation of this Clause in order to get a fair valuation of agricultural land. I say that the acceptance of this Clause, as it stands, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, means that you are whittling away the valuation which was given under the Budget of 1909–10. You are playing into the hands of the vested interests, which are too strong for me and for hon. Friends around me. You are enabling them to cut down this valuation in order to destroy it, and I am here to protest against that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."] We shall divide presently, and into that Lobby will go with the Government——


May I call attention to the conduct of the Noble Lord the Member for Thirsk and Malton.


It is my business to attend to that, and not the hon. Member's.


On a point of Order, am I entitled to call your attention to anything or am I not?


I have already given my answer.


As I was saying, into that Lobby will go the Government and their Parliamentary and Private Secretaries, and they will be followed by the ranks of the landlord party opposite. We may only get about forty or fifty Radicals into this Lobby here, but I should like to know whether there is any hon. Member who thinks that such a Division will carry weight in the country. Vested interests may rule in this House, but go outside and see what is thought of them in the country.


I do not want to go over the whole of the ground traversed by the hon. Member, because I really do not think that his Amendment possesses the extreme importance which he apparently attaches to it. He suggests that we should limit the amount of land that may be aggregated for the purposes of valuation to ten acres. As a matter of fact, at the present moment, for the purposes of such valuation areas in excess of fifty acres are actually being dealt with, and the only result of accepting the Amendment as it stands would be that portions of valuation now going on under the existing Act would have to be put back, as the existing powers for valuing land would be diminished, and there would be an actual reversal of the practice now obtaining.


The words are, "The Commissioners may," not "shall."


I think the hon. Gentleman will see that his proposal would amount to an actual reversal of the present practice, and I am quite sure that is not what he wants. I gather from the tenour of his speech that he really wishes to prevent agricultural land being drawn into the same category as urban land, thereby diminishing the value of the urban land. That is what I understand he wants. As I said to him last night in this House, we do not desire that in the general valuation of an estate a great parcel, say a thousand acres, of agricultural land should be mixed up with the urban land, but we do want to give a discretion to the Commissioners so that they may take such areas together as they think fit. We think that their discretion is best not limited by any actual statement made to them. In some cases I can conceive it would be proper to value ten acres together and in others a thousand acres, but I would rather trust to the discretion of the Commissioners in such a matter as that, and give them an absolutely free hand. As I pointed out last night, under Section 29 the Commissioners can assess the value in respect of any such pieces of land which are in conjunction or not as they think fit, and, having assessed the land, they can make such an apportionment or apportionments as to original site value for Undeveloped Land and Increment Land Duty as they think fit in their discretion. I think myself the object of my hon. Friend would be much better obtained by leaving the Clause as it stands, than by attempting to put in the limitation which he seeks to insert. If in practice it is found that there is anything indefinite, and the Government have assented to agricultural land being brought in improperly, then I undertake, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he will at once meet that situation. There is only one more point that I should like to make. The hon. Gentleman suggested that concessions were being made in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that he would not agree to them. That is not the case. This Clause is introduced in pursuance of an undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman himself to hon. Gentlemen in this House and outside it, and it is in accordance with his wish that this Clause is introduced.


I do not think the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury disposes of a point, which is a very serious one, in the minds of some hon. Members. In order to meet an undoubted difficulty in regard to urban land, the Government, has made a concession which is going to have very far-reaching and mischievous results in regard to rural land. It is not a case as between rural and urban land with which this Amendment is intended to deal, and it is as between agricultural land and land having a building value in the villages. I support this Amendment because I think it is essential to have some modification put in if you are going to have a halfpenny tax brought into effect in a great part of the country side. The gravest condition in the villages to-day is the housing condition, and unless this Clause is amended on the lines which it is proposed to alter it by the Amendment you are going to allow men who hold building land having a building value in a village to average with a little plot of frontage hundreds of acres of land having a purely agricultural value. I can justify my contention with instances in my own knowledge. In Northampton- shire I am closely acquainted with the villages in the Grafton country. The Grafton country contains a great many villages where the housing problem is probably as acute as in any part of this country. You have in the Grafton country—and it is exactly such a country as that that this Amendment is intended to deal with—some of the finest stables and kennels in the kingdom, and you have the worst cottages. What will arise unless you put in this Amendment is something like the following: In the parish of Blisworth, in that county, where the land as to a large part of it is owned by the Duke of Grafton, you have land which some of it has a building value. A friend of mine there said, "We could do with thirty cottages if we had them, but we cannot get a bit of land to put a cottage on, because the Duke will only part with it on a thirty-three years' building lease."

No man is going to build cottages on a thirty-three years' building lease, and unless you are going to have some such amendment as this you are not going to put any pressure upon a landlord of that kind to part with his land. In consequence, great stretches of land, hundreds of acres of land, perhaps, if you allow the Clause to remain unamended will be aggregated together. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] The hon. Member is not only wasting my time but his own. If the Chairman tells me I am out of Order I shall sit down, but until the Chairman tells me to do so I shall continue what I was saying, however unpleasant it may be to the landlord garrison. No man who knows country life, and who has lived in the villages and seen the cottages of the agricultural labourer will deny that the conditions some of the labourers cottages now existing are so abominable that they are a disgrace to a Christian country, and we want by this Amendment to put some economic pressure upon the landowner to compel him to part with land he is now holding up. I can take the Members of this House into a great many of these villages, and if I asked them if they would rather live in the stables or in the cottages they would prefer the stables, and would be well advised in doing so. I hope that the Government and the men who value social reform on these benches, and who know the tragedy involved in the condition of these villages, will help us to pass this Amendment which is intended to deal with a real deficiency in the Revenue Bill. If the Amendment is not adopted in regard to urban areas you will prevent the most valuable provision of the original Act carrying out its most beneficient work and dealing with the social problem in the countryside. I hope the Government will realise that the feeling on this Amendment will not be represented entirely by the number of Members who go into the lobby in support of it, and that they will be making a great error if in order to please their Friends on the other side they deliberately place an obstacle in the way of something which is going to help to the solution of the housing problem in the villages.


I rise because the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) has now arrived, and I want to explain just for a moment what the situation is that has produced this Amendment. It is not an obstructive Amendment, and if it was accepted we would go on merrily at once. Last night a discussion took place upon the question whether this Clause in its present form would not be too extended in its applicability, and whether it might not be quite possible for a landlord if this Clause were carried, while he might have some fine building sites on a public road insisting upon having a considerable amount of hinterland brought into the valuation in order to reduce the value down to a certain point. Then he could claim a reduction of the Land Taxes. The landlords have considerably more power than any other section of the community, and they can bring pressure to bear on the Government in a way in which no one else can. It was, therefore, suggested that there should be some limitation as to the amount of land that should be brought into a single valuation for the purpose of reducing the site value. It was pointed out that if the Clause remained as it was it might be insisted on a big estate being put into one valuation, and that would interfere with and reduce the whole business to a nullity. The hon. Member for Chelmsford said himself that he thought after the difficulties had been pointed out and the possibilities of the Clause without limitation had been explained that there ought to be some limitation in the amount which should be taken in on one valuation and valued as one plot of land. He himself, therefore, suggested this Amendment, which is now being moved, strange as it may seem to Noble Lords below the Gangway, on the other side of the House. I am bound to confess that if there was one thing which would have caused me to be suspicious of the Amendment it is the fact that it was suggested by the hon. Member for Chelmsford, but, evidently, he did that without having considered the whole effects of its legislative action, because I notice now he is not giving the proposition the support which he gave it last night, as he is already shaking his head at my suggestion that he inspired the Amendment. It is not an obstructive one; it is not an unfair one; and I am sure if Noble Lords opposite were not great landlords themselves they would see that it was absolutely fair and would not shout, "Divide, divide," at every Member who suggested that the Government should insist upon introducing into the Clause something which would at least give effect to the principle supported by the hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition Bench last night.

Mr. W. R. PEEL rose in his place and claimed to Move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.


I wish, if I may, to bring the Committee back to the real point made with regard to this Amendment. The hon. Member for Chelmsford stated quite frankly last night that this new Clause was inserted at the instance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the fulfilment of a pledge that he gave him. That is perfectly plain. In the course of the discussion the hon. Gentleman frankly and freely admitted that the Clause, as drafted, was considerably wider than the case for which he asked the concession. He stated that he had no idea that such a state of things as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) indicated, would be possible under the Clause, and he further said in the most definite language that if an Amendment were proposed for the purpose of putting that right he would support that Amendment. I am endeavouring under those circumstances to ask the hon. Member to fulfil the pledge he gave last night, and I think the whole of this suggestion of obstruction will immediately come to and end if the hon. Gentleman will rise in his place and say that now today he supports this Amendment as he supported it last night. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] He did support it in the most definite manner, and the Noble Lord said this afternoon that if he did he knew nothing about it. I can only say that in the whole political history of this country there has never been greater ingratitude than that of the Noble Lord to the one Member on that side of the House who has been able to make an Amendment to this Bill even plausibly in the House or in the country. We are fully entitled, in view of the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that what he asked the concession for was to deal merely with the case of small houses in towns, to say we will not have imposed upon us a Clause so wide. Even ten acres is said to be excessive. We who are interested in this matter have deep convictions. We are not here to defend vested interests. We are here to defend deep-seated convictions. When the right hon. Gentleman assures us that if, when the Clause is put in operation, the difficulties we foresee actually occur, we shall then get other legislation, I desire to remind him that he is legislating not for the lifetime of this Parliament, but for the lifetime of future Parliaments, and I ask him, in view of the exhibition this afternoon, if it is found that these difficulties arise when a Conservative Government is in power, what hope he thinks the people of this country will have that the matter will be dealt with with fairness or impartiality. When Noble Lords will not even allow discussion——


I must ask the Noble Lord not to continue constantly interrupting our proceedings in the way he is doing.


I should like to ask you, Sir, whether you consider it fair when we are carrying on a debate under these strict conditions of time, Members on the Government side should take up the whole time of the House?


It is not a matter for me to express an opinion on at all, but I am perfectly certain, if the debate were carried on more quietly and with less interruption, we should proceed very much more quickly.


I desire simply to make an appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman). I think I am entitled to put fairly to the House and to the Government if, in view of the exhibition this afternoon, they think that when a Conservative Government is in power there is the slightest hope that the matter would then be remedied. I appeal to the Government, if they object to the hon. Member's (Mr. Wedgwood) form of words, at any rate to give us limiting words which will give some permanent protection to the people of this country. I wish it to be remembered that we are discussing a Clause which is a concession to the Opposition, and therefore men upon this side of the House, who take exception to these concessions to the Opposition, ought surely not to be debarred merely because we are working under a Closure Resolution from the only opportunity which is open to them to express their convictions.

Mr. STANLEY WILSON rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.


I beg to move, to leave out the word "ten" and to insert instead thereof the words "one hundred." It must be generally agreed by anyone who has listened impartially to the Debate that the suggested new Clause, as it stands, leaves much too wide a latitude to the valuers—so wide that it almost seems a resignation of the powers of legislation by the House to the valuers. The only re-

sult can be to create an enormous number of anomalies up and down the country. I, therefore, suggest that the Government should accept the Amendment, with the substitution of the words "a hundred" for the word "ten."


I should be perfectly willing to accept the Amendment so that the Clause would run "shall not in the aggregate exceed a hundred acres in extent."


I should like to say a word or two in favour of the principle of the original Amendment.


There is an Amendment moved to the Amendment. We must get that settled, and then there will be no objection to the hon. Member dealing with the Amendment as a whole.

Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 310.

Division No. 88.] AYES. [4.40 p.m.
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Harwood, George Raffan, Peter Wilson
Alden, Percy Higham, John Sharp Rendall, Athelstan
Barnes, George N. Hinds, John Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Bethel), Sir John Henry Hudson, Walter Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Black, Arthur w. Johnson, W. Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Bowerman, C. W. Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Rowlands, James
Byles, William Pollard Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Chancellor, H. G. Jowett, Frederick William Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Clynes, John R. King, J. (Somerset, N.) Snowden, Philip
Collins, G. P. (Greenock) Lansbury, George Sutherland, J. E.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) Sutton, John E
Crooks, William Logan, John William Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Thomas, J. H. (Derby)
Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness) M'Callum, John M. Thorne, William (West Ham)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
France, Gerald Ashburner Martin, Joseph Wardle, George J.
Gibson, Sir James Puckering Neilson, Francis Watt, Henry A.
Gill, A. H. Ogden, Fred White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Goldstone, Frank O'Grady, James Wilkie, Alexander
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) Parker, James (Halifax) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Hancock, John George Pointer Joseph Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Pollard, Sir George H.
Harvey, T. E (Leeds, W.) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Kellaway.
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Pringle, William M. R.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Baldwin, Stanley Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-
Acland, Francis Dyke Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) Bigland, Alfred
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Banbury, Sir Frederick George Bird, A.
Agnew, Sir George William Banner, John S. Harmood- Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine
Ainsworth, John Stirling Baring, Capt. Hon. G. V. Booth, Frederick Handel
Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Boyle, w. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)
Anderson, Andrew Macbeth Barnston, Harry Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell
Archer-Shee, Major M. Barran, Sir John N. (Hawich B.) Bridgeman, W. Clive
Armitage, R. Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) Brigg, Sir John
Ashley, W. W Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) Brocklehurst, W. B.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Barton, W. Bryce, J. Annan
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Bull, Sir William James
Astor, Waldorf Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Burgoyne, A. H.
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. Beauchamp, Edward Burn, Colonel C. R.
Baird, J. L. Beckett, Hon. William Gervase Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Butt, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.) Butcher, J. G.
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Bennett-Goldney, Francis Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Balcarres, Lord Bentham, G. J. Campion, W. R.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hope, Harry (Bute) Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Cassel, Felix Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich) Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Castlereagh, Viscount Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Cator, John Horner, Andrew Long Pretyman, Ernest George
Cave, George Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Hughes, S. L. Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) Ingleby, Holcombe Quitter, William Eley C.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel Radford, G. H
Chapple, Dr. W. A. Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) Rainy, A. Rolland
Clancy, John Joseph Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Raphael, Sir Herbert H.
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Joynson-Hicks, William Ratcliff Major R. F.
Clive, Percy Archer Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. Rawson, Colonel R. H.
Clyde, J. Avon Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Kimber, Sir Henry Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Courthope, G. Loyd Kirkwood, John H. M. Remnant, James Farquharson
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Knight, Captain E. A. Rice, Hon. W. F.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Kyffin-Taylor, G. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Lane-Fox, G. R. Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred Larmor, Sir J. Robinson, Sydney
Croft, H. P. Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.) Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Crumley, Patrick Levy, Sir Maurice Rolleston, Sir John
Dalrymple, Viscount Lewis, John Herbert Ronaldshay, Earl of
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Lewisham, Viscount Rothschild, Lionel de
Davies, E. William (Eifion) Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Royds, Edmund
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. St. Maur, Harold
Delany, William Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Dewar, Sir J. A. Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale) Samuel, J. (Stockton)
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Lyell, Charles Henry Sanders, Robert A.
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Lynch, A. A. Sanderson, Lancelot.
Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.) Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Scanlan, Thomas
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Mackinder, H. J. Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of Maclean, Donald Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)
Eyres-Monsell, B. M. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Spear, John Ward
Falle, P. G. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Fell, Arthur MacVeagh, Jeremiah Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Fenwick, Charles M'Laren, H. D (Leics.) Stewart, Gershom
Ferens, T. R. M'Micking, Major Gilbert Strachey, Sir Edward
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Magnus, Sir Philip Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Malcolm, Ian Summers, James Woolley
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) Mallaby-Deeley, Harry Sykes, Alan John
Forster, Henry William Mason, James F. (Windsor) Taylor, T. C. (Radcliff)
Foster, Philip Staveley Masterman, C. F. G. Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Gardner, Ernest Meagher, Michael Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)
Gastrell, Major W. H. Menzies, Sir Walter Touche, George Alexander
Gelder, Sir W. A. Mildmay, Francis Bingham Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Gibbs, G. A. Millar, James Duncan Tullibardine, Marquess of
Glanville, H. J. Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Valentia, Viscount
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Molteno, Percy Alport Verney, Sir Henry
Goldman, C. S. Money, L. G. Chiozza Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Goldsmith, Frank Morgan, George Hay Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Grant, J. A. Morpeth, Viscount Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Greene, W. R. Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Greig, Colonel J. W. Mount, William Arthur Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Gretton, John Muldoon, John Webb, H.
Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Munro, R. Weigall, Capt. A. G.
Guinness, Hon. W. E. Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Wheler, Granville C. A
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Hackett, J. Newdegate, F. A. White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Haddock, George Bahr Newman, John R. P. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Hambro, Angus Valdemar Newton, Harry Kottingham Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Hamersley, Alfred St. George Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Wiles, Thomas
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Nield, Herbert Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Norman, Sir Henry Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Harris, Henry Percy O'Donnell, Thomas Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. Winfrey, Richard
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Wolmer, Viscount
Haworth, Arthur A. O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)
Helmsley, Viscount Paget, Almeric Hugh Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor Palmer, Godfrey Worthington-Evans, L.
Hill, Sir Clement L. Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Hills, John Waller Pearce, William (Limehouse) Younger, George
Hill-Wood, Samuel Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Peel, Hon. w. R. W. (Taunton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Hodge, John Perkins, Walter F.
Holt, Richard Durning Peto, Basil Edward

Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Question put, "That the words 'one hundred' be there inserted."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but, no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, the Chairman declared the Ayes had it


I beg to move to leave out the word "expedient" ["special circumstances of the case it is expedient to do so."] and to insert instead thereof the word "equitable."

I feel confident no Member of this House would wish in a case where there is a conflict of opinion as between what is expedient and what is equitable that the Commissioners should be placed in the position that they could not do what was equitable, if they wished to do so.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)

I am willing to accept the word "equitable."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.